Loading...
BCC Minutes 02/11/1997 RREGULAR HEETING OF February 11, 1997 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 9:06 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: VICE-CHAIRPERSON: ALSO PRESENT: Timothy L. Hancock Barbara B. Berry John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine Pamela S. Hac'Kie Hike HcNees, Acting County Hanager David C. Weigel, County Attorney (The following proceedings commenced with Commissioner Hancock absent.) Item #3 AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES ACTING CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning. Chairman Hancock has been detained for a few minutes this morning; so we'll go ahead and start the February llth meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. If you'd stand, please, for the invocation by the Reverend Harold Brown of the Lely Presbyterian Church and remain standing for the pledge of allegiance. REVEREND BROWN: Let us pray. Our Father, sometimes we think you're so remote to our own personal condition, and we give thanks today that you're not remote at all. You're right close to us. And we understand sometimes that the majesty and awesomeness of your presence is hard to feel. Creep into our consciousness and help us to remember that you have birthed us. You have awakened us to the opportunities of a new day, and you challenge us to high ethical standards in relationship to others; promote your love, which such a gift in life, not only for ourselves, but also in joy for others. And help us to remember the needs of all our citizens as we give thanks for these able leaders who guide us. Let all things go according to your will, and we give thanks for this day in your close proximity to all of our highest aspirations. Amen. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) ACTING CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. HcNees, do we have any changes to the agenda? MR. HcNEES: Yes, ma'am. Good morning, Commissioners. We have one item that's to be withdrawn at the petitioner's request, and that's Item 13(A)(2). That would be the only change we have. ACTING CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The only change. Do I hear a motion? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hove approval of the agenda as noted, consent agenda. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: ACTING CHAIRPERSON BERRY: you have any changes? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: No. ACTING CHAIRPERSON BERRY: COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. ACTING CHAIRPERSON BERRY: COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second. ACTING CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. I don't have any changes. I'm sorry. Mr. Norris, do Commissioner Mac'Kie? Mr. Constantine. I have no changes. All in favor? Item #4 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 21, 1997 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED Approval of the minutes of January 21st, do I hear a motion? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I'll move approval of minutes of January 21st. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. ACTING CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All in favor? Motion carries unanimously. Item #5A1 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 9-15, 1997 AS VOCATIONAL EDUCATION WEEK - ADOPTED Proclamations. We'll skip on down to -- I was hoping maybe Mr. Hancock would be here to read his particular one, but we can do whatever. I'll read it. This is a proclamation -- these -- the first two are very near and dear to me because they involve education, and I -- this first one has to do with Vocational Education Week. Mr. Baldaia, if you would just stand up here, please, we would appreciate this. This proclamation states that on -- whereas, February 9th through the 15th, 1997, has been designated Vocational Education Week by the American Vocational Association; and Whereas, profound economic and technological changes in our society are being rapidly reflected in the structure and nature of work causing a gradual shift in the job market toward more technical-trained employees who are equipped with good reading, writing, and math skills; and Whereas, many of the fastest growing occupations in Florida for the year 2005 will be in fields requiring vocational or occupational training leading to a certificate; and Whereas, Collier County is making efforts to diversify its economic base beyond agriculture and tourism and to help the establishment of technology-related companies that offer high-paid employment; and Whereas, Collier County Public Schools provide vocational technical programs at high schools and the James Lorenzo Walker Vocational Technical Center that train students in basic and technical skills that prepare them to meet new demands of business and industry; and Whereas, the ever increasing cooperative efforts of vocational educators, business, and industry to stimulate the growth and vitality of our local economy and that of the entire nation by preparing workers for the occupations forecasted to experience the largest and fastest growth in the next decade. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of February 9th through the 15th, 1997, be designated as Vocational Education Week. During this week we urge all citizens to relect -- reflect on the outstanding programs and services provided by vocational educators in the county and the vital role that vocational education plays in educating the local work force. We further urge business and industry to continue supporting these excellent vocational technical programs in order to enhance individual work skills and business productivity. Done and ordered this llth day of February 1997. I move acceptance of this proclamation. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that. ACTING CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All those in favor? The motion carries unanimously. (Applause) DR. BALDAIA: County Commissioners, good morning. I consider it a distinct privilege for me to be here this morning to accept this proclamation on behalf of the Collier County School Board, Superintendent Hunz, and our esteemed cadre of vocational educators and students and support staff. I'd like to also express my personal thanks for your continuing support in our endeavors, and if I could take a moment just to highlight two initiatives which are very much on the front burner. One is the new construction at the James Lorenzo Walker Institute of Technology, which will offer a distinguished culinary arts program as well as enhanced medical-related services programs. We're very excited about that opportunity. This month you'll be hearing about the beginning of our Collier County school to career systems initiative, which has the staunch support of business and industry locally, as well as Florida Gulf Coast University and Edison Community College. And our purpose and focus with the school to career systems initiative is simply to improve student performance and work force preparedness. So again, heartfelt thanks and sincere appreciation to each of you for your continuing support. ACTING CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Dr. Baldaia. (Applause) Item #5A2 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING FEBRUARY 17, 1997, AS THE 100TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE PTA - ADOPTED ACTING CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The second proclamation that we have today has to do with the Collier County Council of PTAs. Whereas, the PTA was founded February 17th, 1897, by Alice Birney and Phoebe Hearst; and Whereas, over the years the PTA has been instrumental in securing child labor laws, supporting compulsory public education, creating a national public health service, promoting education for children with special needs, establishing a juvenile justice system, making parent involvement a national goal in Goals 2000; and Whereas, the mission of the PTA is threefold: To support and speak on behalf of children and youth in the schools, in the community, and before governmental bodies and other organizations that make decisions affecting children and to assist parents in developing the skills they need to raise and protect their children; to encourage parent and public involvement in the public schools of this nation; and Whereas, the PTA membership is nearly 7 million in over 26,000 local units in all 50 states; and Whereas, Collier County has over 2,500 members in 15 local PTA units and received an award for the largest percent increase in membership in the State of Florida; and Whereas, the volunteer time programs and projects of the PTA greatly benefit the children and youth of Collier County. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that February 17, 1997, be designated as the hundredth anniversary of the PTA. Done and ordered this llth day of February 1997. We have Mr. Russ Mullet from the -- I believe he is the president of the Collier County PTA organization. Anyway, congratulations and thank you, Russ. Would you like to say something? MR. HULLER: Yeah. Sure. ACTING CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. HULLER: Do you want to pass the proclamation? (Applause) ACTING CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'd like to move acceptance of this proclamation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. ACTING CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All those in favor? Motion carries unanimously. Mr. Mullet. MR. MULLER: Thank you. I'm passing out some of the milestones of the PTO over the last hundred years, and you can see that we do a little more than sell wrapping paper. The PTA has been around about as long as my hair, and that's going to change. This weekend for one of our Founder Day events, I'm going to get a haircut so -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The crowd goes wild. MR. MULLER: That's coming up with your next proclamation. On behalf of the 15 PTA schools -- and I think we're going to have, actually, over 3,000 members this year -- I -- I'd like to thank you for this proclamation. ACTING CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks, Russ. Item #5A3 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1997, AS BAYSHORE FAMILY STROLL AND EAST NAPLES COMHUNITY PARK CELEBRATION DAY - ADOPTED ACTING CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Miss Mac'Kie, I believe you have a proclamation this morning. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I do, and I'd like to ask Brenda Knauber to come forward while I read it. She's the president of the Avalon PTA, and she's here representing a great many people from the East Naples and Bayshore area of the community. And I just -- before I read it -- want to tell everybody heads up, because there are some really exciting things happening in this part of our community, some serious changes, and this proclamation is in celebration of some of those. Whereas, the Avalon Elementary School PTA identified a neighborhood crime problem which affected the safety of the children walking along the Bayshore Drive corridor; and Whereas, the Collier County Sheriff's Office implemented the community-oriented policing effort; and Whereas, the neighborhood organized several neighborhood watch groups; and Whereas, the PTA, Collier County code enforcement, the Collier County attorney, and the Collier County Sheriff's Office worked cooperatively to create a nuisance abatement ordinance; and Whereas, in passing the ordinance, the Board of County Commissioners sent a message of responsibility to absentee owners; and Whereas, the Friends of the East Naples Community Park, Avalon Elementary School PTA, and the Collier County Sheriff's Office community-oriented policing team, recognizing positive results from the aforementioned efforts, with help from the East Naples Civic Association, Kiwanis Club of Naples East, and the Collier County Parks and Recreation Department, organized a day of community celebration. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that Saturday, February 15, 1997, be designated as Bayshore Family Stroll and East Naples Community Park Celebration Day. Done and ordered this llth day of February 1997, Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida. And I would like to move approval of this proclamation. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second. ACTING CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All those in favor? The motion carries unanimously. (Applause) Mr. Norris, I believe you have a service award this morning. MS. KNAUBER: May I? ACTING CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm sorry. Excuse me. I'm just rushing right on through here. MS. KNAUBER: I won't be long. ACTING CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's all right. Take your time. (Commissioner Hancock entered the boardroom.) MS. KNAUBER: Good morning. On behalf of the Avalon PTA, I would like to thank the board for this proclamation. As a mother of a ten-year-old in Avalon Elementary and a property owner in East Naples, I have become deeply involved in the massive cleanup of Bayshore Drive and surrounding areas. I would like to thank this board, the Collier County Sheriff's Department, code compliance, East Naples community -- East Naples Civic Association, Friends of the Park, residents, and business owners involved for their efforts to make our streets safer. This Saturday we will be selling -- celebrating our achievements with a family stroll starting at East Naples Community Park, proceeding along Bayshore Drive, and back to the far -- park for many activities including games, food, and fun for all. All proceeds raised in this effort will be donated to purchase -- purchase a lighted sign to be used to announce upcoming events for both the park and Avalon school. We would like to invite you all to attend and rediscover our neighborhood. At this time I'd like to request that the board waive any fees -- permit fees involved. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Actually, that's not something we can do under proclamations and service awards. It'll have to come back as a public petition, and I'll have to ask you to work with Mr. McNees on that. MS. KNAUBER: Okay. I know you will have fun, and I hope you all attend. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. (Applause) Item #5B EHPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED We now have service awards. Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. We have one today from our library outreach service, Ronny Cox with five years. (Applause) Item #5Cl ADELAIDE DUFFY, SOLID WASTE DEPARTHENT, PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION, RECOGNIZED AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR FEBRUARY, 1997 CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. We have, Commissioner Constantine, the employee of the month for February. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If Miss Adelaide Duffy would come to the front of the room. Good morning. MS. DUFFY: Good morning. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Miss Duffy has worked with us for ten years, works in the public service division in our solid waste department -- and if you'd turn around and let everybody in TV-land see you -- and is complimented by her fellow staff members for working tirelessly and very efficiently and, perhaps, most important, dealing with customers no matter how rude or demanding they may get. And I suspect in our utilities division from time to time they can get a little -- she's mastered the new computer program and is always willing to put in extra time whenever necessary. And we certainly appreciate that. And with all of that in mind, you are without reservation nominated and selected as employee of the month for February of 1997. Mr. Chairman, if we need a motion, I'll make a motion we go ahead and recognize her as employee of the month for 1997. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Miss Duffy, we have here for you a nice letter from our chairman. We have a plaque which reads: Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, employee of the month, official recognition and appreciation is tendered to -- tended -- tendered to Adelaide Duffy for exceptional performance, February 1997. And we also have for you a $50 check. Thank you. (Applause) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Congratulations, Miss Duffy, and thank you for all your hard work. Item #SA1 STAFF DIRECTED TO WORK WITH FLORIDA GAME AND FRESH WASTER FISH COHMISSION REGARDING ROPING OFF A PORTION OF THE OUTER SANDBAR AT BIG MARCO PASS CRITICAL WILDLIFE AREA (SAND DOLLAR ISLAND) Item 8(A)(1) under county manager's report, board support of proposal by Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission. Good morning, Mr. Lorenz. MR. LORENZ: Good morning, Bill Lorenz, natural resources director. The Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, according to the attached letter that you have in your executive summary, is seeking the board's concurrence to roping off portions of Sand Dollar Island to protect a nesting habitat for a variety of wild -- wild foul. The two areas that you have in front of you are being requested. One area, Area A that's in your executive summary, is roughly 6.9 acres. And this area has been roped off by the game commission for the past several years. This is no change to what's currently there in terms of being roped off. Area B is a new area that's roughly 20.6 acres, and it's the northern section of Sand Dollar Island that the game commission is recommending to be roped off as well. Both areas are state-submerged lands. These are not -- these are not county lands. And staff -- we inspected the area about a couple -- a couple of weeks ago, and it looks as though that there is op -- ample opportunity for pedestrian traffic to be able to walk around the area to get to the active beach. The northern area is separated, to a large degree, by the lagoon that has formed. There's still a -- the ability to get out there through boats or sail craft or either swimming and then get across to the active beachfront. Given that those conditions exist and that this will not be any disruption to pedestrian traffic, staff is recommending that the board concur with the -- with the fish commission's recommendation. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Just as a little bit of history and bit of a correction to our -- our material here, we established a couple of years back that the critical wildlife area there was actually granted for only one bird nesting season back in 1988; so technically it does not exist. However, because the county commission understands the importance of the environmental area and its importance to certain bird species, we have entered into cooperative efforts over the years with the game and fish in order to allow them to continue to rope off some areas even though their critical wildlife area, as I stated, is technically not in existence. So the agreement that we've reached generally says that we will cooperate with them on the offshore sandbars, which this is one of, this current proposal, and -- however, if at some future point that sandbar goes ahead and washes ashore, then we have a different situation, and we'll deal with that at the time. But we have repeatedly in the past said that as long it's solely an offshore sandbar, that we have no objection. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I do have concern because it's such a dynamic area. I don't think you can from one month to the next take an aerial photo, and the two are very different. What flexibility do we have, and under the scenario that Commissioner Norris has indicated, should this materially change that a portion of the sandbar in some section reconnects to the mainland, that this -- this original roped off area used to be on? Do we have the flexibility to then withdraw our support of the game and fish designated area and, in essence, start all over again with -- with what should or shouldn't be roped off? MR. LORENZ: I would think that you do. At this particular point my understanding is the game commission as a courtesy to local governments comes to local governments to seek concurrence for their posted areas. If those posted areas were to change, certainly I think that you can -- can go back to the game commission and say the conditions are different. We don't want you to change to the different conditions. So I see that as -- as -- as being within your -- your ability to -- to get back to the game commission. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are there any other questions for Mr. Lorenz? Seeing none, do we have a motion? MR. McNEES: You have one speaker registered. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I apologize. Thank you. MR. McNEES: Frank Blanchard. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good morning, Mr. Blanchard. MR. BLANCHARD: Good morning, Commissioners. Thank you very much for letting me come talk to you. For the record my name is Frank Blanchard from Marco Island. And I'm very disappointed that this request comes before you this morning. As Commissioner Norris has pointed out, the Florida Game Commission has been present on the Tigertail Beach scene for quite some years. They received a permit, critical wildlife area permit, for one year, 1988. Yet they persist in calling this a CWA. I think I resent government operations of this kind. If they want a critical wildlife area, I strongly recommend that they prepare themselves, go present themselves to the governor and the cabinet and request a permit. The particular area you're talking about, the northern part, is a remnant of a rim around the lagoon in front of Tigertail Park. I am told that at low tide you can walk across there with dry feet. This is not an island as separated from everything else. And so, therefore, Commissioner Norris, I think this falls outside of the agreement that you reached with Virginia Weatherall. I don't think that the public is being well served by having this kind of impediment thrown in on what I see a large number of people using. That is an area that you don't swim out to; you walk across to. And, therefore, I'd recommend that you do not impose this kind of restriction upon the general tourist and beach public. Again, if they want a critical wildlife area, then I strongly recommend that they use the proper procedures and go to the governor and the cabinet and ask for it and stop using CWA as a title on this thing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Blanchard. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Lorenz, is this area vegetated? MR. LORENZ: There's sparse vegetation on it that -- that's -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It overwashes then apparently I would suspect; right? MR. LORENZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Uh-huh. MR. LORENZ: It is very ephemeral. It shifts, as you mentioned before, on a day-to-day basis. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Of what particular use would it be for bird nesting action if it -- if it regularly overwashes with tidal action? MR. LORENZ: Well, portions of it do, but I don't think -- I wouldn't say that all portions of it, that larger area -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Therein lies the problem. I look at this and -- you know, I haven't been to that part in about a year and a half, but I used to sail up there regularly from the south end of Harco, and we'd anchor just off the beach and walk across. And some areas had vegetation on it, others didn't. And it seemed like you could selectively mark spots that would be appropriate or a little bit higher, maybe as much as a foot or 14 or 15 inches above the -- the high water mark, and others could have been used as traverses to get through it for what Mr. Blanchard was talking about, although I -- the sediment in that tidal lagoon, I'm not sure you can walk across it without getting your knees dirty. You sink down in it pretty bad. But it just seems like a blanketed area that maybe not all of it is appropriate. Would it be possible to ask the Game and Fish Commission to reevaluate priorities within this area for the purposes that Commissioner Norris has stated and at least my observation that not all of it is suitable for bird nesting habitat? And maybe -- maybe this is just a little -- little overkill for what they're trying to accomplish. I don't have any problem with setting aside areas on this island that are viable bird-nesting areas, but I don't think all of it is, at least not in my exposure, unless someone can show me a picture and prove to me otherwise. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can we maybe get somebody from the parks department who monitors -- don't we have a sweeping process that goes on rather regularly out there where we clean the beach? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Not on this. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, at Tigertail where these people would have had the opportunity to observe the area and could tell us -- give us a little bit more information unless, Mr. Lorenz, you can because -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, I've got to assume you have pretty good familiarity with the area too. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Uh-huh. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe you can describe for those of us who haven't been there in a little while. MR. LORENZ: It's perhaps difficult to see on the copy of your aerial. There is a section of that northern -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Could you pass that along for us to look at, Bill? Excuse me for interrupting. MR. LORENZ: Sure. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You mean the more black than white copy we have? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is there a color copier in -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's being passed down. MR. LORENZ: There is a -- in that northern area, you'll see on the color photograph in the middle of that section is some darker area that looks akin to the lagoon. That's where I would suspect that you'd have some overwash. And in that sense it could possibly break down. We'd be talking about three different areas: a -- the lower southern portion, which is, of course, the old area; then the two -- two areas in the north that would be separated by where that overwash is. You may -- can pick up off of that photograph. That could be something I can go back to the game commission and have them evaluate. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The handful of times I've been there people do have this thing about swimming across or walking across, depending on the tide, that lagoon. I mean, when I first moved here, there were boats moving up and down that thing; that doesn't happen much anymore. But people do like to go across it to the island, and there were ropes at one time up there, because I remember going across and you had to go all the way down to the south end to get around it. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I just think, you know, if they can break it into valuable areas and leave traverse paths that people can still use the island, everything gets accomplished that everybody wants. I don't see why it's a problem. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: This bar used to be quite a bit farther offshore. It's migrated in some, and they have periodically been placing some roped areas out there, even though there was not any vegetation. Sometimes the only thing you could see would be the little poles holding up the ropes but -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman, when they roped this off or when you -- when you do this, whatever it is you do, how long does this last? I mean, is this forever, or is this just for a certain period of time? MR. LORENZ: Well, the game commission's looking at it -- they're trying to rope off the areas that they consider have the critical habitat. So if that critical habitat were -- were to exist, that's as long as the period of time that they will request to be roped off. If at some particular point the area isn't good habitat, then -- then I think that -- that good judgment would say that they should -- should -- should take that out from being roped off. But -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Gee, that's always the error. Assuming government will use good judgment is scary. MR. LORENZ: I think that's -- that's -- I think that's the other thing, too, is the game commission has -- staff has told me that they want to come back to the local government and get concurrence. And so every year to do that, if things change and you see some situations become -- become different, this is our opportunity to -- to go back to them and request some -- some change in -- in the proposal or some change in -- in what currently is roped off. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't know what the balance of the board is -- is looking for here. I would like to see some criteria as to why an area would be roped off versus another because that -- what that color photograph shows is an area that during moderate to high tide is -- is basically a waterway. COMHISSIONER BERRY: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's cutting the area into at least two separate -- MR. LORENZ: Right, it bisects that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Why we would want to rope that off is kind of silly. So I think we're taking what the game and fish is asking for without really questioning it, and I think we need to, on behalf of the people that use that park -- and let's face it. You know, that island on the gulf side is actually what a lot of people go there to do. And they'll carry their stuff out there and do that. So I would rather see some criteria that is more specific than just blanketing two-thirds of this sandbar, because it just doesn't seem appropriate. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me see if I can make a motion that will work for us here. How about if we direct our staff to work -- go back to work with game and fish and to try to identify those areas which would be strictly suitable for bird nesting and exclude those areas that overwash, which certainly are not going to be any good for bird nesting, and to bring that back requesting commission concurrence with -- with the new proposal for this year's bird nesting season which runs through August? MR. LORENZ: Through the -- through the summer. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And then reevaluate prior to next -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- year's bird nesting season. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I like that. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There's a motion and a second. Is there any -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: One question. Mr. Lorenz, I'm '- I'm disappointed if we don't have your professional recommendation on that already today. Do we not have that today? I mean, do you not have a recommendation for us based on science or -- or did we just sort of take what game and fish gave us? MR. LORENZ: Well, that area shifts so much that that -- that, you know, whatever you rope off at this particular point now may look different in -- in a couple months from now. That particular area, in my opinion, would be -- would be fine to be roped off. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But not critical, because the word is critical in the -- you know. Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, just a quick comment. I'll have more on this in communications. But a comment for Mr. Cautero and Mr. Lorenz and our acting county manager, Mr. HcNees. This is the second week in a row we haven't had all the accurate information. Commissioner Norris pointed out this isn't a critical wildlife area that was passed for one year nine years ago. And this board has a tough enough time trying to make good decisions without having accurate information. We had the same problem with the lake situation and the pond situation out in Immokalee. And I'm not sure if it's just coincidence that we've had this a couple weeks in a row, but we need to be very, very careful to make sure -- if we're going to make well-informed decisions, we have to have accurate information. And I'll say more under BCC communications, but it just concerns me when we get an executive summary that's not using information that's factual. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Point well taken. Item #8A2 RESOLUTION 97-72 REGARDING AMENDING THE IHPERIAL LAKES PUD AND EXTENDING THE ZONING - ADOPTED WITH STIPULATIONS Next item, Item 8(A)(2), staff review and recommendations relative to Ordinance 82-81, the Imperial Lakes PUD. Good morning, Mr. Reischl. MR. REISCHL: Good morning, Commissioners, Fred Reischl, planning services. This is a request for direction on the Imperial Lakes PUD with regards to the sunsetting provisions of the Land Development Code. This is a little bit different from some of the other PUD sunsetting items that you see in the fact that the PUD was approved in 1982 with a density of 5.5 units per acre. In that particular region, the Growth Management Plan today would allow 3 units per acre. It's a total of 430 units on 78 acres and 12 1/2 acres of preserve open space. And along with the approval of the 5.5 dwelling units per acre, there was also a dedication of the northern 50 feet of the property to the county, which since that time has been deeded to the county. In 1990 there was a site development plan for Imperial Lakes approved, and a final SDP was approved with the stipulation that the applicant could not commence construction until the completion of the east-west segment of Livingston Road in that area. Then in 1991 during zoning teevaluation the PUD was granted an exemption from ZRO due to the fact that they had deeded 50 feet of the right-of-way to the county, of -- of their property to the county as right-of-way. In the ZRO ordinance there was language that an exempted use would be permitted to the extent that it remains effective. And county attorney has said that that language, to the extent it remains effective, could mean that it could still be subject to sunsetting. I checked with our transportation department. The east-west segment of Livingston Road is not on the current work plan, and staff is asking for a policy decision from the board on whether or not the -- this PUD and other PUDs similar to it would be vested as to density. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're not likely to find a commissioner who gets more excited at the prospect of lowering densities than I. But I do have a concern on this particular one in that from your comments and from our summary and from talking to the folks this affects, there's not much they can do until that segment of Livingston Road goes in. And while I love to see us retract some of that density and some of that zoning, there's a fairness issue here. And I'm not sure it's completely appropriate for the board to pull back numbers or pull back what they had approved simply because we haven't put the road into place. And perhaps another commissioner will disagree and argue with me on that, but I -- I'm just not comfortable taking it away when it's not necessarily their fault that it hasn't been built to this point. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's a good point. The other side of that particular coin is they understood that the road was not in when they originally made their PUD. Although they had some expectation that would be coming in, there was no guarantee, however. And I think our legal determination has been that it's really immaterial whether the road is in or out, in or not in, for our determinations. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: One of our big concerns in these is that we just have zoning sitting out there waiting for something to happen. Mr. Reischl, you said that the roadway, the east-west section, is not in our capital element which is a five-year element. MR. REISCHL: Five-year plan is what transportation department told me, yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But it is within our ten-year planning window; is that correct? In other words, we -- it shows up on a ten-year planning window? MR. REISCHL: From what the transportation department told me, that there was no plan right now for east-west Livingston at all. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm seeing this -- maybe I hope it wasn't just on the 2020. I thought it was more -- I thought it was sooner than that. Is someone from transportation here? Actually, is there anyone left in transportation? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the question. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Is there anyone out there? MR. MILLER: Ray Miller, public works administrator, interim. I would just -- I'm not absolutely sure about that east-west area, to be honest you, but -- but I do believe that it's provided for but has -- is not in the planning -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Not -- not funded. MR. MILLER: Not funded in the planning at this point. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that -- yeah, I see Mr. Arnold that -- seems to -- he seems to concur with that, okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask a question perhaps from Mr. Arnold. I -- I had -- I was told by Mr. Anderson, who represents the petitioner in -- in this matter that -- that SDP for this property specifically says thou shalt not commence construction until the road's in. So it seems to me, as Commissioner Constantine was saying, fundamentally unfair to say gotcha. So is that a correct -- you're shaking your head; so I'm kind of going on past. MR. ARNOLD: That is correct, yes, they do have an approved site development plan subject to a road being in place; so they really cannot commence construction until there is a road. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It seems fundamentally unfair then to say you can't start, oh, and since you didn't start, we're going to take away your rights. You know, I'd like to reduce the density, too, but -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sounds like what the state is doing to people in the southern estates. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. We don't want to do that. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think this is typically a case of you can't just blanket statement for all these PUDs that are sunsetting, that you have to look at them on an individual basis, and I think that this is certainly one that falls in that particular category because of this road that's not been completed. So that's -- I -- I suggest we leave it alone. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What -- what is the -- leave it alone, actually, is a part where I have a problem, because there are some things in the PUD that can be changed, that should be changed, that should be brought up to speed -- MR. REISCHL: That's correct. We did receive staff comments from other departments that there are changes that should be made to bring the PUD up to current code. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'd like to hear from the petitioner on what elements of the PUD -- I mean, if we're -- if we're -- you know, if we are deciding about density alone, that's one thing. But there are other elements of the PUD that need to be brought up to speed, and I'd like to hear about -- about those, because if we can't really be comfortable in affecting the density at this point, I think there are other elements we can affect positively. Mr. Anderson, are you representing the -- the petitioner? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Could you -- based on staff's report here, could you let me know if you would be willing to bring the PUD up to current LDC standards in all areas? In some areas? Would you help me with that, please. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. For the record my name is Bruce Anderson from Young, van Assenderp, and Varnadoe on behalf of the property owner. First of all, I'd like to point out that there are two prongs to this sunset review test. One is that we have a development order approval for 15 percent of the infrastructure. We have a development order approval for 100 percent of the infrastructure; so we have satisfied prong one. It's only prong two that requires 15 percent of your dwelling units have building permits that we have not met. We do have a final approved SDP. It remains in effect today. And we would certainly be willing to agree to install landscaping and buffering in accordance with current Land Development Code requirements. As far as bringing the PUD up to other undefined standards, we are somewhat constrained. We have permits from the South Florida Water Management District which we have acted on and con -- made substantial water management improvements on the property. This property owner has spent in excess of $300,000 in permitting and construction costs for the final site development plan. And subject to not violating the site development plan that we have, there is a willingness to -- to come up to current code requirements so long as they do not cause us to have to make changes to the site development plan. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So you're saying there's areas in which you have not received permits or -- or substantially completed the permitting process are all areas that you will bring up to current LDC standards? Do I understand that correctly? MR. ANDERSON: To the extent that they don't violate what we have approved today in our final site development plan from the county. There are some instances where your site development plan says, you know, we've given you this approval. You shall now go to X agency and get a permit -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: -- consistent with the site development plan. And we would still want the ability to do that within the parameters of our existing site development plan. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I understand. Any further comments from the board? MR. McNEES: Mr. Chairman, for your information I confirmed with the transportation department the east-west leg of Livingston Road is not in the five-year plan. It's shown future construction beyond 2001 -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. McNEES: -- to be evaluated at a later date. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's -- good. That's my recollection because I -- again, this thing wasn't even showing until 2020, I'd have more concerns, but -- okay. If there is no staff comment, I will -- and no registered speakers? MR. McNEES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Close the public hearing. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to make a motion that we go ahead and extend the PUD subject to bringing those items not impacted by preapproved permits and site development plan up to current code. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In the extension -- just tell me what -- what's the standard extension? MR. REISCHL: Two years. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Two years. MR. REISCHL: The code required -- calls for a two-year extension. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But we know Livingston Road isn't funded for five years. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It makes sense then not to do this again every two years if the -- if the hitch here is when is the Livingston Road going to get built. Should it -- should it be tied to Livingston Road being built or -- just searching for an idea. Maybe staff -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two years from now our public hearing will be really short. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, okay. MR. REISCHL: Could I ask a point of clarification? Would you be extending that with this stipulation; is that the PUD as it is, or were you looking at the SDP to be changed if it was built? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I -- based on what Mr. Anderson said, my understanding is that those areas that the SDP does not lock in such as environmental permits, water management permits, the landscaping buffering, the physical elements that the LDC addresses that can be changed that are not locked into the SDP will be. Am I stating that correctly, Mr. Anderson? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. That -- that we will address those items in the SDP. I must point out, though, that we do have environmental stipulations in place through the SDP process and through our permits from other agencies. I -- I just do want to make you aware of that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. There are two things here that I think this decision is based on. One is the final SDP in '90; the other is a zoning teevaluation exemption that involves a dedication of land. And to be quite frank, to have this same discussion in two years I have no interest in. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, me either. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If this is -- if this is tied to a -- to the construction of the east-west Livingston Road corridor, then let's put a time frame attached to that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If Mr. Weigel tells us that's appropriate, I'll be happy to alter my motion. MR. WEIGEL: I think you can do that if you wish. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll alter the motion to re -- it's not in the five-year plan. Perhaps five years is an appropriate time, though, because within five years perhaps it will be in the five-year plan, and we'll have some indication of where we're headed at that point. So rather than the standard two year, I'll suggest five years. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second that motion then. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The motion carries 4-1. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Item #BE1 UPDATE ON THE DISASTER RECOVERY ADVERTISING PROGRAM, INCLUDING PROCEDURES FOR ACTIVATING COHMUNICATION LINES, ANNUAL DESIGN WORK REQUIRED AND PROCEDURES FOR AUTHORIZING LEVEL OF ADVERTISING AND PAYMENT FOR ADVERTISING - CONTINUED TO 2/25/97 What item are we up to; 8(E)(1), update to the disaster recovery advertising program. This is procedures for activating communication lines, annual design work required; procedures for authorizing level of advertising and payment for advertising. Good morning, Miss Gansel. MS. GANSEL: Good morning, Commissioners, Jean Gansel from the budget office. The purpose of this item is to update the board regarding the economic disaster plan, and I'd like to say it's a pleasure to be here in the hurricane offseason as opposed to when we brought this before you before and we kind of rushed. The economic disaster plan was recommended by the Tourist Development Council and approved by the board in 1995. The concept was to have sufficient funds in reserve from TDC revenues to be able to advertise -- advise tourists of the conditions in Collier County following a real or perceived disaster. The funding was to -- to establish this reserve was 5 percent from Category B and Category C revenues. In 1995 there was the development of doughnut ads which could be used for different scenarios. There was an ad for no damage, one for minimal damage, and evacuation or heavy damage. All of the plans consisted of both print and television advertising with a message tailored to fit the state of development -- stage of development there. And that state of development, but -- what type of disaster it is would be determined by the emergency manager director. The original plan did not anticipate any annual updating. We -- we did have money for the development of the ads, but it has become apparent that they -- we -- the agency that has these ads needs to negotiate on an annual basis with the television stations for cost. We have to assure that the ads are ready to go. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry. I'm drawing the line there. That's bunk. The idea that we're going to pay someone $7,000 a year to get on a phone and say send us a new contract and they plug in the new number in the contract, I'm going to have a -- and Ms. Gansel, it's no reflection on you. I understand you're just the messenger here, but I'm sorry. That's robbery. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I got to agree with you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You done that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Get on the phone lines and place all that stuff's great. But, yeah, this is a great way for somebody to make a couple of bucks, that extra part. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As a matter of fact, if they want to pay me 4,000, I'll do it. MS. GANSEL: But we do have some work that was done last year, and that was $3600, and this hasn't been -- been paid. One of our recommendations -- we did bring this to the Tourist Development Council. They did approve -- or recommend that the board approve that payment. They also did recommend that it be included in the '97 contract. I don't know if you want to separate those two items or if you would like to have someone that would be better versed in explaining the -- you know, what exact work has been done. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't have a problem, actually, with the 3600, because the initial work at the outset is to get things set up, and that's a little more time intensive. But to have an hourly amount almost double that to annually update what $3600 got you in the first place, someone's going to have to give me a far deeper explanation than I've heard to date, because I think somebody is getting some money for very little work in that respect. MS. GANSEL: Well, the $3600 is the updating costs. That wasn't the original development cost. I didn't want to -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MS. GANSEL: And they had requested that up to $7,000, and it would be based on an hourly rate and that that would be provided by -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Does anyone -- does anyone remember when this was presented to us that there was an annual cost that was even discussed? I remember put it aside, and if we need it, it's there, and we can mobilize everything immediately. I don't remember anyone talking about paying someone annually -- MS. GANSEL: It wasn't. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- that so we have money sitting there for disaster recovery. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You can have a plan in place of where we will likely do our advertising and -- and if there are certain areas that we want to make sure we get the message out to -- and obviously those prices may change over a period of time, but I don't think it requires $7,000 worth of work. And, frankly, I suspect that the agency that puts those ads on the air is going to get their 15 percent anyway when they put the ads on. So they're going to earn their money at the time that they go ahead and air them. We don't need to be paying them to continually update a price list for us. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The work done for 1996, Hiss Gansel, was done without this board approving it prior? MS. GANSEL: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: How -- okay. I guess they -- I have a problem with someone ordering work that hasn't gone through the channels. MS. GANSEL: I -- I concur with that. This -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Who ordered the work specifically? Is there a name? MS. GANSEL: Our contract is with the -- they keep changing their name -- the Naples Accommodations Association, I believe it was at that time, and they have been working through an economic development disaster committee of which this is a portion, and unfortunately, because of the division of work and clear reporting responsibilities, this occurred. And -- and I received the invoice and had brought it to the Tourist Development Council and explained it to them and am doing the same for you today. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just without the benefit of -- and when did this come to the TDC? MS. GANSEL: It came in November. I -- I didn't bring it to the board. John Ayres had made a presentation to the TDC. As I said, I wanted to bring the whole plan together, and that's why I've kind of put this off for a little bit. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. And do we have anyone here from -- MS. GANSEL: I don't believe so. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMHISSIONER BERRY: I have a question, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, Commissioner Berry. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Since this is new to me, I'd like to know what kind of telephones and how many you're purchasing for $4500. MS. GANSEL: There's -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There's only eight lines? COMHISSIONER BERRY: Yeah. I'm just -- I don't know. I haven't seen -- I don't know what kind of a telephone this is. Maybe somebody's got a better clue, but, boy, this must be some phone. MS. GANSEL: It's the lines and the telephones. I think we say here just to purchase the most -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: We're supposed to purchase a telephone for $4500 -- MS. GANSEL: Right. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- and to activate one main line, a onetime charge of $83. And when I looked that, maybe I read it wrong. I just -- it says telephones -- MS. GANSEL: It's the telephone and the lines, and that was the cost we -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Might I suggest that we -- I know in the overall scheme of $900,000 maybe this is seen as unimportant, I think it's -- it's -- first of all, we should have been informed of a desire to expend $3600 for updating information before someone ordered or requested the work be done. I have a real problem with that procedure. The second thing is that I need something more than what they provided you in this executive summary to understand why we're paying this kind of money on an annual basis. So I think this item needs to be tabled until we can get someone who can explain it fully so we understand where -- where this is going and what the intent is. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A few more comments. I agree with you, and I don't feel obligated to pay something the board never approved that someone just went ahead and did. And if we can get that explained, great. And if someone can't meet my satisfaction level, I'm not going to feel like I have to vote for it because they've already done the work we didn't approve. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion to continue for two weeks. MS. GANSEL: That's fine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The second item I was going to -- I'll second the motion. The second item I was going to say is in the last four or five weeks we have had more items come to us that are incomplete and we've had to continue. Maybe the board's going to want to entertain -- just start turning these things down as a sign either come prepared or don't come, because it's a waste of our time. It's a waste of the staff time. It's a waste of the public's time to hear something two and three times. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A comment on that, because I couldn't agree with you more that we don't have adequate information when we have TDC proposals in front of us, and -- and maybe what needs to happen is that the TDC needs to elect from its membership a spokesperson, because the chairman of the TDC is the chairman of the Board of County Commissioners and, therefore, can't, you know, be jumping back and forth running the meeting and saying what the TDC position is. But we need a representative from TDC and not to just leave this for Miss Gansel, who is the staff liaison. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I've had those discussions with individual members of the TDC in subcommittee and was under the impression that it was being established and that someone was appointed and I -- not formally by the TDC, but more or less informally. And -- regardless, I -- I agree with you, and you know, let's -- let's hold everything up to the same light, not just this item. But we have a motion to continue, and, Commissioner Mac'Kie, I'm not glossing over that. I'm just saying that that has been discussed, and if nothing has come of it from that discussion, I don't know what else we can ask for. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, here's -- I've discussed it with individual members, too, and what I would like to ask for -- and I'm going to support the motion, too, but if you'd like a motion on the issue or if we could just by consensus ask you to take this back as a formal request to TDC rather than just our separate conversations. I've had some; you've had some. As our representative on the TDC, I wish that you would formally request that they have a liaison from the committee designated to come and make these presentations. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Does anyone have an objection to that? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't. In this case it's an item that the county's directly involved in, but we've had a number of TDC items that are requests from private groups, and that's, frankly, not one of the TDC's members' responsibility. If the private group isn't here to explain their case, it's a missed opportunity. It should be. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But I'd like to have a representative from TDC here to tell us what is the -- what is their perspective on the request. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Why don't -- Miss Gansel, let's put that on the next agenda if there's no objection from board members. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Good idea. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have a motion to table and a second. Is there discussion on that motion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) MR. McNEES: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: None opposed. MR. McNEES: I'd ask you to put a little mental note on this day when we come around to budget time. I've already have had some conversation with Mr. Smykowski about -- and also with Miss Gansel -- how we might handle the staff end of the TDC. It has gotten considerably larger than it was ever, I think, envisioned when we started this process in terms of what the staff role is and the amount of information they have to keep up with. So when budget time rolls around we may have some recommendations for you how we can beef that up a little bit; so this is a good thing to remember when we get to that point. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. McNees, can a portion of those TDC funds be used to pay for a staff member to handle TDC issues and requests? MR. McNEES: I can't give you a definitive answer. I believe, yes, but we'll sure have that for you. MS. GANSEL: According to the statute, 3 percent of the tourist tax can be used for administration. Up until -- when it was a 2 percent tax, the tax collector took all of the 3 percent for administration of collection and recording of the tax. When you upped it to 3 percent, he reduced his fee to 2 percent. We now currently have -- it's about $60,000 in the general fund to offset some of the administrative general fund costs for that. I have advised all the people that are involved with the tourist tax in the general fund to keep an accounting of their time so we can determine what our costs are. But I just want to assure you that $60,000 probably does not cover it and that ad valorem taxes is probably support -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, do we have a time frame that's coming back in? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Two weeks. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Two weeks was in the motion, I thought. MS. GANSEL: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Miss Gansel. Item #8E2 CONTRACT WITH MARCO ISLAND YHCA FOR $120,000 TOURIST DEVELOPMENT CATEGORY C FUNDS FOR THE MARCO ISLAND SPORTS FESTIVAL - APPROVED WITH CHANGES Item 8(E)(2), approve contract with Marco Island YMCA for $120,000 in tourist development Category C funds for the Marco Island Sports Festival. MS. GANSEL: This was approved as far as the allocation of the funds by the board in December, and what we have here is the contract to reflect the -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, I'm going to put you on the spot a little bit here. We obviously have come under fire because of contract difficulties with Category C funds in the past. I would like the assurance from your office that this contract has been reviewed in its entirety, that it is correct for the application of funds for this event, and that we're not going to be changing the contract a year and a half from now because it was not done correctly the first time. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. I think we can give that assurance, and Heidi has reviewed the contract. It's not signed merely in -- at this point because it's not been executed by the other party. And we generally reserve our execution for legal sufficiency until we can show that it's been executed by the other -- other party. Heidi, do you have any additional comment for the commission? MS. ASHTON: This is our standard Category C contract that's been slightly modified to clarify some issues. I think that the contract will work, but we're currently modifying all our TDC contracts, but that's currently in process. So I didn't want to modify it too much from our standard form until everybody's input on the new form is provided. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are you saying, then, that this particular contract may require further amendment before it's signed? MS. ASHTON: No, I don't believe so. It should work with the revisions that we've made to the form. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Have discussions occurred between either your office or Miss Gansel and the applicants to insure that the -- all elements of the contract from their end are met? MS. ASHTON: We've incorporated the changes that were requested by the applicant -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MS. ASHTON: -- to the contract. I can point those out if you like. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Not important particularly because I just -- I am seeking some level of assurance that we now have some experience with these Category C contracts and that we're not going to be sitting here with egg on our face a year and a half from now because the contract wasn't done to -- to meet the event's needs in the first place. MS. ASHTON: Well, this contract reflects that it's a payment contract. It also requires an accounting which can be verified as opposed to a formal audit -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have on that point. MS. ASHTON: -- some issues in the past that have -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But my question for Hiss Ashton on that point is that -- I want to be very clear about the date by which the financial reporting is due. And -- and I understand it's an accounting that can be verified by the county and that when we get our ordinance changing the -- the Category C guidelines into an ordinance, we're going to define what is an accounting which can be verified by the county. That will be a defined term in the Category C ordinance? MS. ASHTON: Actually, the finance department is going to be issuing something shortly indicating what they need in order to process the documentation, and I think that that will be helpful once the grantees have an opportunity to review that. So I think that within the next of couple months most of those issues will be resolved. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can we -- do we need to put anything in this contract to -- to make the future ordinance binding, or will it be binding on this contract even though it -- it will be adopted after the fact? MS. ASHTON: That's a good question. We can put something into the ordinance if you'd like. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to be perfectly clear that those definitions and the information that's still in development after your Category C new guidelines were proposed are incorporated here. MS. ASHTON: Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And then my second question is -- has to do with the timing of when this accounting has to come in. MS. ASHTON: It's 60 days -- excuse me. Sixty days after the expiration of the agreement. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Which means that the accounting for this will be due sometime in April of 1998 because it's a one-year term. The term of the agreement is one year? MS. ASHTON: Right. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just wonder if that's the best timing, if it might be 60 days after the termination of the event or if we might put a date certain in so that that's more enforceable. Just a suggestion. MS. ASHTON: If you'd like a shorter time frame, you know, we can do that at the board's pleasure. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I just don't know -- if I were running this event -- and it's going to be over when? Do we know? John, do you know when it's going to be done? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The dates are on there. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. When will it be over about? MS. GANSEL: Middle of June. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Middle of June of '97? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And then they don't have to turn in their accounting until April of '98. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't think anybody is going to have a problem with 90 days after completion of event, something to that effect. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I was hoping we'd make some change like that. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think a year after the event -- I think that's far too long. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Way too long. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me back up to your first point. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is a little unique. The board issued an approval on this prior to the new Category C guidelines coming in. We can't retroactively take the advertising and promotion element of that and apply it to this. So the accounting on this is going to -- is going back to the -- the tournament question that you and I debated about who cares how many hot dogs were sold, you know, that -- to what finite detail do we -- is the accounting performed on the overall event versus the expenditures that were -- that were paid through for TDC funds? So if you want to make that clear, that's fine. I just -- I don't want to get into the business of having our people audit the entire event rather than auditing the expenditures that qualified or were paid through TDC funds. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, in this case we are actually funding more than advertising. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. Those things we fund, I think, are fine for subject of the audit. Those things that were identified to be paid and that are paid are fine for the audit. I just don't want to get into those areas that our funds did not go toward. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What I do is defer to the -- to the county auditing department to define what is necessary to audit this contract and just put language in this contract that -- that whatever is required by the finance director is what will be provided and that, you know, they agree to comport -- comply with that, even though it's -- you know, they'll be notified after the fact. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If we're going to do that, I'd like to see the contract back for review rather than just asking for that language to be inserted without us seeing it. MS. GANSEL: Commissioners, the applicants are here, Mr. Rice and Mr. Clark. They have executed the -- they have signed the agreement as it was presented. I don't know if you would like to ask them if they would come -- you know, if those changes would present a problem. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I hear Commissioner Mac'Kie saying she wants this element changed. Is there anyone else on the board that would like to affect Section 9, General Accounting, in the manner that she's describing? I mean, I didn't have a problem with it the way I read it. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No, I don't either. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Do you know what they have to give you? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm not an accountant, so no. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: See, I don't either. And if I were running this event, I would want to know exactly what the county wants from me on what date. I think we should make that clear. And I -- I don't say it has to be -- I'm not telling you what it -- what I think it has to be. I'm just suggesting it's not clear. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Complete and accurate accounting and event records and keep grant funds in a separate checking account. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, no, that's -- I'm referring to an accounting which can be verified by the county as due to the county manager within 60 days of the expiration of this agreement. First, I think it should be 90 days from the expiration -- from the completion of the event. COHMISSIONER BERRY: The event, uh-huh. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And second, just that somebody tell them what is an accounting that can be verified by the county. We're the county. We should tell them what that is. MS. GANSEL: In -- in our discussions with -- with the finance department, what they would be doing is paying the Marco Island Y based on un -- on invoices that they received that haven't been paid. They would go in at the conclusion of the event and request verification that those invoices that the county paid had, in fact, been paid by the Marco Island Y. Is that sufficient? Do -- does the board feel as though that -- that was our discussions with the finance department, too, and that would be the county funds that we would be checking. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think we're getting into trying to tell Mr. Mitchell what he's supposed to tell them. I mean, he's going to do that. If what they supply is insufficient, he is in charge of the -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: He won't write them a check. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Pardon me? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: He won't write them a check. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, he won't write them a check. He will require sufficient information from them. And if they don't know what that is, he will tell them. That's his job. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: This is after all the checks have been written, after the event -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Make a motion and we'll see if we get three support for it. I mean, let's set some direction here instead of just rambling on. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Then I'd like to move approval of the contract with a change to paragraph 9 that says that the general accounting, which can be verified by the county, is due within 90 days of the completion of the event and that this general accounting which can be verified by the county is subject to the approval of the finance director. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Before going to a second, let me say, we do have public speakers? Mr. HcNees, let's get to those. MR. HcNEES: Yes, sir, two, David Rice followed by Gil Erlichman. MR. RICE: Good morning, David Rice. I'm the volunteer director of the Marco Island Sports Festival. I'm actually appearing this morning simply as a resource person in case any particular questions wanted to be directed regarding how we're proceeding. So I really have nothing to say other than I wanted to support and thank Miss Gansel for addressing our concerns. In review of the original contract, we felt that it was an unsignable document because of various -- I don't want to say loopholes -- but questions that we had as far as being able to adhere to a definite policy. Those policies, I believe, have been basically directed, and we are in concurrence with everything that Miss Gansel has done. And, yes, we would appreciate knowing exactly what the county demands to avoid questions, and in particular, a definite date of required backup. Nothing can be paid by the Y or the sports festival without receipts being given to the TDC dollars. So we feel very comfortable at this moment the way it is written, but we would appreciate the 90 days or 60 days. We can live with whatever date post the event that a -- that an auditing by the county should be done. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Answered your question? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are there any further questions for Mr. Rice? Thank you, Mr. Rice. MR. McNEES: And Mr. Erlichman. MR. ERLICHMAN: Gil Erlichman, East Naples, taxpayer and registered voter in Collier County. I neither support nor I'm against this YMCA funding by the TDC, but I have some remarks to make about our notable attorneys that the county have. It seems as though the -- we -- the -- our legal department cannot write good contracts, and it's been proven in the past, and it's proven right now. And I believe that the first year in first-year law school one of the big subjects is contracts. Now, if a -- an LLB or an attorney with a degree cannot write a contract, I don't think they're worth their weight in -- I don't think they're worth anything. And it seems as though the big problem with the TDC is the way the contracts have been written. This goes back to the -- the $500,000 contract with the Intellinet. Now, there's got to be a resolution of this sometime. And I think that commissioners should take the bull by the horns and instruct the county attorney to make sure that his staff do not write boilerplate and then just throw them out as contracts and that they consider each contract a separate viable thing that people can understand and there is no question about. You know, attorneys have their own language, but I think we speak English here between us. And, you know, an attorney will never say something is definitely red or definitely black; there can be shades and so forth. So what I'm driving at here is that I don't have any competence (sic) in our attorney -- our county attorneys to write good contracts. And it's been proven time and time again. I go all the way back to April Circle, it's the same thing. So with that I'll sign off, and I wish the commissioners good luck in what is going to happen with this contract. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Erlichman. Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, in the last couple of years, how many contracts, agreements, and ordinances has the county attorney's office written, balipark figure? MR. WEIGEL: It's in the hundreds, if not thousands. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And we've had trouble with one? Two? MR. WEIGEL: Very few, very few. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think, Gil, we have had trouble with a couple, and one in particular was a high profile one. But we have a very good and very competent staff. And to suggest that they don't have the ability to write contracts is a disservice to them. They do a very good job and work very hard. I think we have -- an attorney is the one who is raising the question about the contract, which is great. She -- she writes these things herself and may see certain things along the way. That's the benefit of having an attorney on the board. But to suggest that our staff is incompetent in some way I think is wrong and doing a disservice to the public. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I just have to echo that and say that I have been practicing law for ten-plus years, but I'm -- guarantee you that I -- if I pass anything I've ever done by another attorney, they're going to find some way to improve it. I mean, there's -- I meant no disrespect to the drafting of this contract and to the county attorney's office by raising these questions and don't want to imply that at all. Anything can be improved on, and I'm making a couple suggestions. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we repeat the motion? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. Commissioner Mac'Kie, there's a motion on the floor. I'm going to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hac'Kie, you had a motion. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My motion was that we approve the contract as written with a change in paragraph 9 in general accounting section to require that the report is due within 90 days of the expiration of the event and that the accounting which be verified by -- I'm sorry, that the language that reads, an accounting which can be verified by the county has inserted there in a form and substance approved by the county finance department is due to the county manager within 90 days of the expiration of the event. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So we'll still leave that up to Mr. Hitchell or -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I can second that. That's fine. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The motion is seconded. Is there any further discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Aye. Motion carries 3-2. There were two opposed, Commissioners Norris and Hancock. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just -- for my own clarification, what was the opposition there? I thought what we had said earlier was we wanted to leave it up to Mr. Mitchell. I thought that's what the motion embodied. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: My reading of the contract does that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think that portion of the motion is redundant, and I simply -- you know, if it was simply a matter of asking for the accounting within thirty -- 90 days at the end of the event, that's fine. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My opposition was that I don't want to approve a contract with an unknown, and since we don't know what Mr. Mitchell is going to say, I don't want to approve the contract today with that unknown language out on the horizon. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. Item #10A RESOLUTION 97-73 CONFIRMING NINE MEMBERS TO THE DISASTER RECOVERY TASK FORCE - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Item 10(A), confirmation -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion that we approve or confirm the appointment or reappointment of the nine names that are listed on page 1 of Item 10(A) to the agenda. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. McNees, are there any speakers on this item? MR. McNEES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Close the public hearing. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) PUBLIC COMMENT - DISCUSSION BY TY AGOSTON RE $3.00 ASSESSMENT BY THE CLERK'S OFFICE Seeing none, we are to public comment. Mr. McNees. MR. McNEES: You have one, Ty Agoston. MR. AGOSTON: Good morning, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Ty Agoston. I live in Golden Gate Estates, and I'm speaking for myself. It might be that I'm genetically disposed against taxes, and I have noticed in the executive summary that you are going to review this huge assessment center and that you are going to add a $3 fee to all the -- well, the newspaper called it criminals, but, you know, misdemeanors don't really qualify that kind of a condemnation. But be as it may, it just somehow bothered me that we now are using -- I could almost call it a devious method to finance a utility that's supposed to be for the public's good. If we need a youth assessment center, shouldn't we be just up front about it and just similar to the jail tax or the -- the green space tax, put it up to the voter? From what you are saying in the summary, you are projecting a $50,000 revenue out of these fees. Today from what little I know about psychiatric care, I tend to believe that a single course of psychiatric treatment will probably run you $50,000. So I have to believe that -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that from personal experience, Ty or '- MR. AGOSTON: Probably. But, you know, when I really think about it, I feel that this is somehow creating accounting. I believe that the advocates just want to be bored with this collection of fees so down the road they could increase it, add to it, or whatever, not to mention a fact that the clerk's office is looking at a 5 percent cut out of this. I got to believe that just for handling of this is ridiculous when it comes to $2500 to the clerk's office. So I'm really not -- not sure where we are heading other than it's not straightforward. And we are in a public arena. We shouldn't be hiding. You know, this sounds in New York like creative accounting. And if that's what you are doing, maybe we ought to tell the public, hey, look, we are playing games with you. We are hiding your bills and to the utilities, the telephone bills, and whatever. But, I mean, this is not right. Thanks very much. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thanks, Ty. Why don't we take a five-minute break, give the court reporter a chance. We'll be back at 10:30 to reconvene the afternoon session at 10:30. (A short break was held.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I call to order the afternoon session at 10:30 morning. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I love that. Item #12C1 RESOLUTION 97-74 DETERMINING THAT REVISIONS TO THE TOLL GATE COMMERCIAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT ORDER DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION REQUIRING FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT REVIEW - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: On to Item 12(C)(1), resolution of the BCC regarding revisions to the tollgate. Good morning, Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Good morning. Ron Nino for the record, planning services. The petition that is before you is a petition that asks that you extend the effective date, the date -- the date the development order for Toll Gate remains in effect from December 31, 1997, to December 30, 2002, which is five years less one day, which authorization is provided by state statute. Both the DCA and the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council have both reviewed this petition and have agreed that -- have indicated that it is of an insubstantial nature. The Planning Commission reviewed this petition and unanimously recommended that you approve the amendment to the Toll Gate development order to extend the date that the order remains in effect to the year 2002. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Are there any questions of staff? (No response) Are there any questions of the petitioner? Mr. -- or Dr. Spagna, is there anything you want to talk us out of? DR. SPAGNA: No, not really, just only answer your questions. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. McNees, are there other registered speakers on this item? MR. HcNEES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. ANy discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Seeing none, motion carries unanimously. DR. SPAGNA: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Fine presentation, Dr. Spagna. Have a good day. DR. SPAGNA: Thank you. Item #12C2 DEVELOPMENT ORDER 97-2/RESOLUTION 97-75 REGARDING AMENDING THE TOLLGATE COHMERCIAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT AND DEVELOPMENT ORDER FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXTENDING THE TIME THAT THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER REMAINS IN EFFECT FOR THE TOLL GATE COHMERCIAL CENTER DRI - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Item 12(C)(2), Petition DOA-96-5. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is the other half. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is the other half. Thank you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve Petition DOA-96-5. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any public speakers, Mr. McNees? MR. McNEES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Seeing none, 96-5 approved unanimously. Item #12C3 ORDINANCE 97-10 AMENDING ORDINANCE 96-16 REGARDING VESSEL SPEED CONTROL AND WATER SAFETY AND ADDING A DEFINITION FOR HURRICANE PASS - ADOPTED Item 12(C)(3), BCC request amending Ordinance 96-16, vessel speed control and water safety. Good morning, Mr. Dugan. MR. DUGAN: Good morning, Commissioner -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Dugan, this is a formalization of the action we've directed you to do in the past; is that correct? MR. DUGAN: Yes, sir, it is. I had a request for a new speed zone up in Little Hickory Bay. And while I was doing the research, I found out there were several other areas in the county that had never been mentioned in past speed zones. And because of confusion and difficulty with the sheriff's department trying to enforce some of the older speed zones, we wrapped the four new ones plus all the old ones into one ordinance, and that's the ordinance we have before you today. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have concurrence from the sheriff's office on all areas of not -- signage, location, and enforceability? MR. DUGAN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Are there any questions of staff? Mr. HcNees, do we have public speakers? MR. HcNEES: Nothing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We do not. I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Seeing none, Mr. Dugan, thank you. MR. DUGAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thus, ends that long battle, Mr. Law. Thank you. Item #12C4 ORDINANCE 97-11 PROVIDING FOR THE JUVENILE ASSESSHENT CENTER AND SUSPENSION PROGRAM COUNTY DELINQUENCY PREVENTION FINES - ADOPTED WITH CHANGE. RESOLUTION 97-76 SUPPORTING THE JUVENILE ASSESSMENT CENTER - ADOPTED Item 12(C)(4), an ordinance providing for funding of the juvenile assessment center and suspension program. This was continued at the board's request. Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure. Let me cut to the chase here, and maybe we can get some information out. What I was looking for specifically is what the annual budget will be, not an estimate, but what the annual budget will be; what definite and dedicated sources of revenue we have, not just what hopefully we might get, but what definitely dedicated sources of revenue we have; and then what the balance to be raised is. Because I don't want to be pledging $50,000 and not have any idea where the rest of the revenue is coming or how much it's going to cost. That was my primary objection a couple weeks back. MR. SCHIMMEL: Dave Schimmel, volunteer who has worked on this project with about 20 other volunteers for the last year. I'll try to answer those questions, Commissioner. We've submitted a total budget for the first-year operations of $884,800. Let me put that into perspective a -- a little bit, Commissioners. Lee County has done the same thing. They're in the -- they're going through the same process we're going through right now. Their initial first-year budget is a little over 1.8 million dollars. Of that 884,800, 138,000 of that is first-year capital expense. For comparison purposes let me also say that in Lee County their first-year estimated capital expense is between 1.5 and 3 million dollars, primarily because they need to go out and purchase a facility, whereas this assessment center has already been promised space in the new detention center. The revenue sources, 86 percent, Commissioner, of the salary expense for this -- this assessment center are funds that already exist in the community that are going to be transferred to the assessment center, the David Lawrence Center, Collier County School Board, Collier County Sheriff's Department, and Department of Juvenile Justice. You can see those items detailed on your sheets. These are funds that we are going to transfer to this assessment center; so 86 percent of the operational funding does not represent new dollars at all. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You mentioned the sheriff's department. Where is he getting his quarter of a million dollars, because each time they come to us they point out how woefully short they are on dollars? MR. SCHIHMEL: Well, I can't -- from my understanding, the sheriff's department is going to transfer those resources that he is currently using to process juveniles into this specific facility. So almost all of the funding we're talking about is fund shifting coming from agencies to this one entity. This is why assessment centers are collaborative community projects. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which is great if we can do that. I just want to be sure the five full-timers don't become a request for five more bodies in some other place in the sheriff's department in the upcoming budget year which I know isn't -- MR. SCHIHMEL: I can't make any -- any guarantees for the sheriff, but my understanding -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, come on, Mr. Schimmel, go out on a limb here. MR. SCHIHMEL: Well, I didn't run for the office. My understanding is they're using a lot of resources to process people who are arrested now, and what we've asked the sheriff to do is to isolate those resources to juveniles and move them to the new juvenile assessment center. I'm sure as this population grows, Commissioner, the sheriff will be back for many deputies in the future. Let's talk about sources of revenue, if we can, what we know we have and what we're hoping to -- to get. The school board -- you see the figure that the school board has committed. Again, that's a transfer. The same thing for the sheriff's office. The same thing for the David Lawrence Center. Department of Juvenile Justice in Naples will be transferring employees -- current employees over to this center. The unknowns are the legislative budget request. The Juvenile Justice Council has submitted a request for a quarter of a million dollars. That is very consistent with what the other juvenile assessment centers have been getting. We will be advocating for that and lobbying for that with Representative Saunders to try to get him to bring those funds from Tallahassee. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me, Mr. Schimmel, just on that item, has the full local legislative delegation signed on to supporting that request, or are you just working through Representative Saunders' office? MR. SCHIHMEL: We're working primarily directly with Representative Saunders. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What happens in the event that we don't get that or don't get all of that? Where is the revenue made up? MR. SCHIHMEL: A couple of possibilities. One is we go back and relook at the budget, and we -- we try to carve it down if the revenue is not there. One of the -- one of the components that has already been offered to us is some donations. And there have been several entities in the community that are maybe willing to come forward with equipment, for example, computer equipment. Somebody has -- there are some private discussions going on now about some property that may be donated. And it was fully our intention to go out in the community and try to raise some resources for first year -- for the first year to get this thing going. So that is -- that is one possibility if all of the state revenue doesn't come through. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you have any idea how much is donated when you talk about computers and so on, if -- can we put a worth on that that has been offered? MR. SCHIHMEL: My guess is we would probably go after -- and, Kathleen, correct me if I'm wrong, but we would probably go after about a hundred thousand dollars' worth of services, equipment, and/or dollars to help us with first year -- first year startup. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's not reflected in this -- MR. SCHIHMEL: That's not reflected in this because our first attempt is to -- is to get the $250,000 from the legislature. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess -- and that's my worry here, is both from the legislature and from local funds, regardless of the source, they're tax dollars; they're public dollars. And when you say we're going to go after that first and then try for donations, I just immediately recoil a little and think, gee, we should try to get donations first and as a last resort go after public dollars. MR. SCHIHMEL: Well, we -- the assessment center is not a legal entity at this point. I mean, you -- you have to remember this is a concept that we're building at this point in time, and what we have done with people who have come forward and offered assistance, we also don't want to take their dollars when we don't have a legal entity at this point. So the -- when we've talked to successful assessment center operators throughout the state, they have essentially all advised the same thing, and that is the first step, is to go to the legislature, because the legislature is funding these assessment centers all throughout the state. The second step is to get your county government to look at this local ordinance, because it is an ideal way to collect revenue for these centers as opposed to billing ad valorem taxpayers. And -- and then you look for other ways to supplement that funding. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. I guess you just repeated what I -- what you've already said, but it does concern me that going after private donations is second to accepting public money. MR. SCHIMMEL: I wouldn't necessarily consider it second, Commissioner. I'm just trying to explain that since we're not a legal entity, we can't accept those dollars at this point. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, how are you going to accept the county's money? MR. SCHIMMEL: Well, we are -- the Juvenile Justice Council is a legal entity. It's a 501(c)(3) corporation -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think my point, Mr. Schimmel, is if you can accept money from the county, you can accept money from private entities. Either you can accept money or you can't, regardless of the source. MR. SCHIMMEL: We will be able to, and we will do it under the umbrella of the Juvenile Assessment Center, which is a 501(c)(3) corporation. But my point to you is we're in the early developmental stages of deciding what kind of structure this assessment center needs to have. Your request for a budget pushed us to go ahead and develop that first-year budget. It -- probably -- these assessment centers operate in a variety of different mechanisms. In some areas of the State of Florida, providers contract with counties to operate these assessment centers. And so that's one of the reasons why we're using some expertise to Tampa -- from Tampa to guide us in what's the best way to set this up so it has the least burden on taxpayers. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just one final comment, then I'll yield the floor. But that is I guess I see $885,000 budget, and I appreciate you putting that together so I can look at it. But that is not inclusive of what you anticipate in donations, and you've told me you anticipate getting roughly a hundred thousand dollars in donations. If that's the case, and it's not included here, perhaps that can substitute for the 56,000 in creating a new revenue source from the public. MR. SCHIMMEL: If that were the case, then we really wouldn't have a collaborative partnership in this assessment center. And that would be the first example, probably, in the State of Florida where the county kind of opted out of this process. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know if that's true; it's on a county campus. But, secondly, if the first example is how to do it with private money instead of public money, that's not a bad example to set. MR. SCHIMMEL: I guess I would -- I would agree with you if we had commitments for a hundred thousand dollars in donations. We don't have commitments in a hundred thousand dollars for donations. We've had several people who said we like this concept. We think it will reduce juvenile crime. And when you're a legal entity and ready to operate, come and talk to us, and we may be able to contribute equipment or dollars. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And, frankly, with the school board and with the sheriff's department and everyone else, regardless of whether the commission contributes or not, those are all county taxpayer dollars, and so to suggest that's not a collaborative effort, I think, is probably not appropriate. MR. SCHIMMEL: But it's -- but they're not new county dollars. They're existing county dollars that are being transferred. The $56,000 is not public money. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Rather than get into a debate on -- debate on what is -- what is tax money and what isn't, the item before us today is whether or not to approve a $3 assessment fee and that fifty -- estimated $56,000 go toward the creation of a Juvenile Justice Center. I'm not curtailing your comments, just trying to get back on track. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And agreed. And that's my whole point, is if we don't need to create a new source of public revenue, it is public money. It's being collected by the government, and it is the public's use, then, for whatever we decide. If we -- if it wasn't public money, you wouldn't be in this public forum asking for it so -- MR. SCHIHMEL: But this 56,000 can only be used for juvenile assessment center. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Let's go back and restate the fifty-some-thousand dollars. You're going to use it for what? MR. SCHIHMEL: It's going to be used for the operation of a juvenile assessment center. It will be part of the funding that goes into the total budget of the juvenile assessment center. Juvenile assessment center is a 24-hour, 7-day-a-week operation where when law enforcement arrests a juvenile, instead of taking them to the jail, they will now bring them to a juvenile assessment center. The immediate advantage, Commissioner Berry, is that law enforcement is back out on the street in about 20 to 30 minutes. Currently law enforcement now is tied up with a juvenile for up to four hours, and that's what the juvenile assist -- assessment center does for the community. It's a very cost effective way of processing and receiving juveniles. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: An example of where that's a problem is like in Naples Park we had some vandalism. The officer had a backlog of calls, and to take that kid to the juvenile system the way it is, they have to make field decisions. I'm sorry to interrupt, but it just occurred to me; it was recently -- COHMISSIONER BERRY: That's not the problem, okay. I don't think anybody objects to that in terms of being able to bring a child to a central depository and put them there and have someone go ahead and -- and take care of them. Part of the concern does come in, whether it's lack of understanding or just flat out not knowing what's going to happen once they get to that assessment center. MR. SCHIHMEL: Okay. COHMISSIONER BERRY: And there is some problem -- and this actually -- this is not what we're debating today, Mr. Chairman, so I fully understand that. But since I'm being asked to vote on whether I want this $3 imposed or not, I also have to know what's going to happen once this assessment center is put in place. MR. SCHIHMEL: Uh-huh. COHMISSIONER BERRY: And questions that have been brought to me, and as a representative I've got to have these questions answered, okay? MR. SCHIHMEL: Certainly, certainly. COHMISSIONER BERRY: The problem comes in here in some of this is once a child comes in there, the questioning that takes place and -- and how does this relate, again, to the judiciary. And I'm not really sure, Mr. Chairman, if this is the place to debate this. I really don't know. But these are questions about the assessment center. MR. SCHIHMEL: Yeah. I'll be happy to address those. I don't see it as a debate. I see it as providing information to you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Within the limits of the operation of the center, I think that's an acceptable question so -- COHMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. MR. SCHIHMEL: The reason these -- these centers are so effective is all the players in juvenile crime are located here. COHMISSIONER BERRY: All right. Let's -- tell me about the players. Who are the players? MR. SCHIHMEL: The sheriff's department. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. MR. SCHIHMEL: Department of Juvenile Justice. COHMISSIONER BERRY: That is? MR. SCHIHMEL: Well, we have a local office, juvenile justice caseworkers who screen kids. Every time they get arrested they have to do a screening on them, determine where they are in the system, and make recommendations for whether these kids need to go to D.R.I.L.L. Academy or go to some kind of outpatient program, so forth and so on. The Department of Juvenile Justice is responsible for all juveniles when they're arrested. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. Does this juvenile assessment center make recommendations to judges in terms of the disposition of -- of a child? MR. SCHIHMEL: Oh, absolutely. And what they really try to do, Commissioner Berry, is coordinate all the information from law enforcement, juvenile justice, the judiciary, service providers who may be involved with these kids, the school system -- who else am I leaving out? Basically the school system, the major players that deal with juveniles. They coordinate services around this child when they are arrested and -- and really try to throw a lot of things at this kid on the front end. And the obvious advantage of that is you have a much better chance of keeping this kid from coming through the assessment center a second time. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. What is done in terms of parents? MR. SCHIHMEL: Parents are immediately contacted. Children cannot be released from the center until their parents come and pick them up. Many of these assessment centers throughout the state have a truancy component to them, and the school system is using them to pick kids up who are truant and bring them to one central place where they can be assessed and evaluated. It's a terrific tracking mechanism for kids who are falling through the cracks in some areas. And in Tampa, which has a 3 or 4 million dollar assessment center, they have a large truancy component. One of the things that law enforcement is willing to do when you have an assessment center is they're more willing to get involved and pick kids up, because they know they're not going to be tied up. They're not going to lose half their day because they've got a juvenile in their car. The savings for law enforcement alone makes assessment centers worthwhile and very cost effective. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I certainly don't disagree with that, and -- and I -- on what you're saying, I can't disagree with -- with what you have told me. I guess the concern comes in is what -- what is the accountability to the Board of County Commissioners? MR. SCHIMHEL: Uh-huh. COMHISSIONER BERRY: What -- what do we have -- what do we see at the end? How do we know f this is working? How do we know if it's successful, because there's a lot of things out there, David, as you well know -- MR. SCHIMHEL: Yeah. COMHISSIONER BERRY: -- and this is no reflection on any particular group, but there are a lot of programs and what have you out there. What assurance are we going to have a year from now if this is underway that what we have done -- that this is a good thing to have in place? MR. SCHIMHEL: Well, you'll -- the entities that are involved are all credible community entities that are concerned about outcome. We're concerned about outcome and results at the David Lawrence Center. You know the sheriff's department is certainly concerned with maximizing their resources so they don't have to come back here every year and ask for huge increases. The school system -- the school system in many of the assessment centers around the state has provided the evaluation component for the assessment centers. And many of the assessment centers, for example, are now in a position to write grants to universities because this is a -- basically, a research center for juvenile crime. I mean, every juvenile that gets arrested or picked up is coming through this processing center. So it offers people a lot of opportunity to come to the table and offer you a different -- additional services to help you understand how effective you can be. COMHISSIONER BERRY: Will we know at some point in time how effective -- I'm worried about the kids. You guys' agencies are going to be okay. MR. SCHIMHEL: Absolutely. COMHISSIONER BERRY: I'm not worried about you. I'm worried about the kids that come in there. I want to know at some date certain what has happened to them, are we being effective in what we're doing. MR. SCHIMHEL: Yes. COMHISSIONER BERRY: Is this a good idea? Will somebody step up to the plate in a few years and say, oops, maybe this wasn't a good idea? If it's not a good idea, how will we know? MR. SCHIMHEL: It doesn't take a few years because the Department of Juvenile Justice will mandate that we not only have a quality assurance system in place, but do we have outcomes. And we'll have to measure those outcomes. The most immediate benefit will probably come from law enforcement, because they're going to automatically be out on the streets policing the streets. They're going to be able to maximize their time and -- and their energy doing that; so that has typically been the most immediate benefit of an assessment center. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry -- MR. SCHIMMEL: These kids are followed, Commissioner. I mean, they are followed, and recommendations are made for them to participate in programs, or they go back home, and they are case managed and followed through that process, because we don't want them to be rearrested. That's really -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: One way to get that review that you're talking about is to make this an annual review. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, I'd really like to see that, Mr. Chairman. All due respect, I -- I support the idea of the assessment center. My concern goes deeper. And, again, I'm not sure that this is the place to do it, but it comes to when children are brought into an area like this and -- and the questioning that takes place, you may have an offender who comes in who has committed some stupid act, okay. He is not -- he doesn't have a deviant sexual orientation. He doesn't have parents who don't care. He's just done a really dumb thing, okay. We do have those. MR. SCHIMMEL: Oh, we certainly do. COMMISSIONER BERRY: On the other hand, we've got children out there who have previous arrest records and time after time -- and it's -- I -- I guess I want to know that -- that when kids come in there, that -- that there is appropriate questioning for the act and not so much -- I don't know how to get into this, because I could really lay out something here. I've got to be real careful about what I say. MR. SCHIMMEL: I understand your question, and some of us may even have some of those kids that do stupid things. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Not I. MR. SCHIMMEL: But, again, the assessment center does this much more effectively than your current system. When you have a child who comes in who does something stupid, that gets picked up immediately in the assessment. The parents are called in immediately. And it may be that that child has not committed a felony or whatever and can be released. But we're still going to follow that child because -- because sometimes a series of small stupid things turn into very important serious things. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I understand. MR. SCHIMMEL: And the other real advantage is when we get that habitual child in there, we can make sure he doesn't slip through the cracks and surround that kid with all kinds of resources. COMMISSIONER BERRY: David, I don't want this assessment center to become a self-fulfilling prophecy that we're going to -- every kid that comes through there is a deviant behavior child and, you know, that there's a bogeyman around every corner. MR. SCHIMMEL: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's my only concern. Sometimes when we get into certain professions, we get very much wrapped up into what we're doing, and we don't see -- MR. SCHIMMEL: Yes. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- common sense kind of things at times. That's my only concern. From a law enforcement standpoint, I do support this where they can bring a child in and be back out on the road, because I know the time consumption, and I appreciate that. So I think you've answered most of my questions. However, I do want to write into this in some form that we do have an annual review to know how we're doing. I think that's -- I think you would want that -- MR. SCHIMMEL: Oh, absolutely. That will be part of our operational plan. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- if we are going to go forward with it. MR. SCHIMMEL: Again, the target population is high at-risk kids; so you want to use most of your resources on those kids who -- who tend to stand the greatest risk of getting further involve CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. McNees, how many registered speakers do we have on this item? MR. McNEES: Two. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Two. Okay, Mr. Schimmel, if no one objects, can we hear from the registered speakers -- MR. SCHIHMEL: Sure. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- and we'll be on to final board discussion on this matter? MR. HcNEES: Your speakers are Dorothy Fitch and Sheriff Hunter. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That second guy is limited to two minutes. MS. FITCH: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm back again. I hope you've all received the letter that the League of Women Voters of Collier County has sent you on behalf of approving this proposal. We have been watching the development of this assessment center for several years. We're very much committed to it. We have had sessions where we've learned how other communities have been successful. It does take the backing of the commission. The Board of County Commissioners must back this to give it the credibility that we need. So we are again urging you to pass this first step, which is the -- really the crux of the whole thing, because if we don't have the backing of the commissioners, then we don't become a public asset. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Hiss Fitch. MR. HcNEES: And Sheriff Hunter. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good morning, Sheriff. SHERIFF HUNTER: Good morning. Don Hunter, sheriff of Collier County. Thanks for the opportunity to speak. I was watching over on the monitor, just finished a meeting on SHOCAP, which is serious habitual offenders, as Hike Buff has as well. He's our district manager for the Department of Juvenile Justice. He's in the audience today. And it occurred to me that maybe we're -- we're not as well informed on what the actual system is today and how this will benefit the system as we should be. And perhaps I can shed some light on that, maybe give a little bit of a different orientation towards the assessment center. Today if you were a juvenile arrested in Collier County -- first of all, Commissioner Berry, the deputy sheriff is not going to be stripped of their discretion to make an arrest. If it's a minor offense and we've never had contact with this child before, most likely what's going to happen is either the guardian or parents are going to be called to the scene, and we'll relinquish control of that child to the guardian or parent at that time, at that moment, or we will ask them to come down, meet us at the assessment center, the guardian or parent, and we will turn the child over there. There won't be extensive questioning unless there is a serious offense committed. What -- the benefit of the assessment center is, frankly, today the juvenile arrested in Collier County goes to the Collier County Jail if they're taken into custody. The parent comes down into a -- basically a sterile environment. They're standing on the outside of the jail window talking to a jailer across bulletproof glass, and the -- all they're trying to do is gain control of the child again. The child comes out, walks through the lobby, and they're reunited. The problem is, with that system, of course, the parent knows nothing about what happened, why is the child here, what can I do different. We have no opportunity to talk to the parent and the child in the same venue, let the child express themself to the person who is asking the questions, in this case probably a social worker, caseworker, let the parent respond, let the parent ask some questions. There's an opportunity right then when the offense is fresh, when the information is fresh with all the key players in the room, to get information. Instead what the system is today is the parent goes home, finally learns some of what happened -- what went on but colored by just the juvenile's version of the story. They don't know whether to be concerned or not yet. You and I know that they're never going to get the full story. The parent or guardian is not going to be fully informed about what happened. And ultimately if the parent or guardian begins to experience additional problems in the future, we're going to get a call at the youth relations deputy office and the parents' going to say, Can you help me? Can -- what can I do with my child? Well, with an assessment center help is right there; it's immediate. It is right at the moment of the offense. It is absolute. Everything that the county can apply -- everything that this county can apply towards the situation to gain resources, treatment authority, opportunities to discover together what exactly happened in the incident, it's all going to happen right there immediately. That's the benefit of the assessment center. And we know that it's going to be mental health professionals, social workers, DJJ workers, jail for cust -- for custodianship, because we're going to have some very bad actors, sexual batteries, homicides, robbery, burglary, motor vehicle theft, a lot of motor vehicle theft, a lot of burglaries. They are going to have to be detained. The detention facility is going to be right there as well; so they can go into a hard cell until their attitude changes to the point where they want to talk to us. But the parent or guardian has an opportunity to visit right there, the same room, with every actor in the system at the -- at that moment. That's the benefit of the assessment center. And we can then apply the resources at that moment. We can begin the process of treatment at that moment. We don't let them go home first, make up a story, well, here's what really happened. I don't care what the cops told you. We can -- we can discover it altogether at the same time. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't think my parents ever would have believed me over a police officer. Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not debating the benefit of the assessment center. I don't think anybody -- I don't think most people would. I never will use an absolute. The center is a great idea. The idea of being able to turn officers around in 20 to 30 minutes is a great idea. Helping kids is a great idea. My only concern is, is an additional $56,000 revenue source necessary? We have in front of us an $885,000 budget. It does include 56,000 from the county. It doesn't include what we're told is anticipated to be a hundred thousand in donations. And I look at the order in which Mr. Schimmel told us he's going to do things. And that is, number one, get the county to create a new public revenue source; number two, get state tax dollars from -- it's an existing source. It will be new to us, but from an existing state system; number three, get county tax resources through the sheriff's office and through the school board and so on; and, number four, get donations. And it -- it just seems to me we ought to do that in exactly the reverse order, and that is get private participation first and see how much we have there and have a fair idea; second, use the existing resources such as the sheriff's department and the school board as they've promised to on the David Lawrence Center; third, go to the state and -- and try to get our piece of the pie in that existing pie; and, third -- or fourth and final, as a last resort, try to create some new revenue source. I would think that would be our last logical step rather than the first step. And I'm not debating the benefits of the juvenile center. I think it's a great idea. But let's get down to the issue, and that is do we create a new revenue source. I -- I just think that should be the last resort. MS. PASSIDOMO: Can I -- Kathleen Passidomo. I'm sorry. I have a sore throat. I'm the chairman of the Assessment Center Advisory Committee. The contributions from the public -- and I'm going to stand right here and tell you, I have put in $40,000 of time on the assessment center in the last two years. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You know, I think this is the first time -- MS. PASSIDOMO: Dave Schimmel -- and I want to tell you that because David Schimmel has put in time, and we have a committed COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Don't hang on. Get it later. MS. PASSIDOMO: I just want you-all to know that there is -- there is a lot of contribution from the public now, and I'm going to go out and raise more money, and the assessment center is going to do more than just take kids off the street that are arrested. We are going to handle some of the problems. And, you know, I've gotten people that want to contribute, but as -- as Mr. Schimmel said, you know, we don't have an entity. The $56,000 that we're asking, the $3 filing fee, the legislature put that into -- into a statute because they recognized that the people that are convicted of -- of criminal traffic offenses should be paying for that because they're part of the problem. And -- and that's what we're asking for. We're asking for the county commission to authorize the imposition of that fine in addition to so many other things. And it's a very simple request, and we really hope that you'll get on board with us in that regard. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. I appreciate that. And I fully understand what the request is, but as I said, it seems to me that what Mr. Schimmel said was very clear and that is he anticipates getting a hundred thousand dollars that's not included in the budget. And I would think we'd want to take donations prior to creating a new revenue source. That's all. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What I'd like to do -- we have no more public speakers; is that correct? MR. McNEES: Correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Are there any questions of Sheriff Hunter? Seeing none, Sheriff, thank you. I'm going to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I move approval of the request. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. May I ask the motion maker to include that if it's approved that an annual review including expenditure and income before budget presentation be made to the board, that this is -- is, in essence, a -- a -- an action that is -- is for a 12-month period and shall be reviewed annually in order to continue? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Is there anything in regard to them -- accountability of them coming back to us, not only financially, but how they're doing in terms of -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, that -- I'm sorry. I assume that's what Commissioner Hancock meant, was that we'll get a financial report and -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Operational. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- and operational review on an annual basis. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second amends. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Second amends. Is there any further questions or discussion? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You had suggested earlier, I thought, having the actual assessment, $3 assessment, reviewed as part of that every year. Is that part of the motion? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. That's part of the motion. Actually, the fee is not to continue ad infinitum. We want to see performance information on an annual basis to make sure that the assessment center is doing what it's intended to do. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel has something. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, just for clarification, before you today is the proposed ordinance, and what you are suggesting in regard to annual review, financial report, $3 assessment fee, etc., could be -- could be made a part of the ordinance. It would appear that it could be included under the element of responsibilities of the sheriff, Section 3 of the ordinance as drafted. And I expect that's what you're looking toward because otherwise your recommendation is a promise outside of the ordinance there, as far as that goes. And I would also -- I was doing a little drafting here myself. If you're looking for a particular time that might be meaningful for you in regard to an annual review and also perhaps meaningful time for the sheriff to have time to prepare something, you might may want to look for something -- here's a for instance, that this review and report be provided to the board in the last calendar quarter of fiscal year '97-'98 and in the last calendar quarter of every year thereafter. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think that -- that's acceptable to the intent of my request to change on the motion. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Included in my motion. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second amends. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Second amends. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry. Motion carries 4-1. SHERIFF HUNTER: May I ask one question of the board, Mr. Chairman? And that is -- and I should have asked this last time when this came before you two weeks, three weeks ago, whenever it was. In order to secure public support and funding, should we go forward with this program, it would be very beneficial to have the board's resolution that they do support the concept of the assessment center and that you do recognize the need of the assessment center for the purposes stated, which was those kids predisposed to delinquency, plus those who are already caught -- involved in a delinquent act -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion to approve a resolution in that regard. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, not being on the agenda, is that an appropriate, I guess, adjunct item, if I may? MR. WEIGEL: I would say yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Quick procedural question. We've been told this morning they can't accept money; so what's going to happen with this $56,000 as it's collected? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel, can you answer that? MR. WEIGEL: What's going to happen -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The 56,000 -- these $3 of fine as they're collected will go to the sheriff's office until the juvenile assessment center is an entity; is that how it happens? MR. WEIGEL: I believe it goes to the clerk's office; then the sheriff will make an appropriate draw request as it goes forward; is that correct? SHERIFF HUNTER: Correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. We'll move on to the next item. Thank you, Sheriff, Mr. Schimmel. Item #12C5 ORDINANCE 97-12 AMENDING ORDINANCE 89-11 THE BEACH AND WATER SAFETY AND VESSEL CONTROL ORDINANCE - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES Item 12(C)(5), recommendation that the BCC adopt an ordinance amending 88-11, the beach and water safety and vessel control ordinance. Good morning, Mr. Olliff. MR. OLLIFF: Good morning. For the record, Tom Olliff, public services administrator. 12(C)(5) is a recommendation that has actually made its way to you as -- as a result of a subcommittee of the Marco Island Beach Renourishment Committee. It is a committee whose sole function on Marco Island is to -- to look after and address and permit requirements in regards to vendors on the beach and issues of structures on the beach as it relates to the beach renourishment project on Marco Island. As part of the beach vendor ordinance, as this is generally called, Ordinance 89-11, the majority of beach vendors in Collier County's area lie on Marco Island. There are some in the Vanderbilt Beach area, but primarily they're on Marco Island. And some of the issues that you see before you in the way of these ordinance amendments are the result of not only some citizen issues that have been raised as a result of jet skis and beach concession vendors on Marco Island, but they've also, just so you know, have been worked through most of the vendors, not only on Marco, but in Vanderbilt Beach and, I believe, have the support of those vendors. But I know that there are a large number of speakers for this item; so I'll try and make this presentation as brief as I can. We presented to you yesterday -- and hopefully you all received a copy of an ordinance that is a little easier to read, frankly, than what was in your agenda package; that was simply just a copying issue. If you don't have it, I do have some extra copies of the actual reprinted ordinance for you. But to keep things simple, I think there are six changes to the old ordinance from 1989 that are being recommended to you. And, generally, they are all in the way of additional restrictions on the operations of jet skis in and around the beaches of Collier County. The first and probably most important issue is that the distance the jet skis are allowed to operate at a -- a full throttle or open operation is -- is move -- moving from 500 feet to 700 feet, 750 feet. That area is -- is currently marked by buoy system, and the buoys would simply be moved out to 750 feet from the shoreline so that those renting jet skis or operating jet skis would be aware of that. In addition, we're recommending that the ordinance be amended to require stock or better mufflers on all jet skis. That's easy to regulate from the rental operations, but Marco Island, as well as some other areas of the county, have a lot of people who bring jet skis and use public boat ramps in the area, and that is an issue with those particular jet skis. We're also indicating that we would like to -- to require some large letter identification on the jet skis that are coming from the rental companies so that you can tell which rental company is -- is -- owns the jet ski, and this is probably more, again, in regards to those jet skis that use the public boat ramps so that we know when violations do occur, either we can talk to the vendor, or if they are not marked, then we know that that is somebody that privately owns one, and we need to talk to them privately about that. Fourthly, wewre -- wewre asking that anyone who is renting a jet ski be required to initial a document that says that they have reviewed and understand the ordinance requirements and -- and the statute language that regulate jet ski operations. Fifthly, wewre suggesting that the ordinance be amended simply to reflect some statutes that were passed in this last legislative session that regulate the age of the persons who are allowed to operate jet skis. This is already a law in Florida Statute, but we simply want to make the county ordinance reflect exactly the language of the statute so the public doesnwt have to look in there two or three places to find that same regulation. And lastly, an additional change recommended from the subcommittee would authorize licensed vendors in addition to law enforcement and emergency personnel to drive a motorized water vessel to engage in a rescue attempt. The way the ordinance currently is worded, only law enforcement or emergency personnel who generally arenwt on site when an issue occurs out 750 or 500 feet off the shoreline, the vendors are required to have chase boats. They are generally the people who can respond quickest to an emergency. So wewre amending the ordinance to allow them to actually go out and attempt the rescue as well. Those -- those are primarily the changes. As youwll see, most of them are in way of trying to place some additional restrictions on jet ski operations. The only other one thatws not listed there -- if you will look at the ordinance, first page on line 22, that sentence actually reads, Whereas, Collier County Ordinance 89-11, as amended, prohibits the operation of jet skis within a distance of 500 feet. Thatws not correct. It regulates as opposed to prohibits, and we would like to change that one word "prohibits" to "regulates," because it does require idle-speed operations until you get out to the 750-foot mark. With that, Iwm available to answer any questions, and I think there are some public speakers. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I have one question. On page 7 of what you handed to us today on paragraph 9, the last element that constitutes reckless operation, it says or swerving at the last moment to avoid collision constitute reckless operation. I understand what youwre trying to say there, which is the chicken game which you run at each other. However, the way thatws worded, you have to run into them to avoid reckless operation. I think we can smooth that one a little bit better than itws presented. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Perhaps the adverb "intentionally." CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Intentionally. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Somehow just -- I want that clarified because the way it reads -- the way it reads, you know -- well, you ran in to him, so I canwt cite you. Thatws the only thing I had operationally. Have any questions for staff on this? Mr. McNees, how many speakers do we have on the item? MR. McNEES: You have seven. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have seven. For those people that are here, the standard rule on this is a maximum of five minutes allowed. Therews a little box here. When it turns yellow, you have 30 seconds left. When it turns red, Iwm going to ask you to complete your comment and have a seat. Would you go ahead and start calling the speakers, Mr. McNees. MR. McNEES: Yes, sir. First would be Lisa Garmon followed by Scott Shook. MS. GARHON: (Inaudible - didn't speak into microphone at podium.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No, ma'am, you cannot. Please proceed to a microphone. MS. GARHON: I need to go to the bathroom. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ms. Garmon -- no, ma'am. Either speak now or waive your right. MS. GARHON: Gee whiz, other hearings you've allowed people to postpone the speaker, but that's fine. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You can hand that to Mr. Weigel to your left there. He'll hand those out to the board. Thank you. MS. GARHON: Thank you. My name is Lisa Garmon. I'm a resident of Marco Island. I've been vacationing on the beach for 12 years. I want you to know that I have taken the pulse of the people on Marco Island, beach lovers and beach dwellers. I've personally spoken to hundreds of them. And residents and beach lovers, beach dwellers, do not want the county to continue concessions of jet ski rentals on our beach. We do not want tons of regulations to -- to regulate them. What we want is tranquility returned to our beach. Government put the ordinance in. It can easily take it out. We believe there's been a huge mistake made, a mistake that needs correcting. In 1989 the DEP compromise was to put small one-seater 35 mil -- mile-per-hour water scooters on the beach. There were about three of them, I remember, at that time at the Marriott, and that's all. Since then the Yamaha Corporation has escalated the power and subsequent noise of the WaveRunners. Today we have 43 -- that was my last count -- huge 600-pound machines being rented on our beachfront. They're noisy. They're powerful water screamers. And when the jet pump hits a wave, you hear the (speaker made verbal sound effects) of the jet propeller that we talked about before. It's -- it's terrible noise, and there are people who suffer from the noise. I spoke with a man whose wife has Alzheimers who suffers from the noise. A woman with Lupus suffers from the noise. Several diabetics with sensitive nervous systems suffer from the noise. A woman -- I spoke to a woman's husband who told me that her -- his wife is extremely noise sensitive who lives in my building. Recent research is proving that environmental stress can cause the hypothalamus of the brain to misfire neurons affecting the whole central nervous system. This -- it's no wonder that this noise in a place that has traditionally been tranquil is not wanted. The county only makes $250 a year from annual permits from each vendor and about $10 for the occupational license. That's per -- peanuts. The county isn't making any money off of these machines. The general manager at the Radisson told me that last year the Radisson alone grossed $500,000 from jet ski gross revenue. My understanding is -- when I looked into what it takes to become a vendor, is that the locations skim about 20 percent off the top. That may be wrong. It's according to individual contract. I spoke to -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me, Miss Garmon. I'm going to ask you to keep your comments pertinent to the ordinance in front of us today which has nothing to do with the operation of the businesses on the beach that have vendors in front of them, please. This is about the -- the ordinance itself and the operation of the vendors, not of the person that allows them to operate in front. Thank you. MS. GARMON: What we want to see happen is that the occupational licenses are scratched and that you return the beachfront to launching quiet wind- or muscle-powered vessels on our beachfront. That's what we want. We are not asking for anything unusual or selfish. We are acting in the best interest of the community. We are not the ones who want anything special. Jet skis are the ones that want something special. They are an elitist group. We only want something that as an American -- in America we have always had. It's called being a good neighbor. It's only rights, not responsibilities, that jet ski vendors care about. They care about themselves and making revenue. I'm more important than my environment, than the birds and the sea and the animals and the land, and this offends us right down to the guts of our existence. We want our tranquil beachfront back with the launching of quiet wind- or muscle-powered vessels. At the very least, at the very least, return to the DEP recognized 35-mile-per-hour one-seaters and a day of tranquility every other day. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Miss Garmon. MS. GARMON: Thank you very much. MR. McNEES: Scott Shook followed by Frank Blanchard. MR. SHOOK: Okay. I'm Scott Shook. I'm the recreation director at the Charter Club, and I operate our sailing program there. I, for the most part, support the WaveRunner people, but I have a few problems with the Ordinance 89-11. Number one deals with enforcement. I've had three sailboats hit by WaveRunners in the last two years. The most recent one was December 26th. It took an hour and a half and three phone calls from me to get anybody out there to investigate the accident. I felt the accident was investigated shoddily. And as a result, I wrote Sheriff Hunter a two-page typed letter requesting that he contact me so I could discuss it with him and -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm going to have to interrupt you. We, the Board of County Commissioners, doesn't do water enforcement. That's either the sheriff's office, Florida Marine Patrol, or the U.S. Coast Guard. So we really can't have an effect on what -- an agency's performing enforcement, inspection, and so forth. So although I -- I'm not -- MR. SHOOK: I'm just trying to demonstrate why I think this ordinance needs -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But we can't address that in this ordinance because we don't control that; the sheriff or Florida Marine Patrol or U.S. Coast Guard does. MR. SHOOK: Okay. So I think the -- in the ordinance I think the enforcement section needs to be strengthened. Number two, I think the speed and numbers of the watercraft in the small area that they have to operate in needs to be regulated. I think there needs to be a speed limit sign posted or maybe more than one out there, because the people who are out there don't know what the speed limit is. And I think the craft are capable of going very fast. I think there needs to be some speed limit out there. I know there is a speed limit, but people don't know what it is. The third thing is safety. I'm concerned because a lot of times I see small children riding in front of adults on the WaveRunners. The problem I have with that is that I think it makes it hard for the operator of the machine to control the machine and steer the machine, and they spend a lot of time looking at the child instead of watching where they're going and watching out for other craft. As far as the numbers of machines, what we have out there is basically a corridor, and there's a lot of people going back and forth at a high speed. And I think if you don't limit the number -- if the number continues to grow, it becomes more dangerous. And the third thing is -- well, I guess that was the third thing. So that's -- the three things that I think is we need to strengthen the enforcement. We need to put a speed limit sign and a -- as far as safety, I think we need to make sure that there's adequate rescue craft. We lost a beach worker in November because -- in my opinion, if there would have been adequate rescue craft, he could have been saved. He went out on a WaveRunner, to save another WaveRunner, and I think with notification to the different beach vendors, somebody could have saved him. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He died? MR. SHOOK: Uh-huh. And I think if he would have been -- if somebody would have went out with a rescue boat instead of another Waverunner, that he would have been -- he would have been able to stay with the rescue boat. And that's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. HcNEES: Mr. Blanchard to be followed by Charles Huttinger. MR. BLANCHARD: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Frank Blanchard. I'm the chairman of the Marco Island Beach Renourishment Committee. Back in late 1988, '89, we worked with you, the county commission, to get an ordinance that had provisions of maintaining idle speed of craft close to the shore and to keep the noise down. That was county commission, 89-11. In late 1995 a group of people expressed strong concern about the noise and safety in the coastal water because of personal watercraft. We have held two public hearings on Marco Island, one of which Commissioner Norris attended all day; two meetings with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. We've met with the marine patrol, Officer Grady Johnson, and the sheriff deputy on Marco. I've reviewed these changes with people in Vanderbilt Beach to be sure that those two beach vendors on Vanderbilt Beach concur in the proposals that are being made, and they do. The outcome of these changes that we have suggested will be to further tighten these regulations and -- and fill in those missing gaps. To refresh your memory, the problem really starts in that the enforcement of this ordinance is difficult. And we were asked by previous commissions to have a way of negotiating harmony or peace on the beach, and I think that we have done so. Charlie Huttinger has been the chairman of our subbeach (sic) committee subcommittee, and I think that most everyone will congratulate Charlie for having harmony and cooperation with all parties concerned on the beach, and so I'd like to have Charlie Huttinger tell you what his activities have been. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Blanchard, does that wrap up your individual comments? MR. BLANCHARD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Just wanted to make sure. Thank you. MR. BLANCHARD: Oh, I'm done. MR. HUTTINGER: Hi. Good morning. My name is Charlie Huttinger. I'm chairman of the Beach Vendor Monitoring Committee. And I think the last time I was here trying to modify the same ordinance, Commissioner Norris said there are already too many laws on the books. I didn't agree with him at the time, but I do agree with him now. And Commissioner Constantine, who was then the chairman, said go be a good neighbor and negotiate. And that's what we did. And we've come to about 25 agreements with the vendors about keeping the beach clean and walkways and those sorts of things. And then we started having public meetings discussing WaveRunners. And I will tell you all these WaveRunners have mufflers on them now. They all have decals explaining the rules of operation. I find the vendors very cooperative. We're talking about 40 people, and there are 40,000 WaveRunners in Florida. Now, in the public meetings we had, there were 120 people at the one meeting where Commissioner Norris was, and we all agreed that it was the private individuals. We have no control over those people. At one time there was a hot spot in front of the Apollo -- well, it's been there before, but in front of the Apollo and the Sea Winds, and these are condominiums that rent by the week or by the weekend. And they attract a lot of east coast boats that are hopped up and go 70 miles an hour. I can't control them. I got Grady Johnson to come down one Saturday afternoon, and he wrote ten tickets. But I would caution you to be very careful about being too restrictive or coming up with too many regulations because neither the sheriff's department nor the marine patrol has the manpower nor the equipment to enforce all these rules. It just can't be done. The enforcement we've got is self enforcement, and it's working pretty good. We can control those 40 boats, but we can't do anything about the other boats. Now, we need to put the buoys back in at 750 feet. They've been moved around. We need to put signs at every boat ramp, and that's about the best we can do. And I'll be glad to answer any questions. Oh, two things that were brought up, you can't put a speed limit out there. Who's going to stand with the radar gun and decide whether they're going 20 miles an hour or 25? That doesn't work. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Besides, someone would just run into it. MR. HUTTINGER: Yeah. And, in fact, that -- the portion about initialing the -- that's Florida Statute. They set it that way, Commissioner. But they're doing all those things now. They're initialing that they've read those items. They're -- they're doing most of the things already. And I'll be glad to answer your questions, but I don't think we can make it much more restrictive. Now, we do intend to have meetings about every two months with all the vendors and ask for public comment. As far as the boy who drowned, they now have a policy on the beach that won't one boat go, all the vendors will go. So thank you very much. I'll answer questions. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Charlie. Seeing none, we'll go to our next public speaker. MR. McNEES: Next is Gavriel Mairone followed by A1 Price. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Just while he's coming up, I'd like the record to reflect that Mr. Huttinger, a noted Democrat, is now advocating less government regulations. (Laughter) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I will ask, because of the number of speakers, if you are speaking and representing a view that's already been presented, please ask you not to be redundant. MR. MAIRONE: Okay. Thank you, Commissioners. My name is Gavriel Mairone. I'm a resident of Marco Island, Collier County, since 1986. I'm one of the owners of the concession in back of the Radisson Hotel on the Radisson beach. I'm also a rescue diver and a -- a -- on behalf of our concession, of course, we are supporting the changes to the ordinance. And I just wanted to make a couple of comments in response to some of the things you've heard. I also have some pictures of our operation that were taken about six months ago which I thought may be interesting, because it gives you a little bit more of a view of what is happening on the beach. One of the good things about the beaches on Marco Island, I think in Florida in general, is that the beaches are public beaches and for all the -- the enjoyment of all the residents and visitors. Depending on the season, 20 to 50 percent of the people who rent WaveRunners on our beach are -- are residents of Collier County. Many of them are -- or they're guests of residents of Collier County. And especially during the summer a substantial number are residents of Florida, and they come over from the east coast. If we didn't have our own rental facilities available here locally, then I think that you would see a tremendous increase in the number of WaveRunners coming from other counties, which are almost impossible to regulate, I think, as you've seen, whereas one of the advantages of having the concessions, that we are accountable and we're local. And -- and it's easy to -- to monitor us. It's not readily known how many rescue efforts actually originate from the vendors on the beach, but it's -- it's numbered in the hundreds. And typically a rescue may be on a windcraft where it's inexperienced sailors going out there, and they capsize, and they're having problems righting it. And the fact that we have WaveRunners on it and we're monitoring out there constantly, we're also in communication on the emergency bands. It's very typical that either our personnel or personnel around us are able to go out there and assist people in the water that are having troubles. And I would say that every -- a week doesn't go by that one of our staff isn't out there assisting someone. In the majority of the cases, they're not someone that we're renting to, but it's someone who just happens to be out on the water and maybe less experienced. So one of the great advantages of the concessions is having a tremendous number of assets on the beach. The one unfortunate incident that's been mentioned today of someone losing a life was a kind of heroic act, and that person's act was attempting to rescue some other people. And I think that perhaps the procedures -- he himself may not have been clear about a typical rescue procedure. In our company we're very clear and spend a lot of time training in terms of rescue. In addition, there was not communication to the other vendors at that time, and the sole communication went to the authorities. By the time the authorities were able to come, it was hours later, and we got into a darkness situation, and the person was left in the water, and we were unable to find him. Now we've -- we're tightening that up to make more communication, which again brings the full amount of assets into a situation like that. I think with that kind of cooperation, I doubt that we'll see such a -- such a horrendous result again. Another service that the vendors provide is -- is cleaning and maintenance services. Every day all of the vendors in front of all their beaches literally sweep the beach, and there's -- there's a -- there's a lot of activity at night on the beaches, and -- and also the -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Sir, again, I'm going to interrupt you. I'm sure that's a valuable service, but it has nothing to do with the ordinance in front of us today. Can we please stay on that item? Thank you. MR. HAIRONE: Okay. All right. Well, fine. The last -- let me just wrap up then with two quick comments that again relate to prior comments that were made by others. We do provide over 60 jobs on the beach. Our -- our vendors have been on the beach since 1985. And the comments about that there were not -- there were only three WaveRunners at the Marriott in 1989 is -- is inaccurate. At that time there was about six concessions, all of them renting vehicles. This is not a new condition of having WaveRunners on the beach. And that's it. I want to thank -- thank you for the opportunity to speak today. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. HcNEES: Two more speakers, A1 Price followed by Mark Bahr. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And Mr. Bahr, again, is the final speaker? MR. HcNEES: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. PRICE: A1 Price, regional chief engineer at the Marco Island Hilton Beach Resort. I just would like to address three issues. And I agree with the proposed changes, and I would like to comment that we do police our own very well. I'm a -- I'm a pilot, and I'm a marine operator, a diver. I actually own a WaveRunner. Excuse me, but I do. We have implemented safety procedures that are, I think, best that's done. We have aviation-style checklists for each machine every morning that's gone through. There's preoperational checklists that is gone through. All of our machines have flare kits with whistles, dye markers, and mirrors. We've taken extreme detail since the incident with Scott to prevent anything like that again. Any of our excursions, there's a cell phone on board. They file float plans. We really strickened (sic) up the restrictions. We monitor strict operations, and they -- none of ours do operate hazardously. We have Hs, red Hs already in place on the front of our machines. And I'd like to say when we went to Fort Myers for the upcoming training session, that Yamaha represent -- was there and represented themselves, and they -- they said that only 2 percent of their total sales go to rental operations. So 98 percent of their sales are to individuals. And, again, we have a problem with the individuals on the beach that you can -- you know, it's hard to maintain. We are a beach resort. The majority of the guests at our hotel come to enjoy water facilities, watercraft, water activities. And that's -- the majority of the people on Marco Island participate in some type of water activity, and that's generally why they're there. The -- those -- you know, the WaveRunners aren't the only thing that make exhaust noises and things like that. We have a lot of commercial operations. The Key Wester is going back and forth, and there's a lot of things in there. I would -- I would -- I would caution the commission to make regulations that single out WaveRunners from any other type of marine operation. And you -- you put a WaveRunner past -- out in an area that it's only allowed to go 20 miles an hour, but everything else around it is allowed to go whatever speed, it needs to safely navigate the waterways. If you've ever been -- the majority of the WaveRunners don't have speedometers to begin with. Only the bigger ones do; so it's kind of hard to tell them only go 20 miles an hour when they have no means to tell that and -- and when the other craft around it do not have to operate that. And if you've ever operated a WaveRunner, you know that sea conditions require you go faster or slower depending on what the wake breaking across the nose of the craft is. So -- and we -- we strongly suggest safe operational speed in that area. The noise -- the noise issue is -- is always a concern with us. But, again, if you get much further than 750 feet off the beach, you can't observe safely what is going on out there, and your rescue efforts are going to be delayed. You're renting a watercraft for 30 minutes, and 33 percent of that time is spent in idle out to and back from the safe zones. So, you know, you're already -- we've already restricted 33 percent of their activity to quiet activity. I just would -- would implore the commission to leave a lot of the regulation up to the -- to the vendors, that we do act responsibly. There are occasions where certain individuals act beyond the rules and their training and don't act responsibly. Again, the incident with Scott was unfortunate. Had he not been -- had to rescue so far off the beach, he may have been a little different outcome. Had the notification system been better, there would have been a different outcome. However, the cause of death there, I believe, was hypothermia, drowning due to hypothermia, which is the largest killer two to one over any accident, including alcohol-related incidents of watercraft. So I just -- education and close monitoring by the vendors, I believe, is the best bet. And I apologize for the few people that don't like the noise of the watercraft or the activity, and we do try to restrict that, because a lot of our British guests and European guests don't like noise either. So we try to keep that noise down and keep guest satisfaction to the highest possible, and I think all the hotels do the same. But I don't think you can cite any of us for acting irresponsibly or without care to the environment or the people. I thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. McNEES: Your last speaker is Mark Bahr. MR. BAHR: Good morning. My name is Mark Bahr. I'm the owner of the concession at the Marriott on Marco Island, Marco Island's Ski and Water Sports. We've been in business, open year-round, since 1981. And I'm here just to support the amendments to the ordinance. I think the ordinance is somewhat of a model ordinance. All the other vendors are in favor of it. We have comprehensive checklists. I won't -- there's not much left to be said other than what everyone else has already said. I have a sample WaveRunner operating rules checklist I would like to share with you if you're interested in seeing that. We're constantly improving that and updating it. There's new laws, and this one will be updated due to the new Florida law, and I'm just saying that we're -- all the vendors are in favor of it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Close the public hearing. Are there any questions or comments by board members? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion to approve the ordinance with the changes noted earlier by Mr. Olliff. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Those changes which are, in fact, increased restrictions on operation and notice to users of -- of jet skis? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. I -- I was referring to the typographical changes in my motion. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Is there a second? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Second by Commissioner Hac'Kie. Any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Seeing none, motion carries unanimously. Item #12C6 RESOLUTION 97-77 RE PETITION AV-96-25, BURT L. SAUNDERS, REPRESENTING HARK WOODWARD, TRUSTEE, REQUESTING VACATION OF A PORTION OF ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AS SHOWN ON STATE ROAD 45 RIGHT-OF-WAY HAP - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Item 12(C)(6), Petition AV-96-25. Let me see if you can save Mr. Mullet some time. This is outdated right-of-way, never to be used again as right-of-way. Nothing sits there; no problems that we know of? MR. HULLER: For the record, Russ Mullet. We're not going to use it as right-of-way, but as a drainage and utility easement. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And we have that worked out with the petitioner? MR. HULLER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any questions of Mr. Mullet? COHMISSIONER BERRY: Are there any rights that are connected with this that we give up when we do this? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes. MR. HULLER: Yes. We do give up rights of public use of the land with the exceptions of drainage and so forth, the key being that we don't anticipate or foresee this being needed for that purpose -- for any other purpose. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is there any speakers, Mr. HcNees? MR. HcNEES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I assume -- I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Move approval. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Seeing none, motion carries unanimously. Item #13A1 RESOLUTION 97-78 RE PETITION V-96-29, CRAIG R. WOODWARD, ESQUIRE, REPRESENTING JAMES AND RUTH ANN WALCOTT REQUESTING AN AFTER-THE-FACT 1.95 FOOT VARIANCE TO THE REQUIRED 7.5 FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO 5.55 FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1582 BISCAYNE WAY, LOT 8, BLOCK 284, MARCO BEACH UNIT 8 - ADOPTED Item -- I misplaced it, Item 13(A)(1), under advertised public hearings, Petition V-96-25, variance on Marco Island. MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl, planning services. This is a request for a variance for an existing pool cage, 1.95 feet of the side-yard setback. And this has been existing for 20 years. There have been no complaints in those 20 years. I have received no correspondence since the advertisement, and staff recommends approval. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: By approving this variance, in essence, what we're saying, if they wish to reconstruct the cage, then they do so at the existing setback? That wouldn't have to conform to the -- the side yard? They would be allowed to do it at its existing location? MR. REISCHL: Yes. It will run -- run with the land. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Is there -- are there any questions for staff? Any questions for the petitioner on this? Do we have any public speakers, Mr. HcNees? MR. HcNEES: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Seeing none, two fine presentations, Mr. Woodward. MR. WOODWARD: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Worth the wait, huh? MR. WOODWARD: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Item 13(A)(2) has been withdrawn. Item #13A3 RESOLUTION 97-79 RE PETITION CU-95-23, WILLIAM L. HOOVER REPRESENTING FERRIL A. BOUTILIER REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE "2" OF THE RHF-6 ZONING DISTRICT FOR A CHURCH AND CHURCH RELATED FACILITIES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF GUILFORD ROAD 900 FEET WEST OF EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL - ADOPTED 13(A)(3), Petition 96-23, Mr. Hoover requesting conditional use 2 of RHF-6 zoning for a church on Guilford Road. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good afternoon. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Badamtchian. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good morning, Commissioners, Charam Badamtchian from planning services staff. This is a conditional use for a church to be located on Guilford Road in East Naples. And the property is zoned RHF-12, contains 2 acres. The petitioner is proposing to build a church for 185 seats. There are two other churches on this road. However, neighbors, they don't have any objection to this request except that they were a little bit concerned about the traffic, traffic light on -- at the intersection of Guilford Road and U.S. 41. And we contacted the Florida Department of Transportation, and they are planning to provide a traffic light once the East Trail is six-laned. The Planning Commission heard this petition and recommended approval. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any questions of staff? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One of the options would be for 12 apartments on this same property? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The other options would be -- it's a 2-acre lot zoned RHF-12 -- RHF-6, I'm sorry. That means 12-unit apartment. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And we had no objections from the residents in the neighborhood at the Planning Commission regarding the use, just the traffic concern of the -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I have received two letters in favor of this petition from property owners on either side of the site. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Are there any questions of the petitioner on this matter? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hove approval. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Seeing none, fine presentation, Mr. Hoover. Item #13A4 PETITION SV-96-5, TRACY L. LEBLANC REPRESENTING TOYS "R" US, INC., REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF TWO WALL SIGNS FOR SHOPPING CENTER OUTPARCELS TO THREE WALL SIGNS - DENIED Item 13(A)(4), Petition SV-96-5, Tracy LeBlanc representing Toys R Us requesting a variance from requirements of two wall signs for shopping center outparcel to three wall signs. Mr. Badamtchian. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Commissioner, this is a variance that -- it's a sign variance for Toys R Us. They already have two signs, but code says they have -- they are entitled to have two signs, one facing the shopping center, other one facing the road. They chose to install the one of those sides facing the shopping center and the other one facing the parking lot they have on the side. Now they are coming and asking for a third sign, and they are also entitled to a pole sign that they have not installed. And staff believes there is no reason for this variance to be granted, therefore, recommends denial. Planning Commission heard this variance and unanimously recommended denial. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Under current Land Development Code they could construct a pole sign. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But they cannot construct a wall sign without a variance, a third wall sign. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is similar to the Barnes and Noble that came before us two years ago? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Except for it's a much uglier building than the Barnes and Noble that came before us a couple years ago. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And although that can't be a part of our decision, we certainly appreciate that comment. Is the petitioner here? If the petitioner's not here, I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to deny. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Second it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor of the denial state aye. Opposed? (No response) Seeing none, Petition SV-96-5 is denied unanimously. Item #14A COMMISSIONER NORRIS RE CITY COUNCIL/COUNTY COMMISSION RELATIONS We are now down to BCC communications. Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have one, to wish my mother a happy birthday. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is being tape-recorded and will be sent to other members of the family. Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Just a disturbing thing that has -- has transpired here over the last week or so with the city, some members of the city council perhaps proposing some exclusionary movements on city-owned property and -- which -- which really would perhaps start the process of vulcanization of Collier County. I certainly would hate to -- to see any of that sort of thing get started. I think we've worked pretty hard over the last several years to -- to advance relations between city and county. I don't know if the board has any interest in perhaps writing a letter of some sort to the city council expressing our desire to continue on a positive relationship and really that we would prefer not to get into this sort of exclusionary discussions that -- that we seem to be hearing from time to time now. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I will be writing a letter to the mayor, because obviously any one commission member can write a letter to the city council saying anything they want. It's not necessarily representative of the board. And I think the veiled threat of excluding county residents from city facilities was not the intent of the full council nor the mayor's office, and I'll be asking the mayor to -- to confirm that, and then we'll just treat it as it was, which was a singular response to an action that someone apparently didn't like. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I like Commissioner Norris's suggestion that you send that on behalf of the whole board. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that agreed? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Agreed. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I will do that. Hiss Filson, if you will draft that for me, please, for my signature today or tomorrow. Thank you. Item #14B COHMISSIONER BERRY RE STATION 12 EMS FACILITY Commissioner Berry. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Yes. On last Friday I attended the dedication of Station No. 12 of the EHS facility out -- you're not going to be able to see this. However, anyway, this is a new facility out on Immokalee Road by the fairgrounds, and this is Station No. 12, as I said. And this is going to be a great thing for the response time for the EHS system. They indicated this would cut response time in that area from 20 minutes to 6. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Wow. COHMISSIONER BERRY: So this is certainly beneficial. And it's a beautiful facility, and if you haven't seen it, you need to go take a look. And I wanted them -- I told them I could bring the plaque down, you could all take a look at it, and then it will go back out to that facility where it will be placed. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is your first building to get your name on that's not a school. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Congratulations. Thank you, Commissioner Berry. Item #14C COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE RE THE POSSIBLE INCORPORATION OF THE UTILITY ORDINANCE INTO THE LDC - TO BE DISCUSSED AT A FUTURE DATE Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a few short items. First, I want to wish Pam's mother a happy birthday. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hi, Mom. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You two are so close. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to bring up for discussion in the coming weeks, but I just wanted to pass it on to you, the possibility of rolling the utility ordinance into our Land Development Code, and there's a number of reasons for that, not necessarily any substantive -- substantive change to the ordinance -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Substantive? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. -- change to the ordinance itself, but I think it may streamline a number of our procedures if that is all under one code. And I'll let -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We'll see that at a later date then. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Fantastic. Item #14D COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE RE REVISITATION OF AGENDA ITEMS COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second item, I just want to have a brief discussion and see if the other board members are as irritated as I that we seem to have a habit now of revisiting issues two and three times in the last couple of months. And it's just -- as I said earlier, it's not an efficient use of our time or the public's time or the staff's time. And if we could ask that not only -- our question earlier was on accuracy of information, but also we've had a number of items where we had incomplete information come to us, and -- and I don't know how we respond to that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, the TDC had the same problem on a -- a greater scale that applications that weren't complete or whatever were still finding their way forward. As far as I'm concerned, if it's not complete and ready for hearing, reject it out of hand and let it go through the advertising process all over again rather than continuing it for long enough for them to get their ducks in a row more -- I agree with you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, what if it's our staff that hasn't done the work? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, then we need to reject it out of hand, and whoever's in charge of that staff member that didn't do their job needs to take note of that and take the appropriate action, period. You know, you can hold people accountable. And, you know, I know from a consultant's side, if I ever came before this body without my ducks in a row, you get your head handed to you. You need to have your act together. And our staff needs to approach it with the same perspective. The majority do. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was hoping someone else would share that opinion, because it just is very frustrating to have those things come back over and over. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The majority do. But what we need -- and, Mr. HcNees, this is something you and I can talk about further, but we may need a more increased level of supervisor review of executive summaries and information before they get -- it finds its way to the agenda. That may be where the problem lies in that the staff member's allowed to place on the agenda without supervisor review, because I know many of the supervisors, if they had seen some of these items, they -- in more detail, they probably would not have allowed them to get here; so that may be a procedural issue. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And just to dovetail with that, it seems -- it may be semantics, but when you have to review something that someone else has written, if all you have to sign is something that says reviewed by, that's one level of review. If you have to say approved by or recommended by, I -- I think that that's a change that needs to be on our executive summaries, that as it comes up, we know that it's recommended by those who reviewed it. Item #14E COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE RE RELOCATION OF THE FORD MOTOR COMPANY COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Final comment, and I picked this up through the grapevine. And I don't know how accurate it is; but, Mr. McNees, we may want to do some homework and find out, Ford Motor Company, once again, talking about leaving and, again, merely a rumor item or a grapevine item, but I don't think it's one we want to let take on any life if it's not true. And if it is true, we probably want to jump on it right away. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think we've expressed an interest in dialogue with them and have had it in the past with a coalition of individuals. So, Mr. McNees, if you could somewhat reactivate that and see if the grapevine is true. Commissioner Mac'Kie, on the last item you just mentioned, I am all for our staff being a position advocate, but I think it's incumbent upon this board that if our staff advocates a position and we disagree with it, not to -- not to verbally abuse people on this dais because there has in the past been commissioners that will -- that enjoyed that for some strange reason. And I think if we're going to ask our staff to advocate positions, then we need to be responsible and mature in how we -- if we disagree, we disagree and go on. But I think there is some fear about advocating positions on the staff level for that reason. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But why do we have -- I mean, certainly, and I don't think you're suggesting that I have been -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Not you, no. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm referring to past boards. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Good. But -- but we have professional staff because they are professional staff, and I want their recommendations, and then I'll choose to accept or reject it for my vote, but I want recommendations from professional staff. And that's what I was disappointed with in the environmental issue that was here today, is I wanted to hear from -- from our staff what their professional recommendation is. And I think that's why they get paid. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Great. Commissioner Norris, I'm sorry. I think I kicked in -- I activated something in you there. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I think your -- we may be getting into the point of sending conflicting signals to the staff, because I think a few years ago -- Commissioner Constantine will verify this -- we sort of directed staff to not give us recommendations on land use items in particular and some others like that. Now, if we're going to reverse that, we need to make that a formal decision because we're sending conflicting -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I can explain why we suggested that at the time, was what we had was -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If I clarify my comment, you may not need to. I was referring to exactly what Commissioner Hac'Kie said, that the professional opinions, you know, as a -- as a biologist, as a -- a whatever, you can render an opinion. But I'm not saying that they should become an advocate for the petition, no, sir. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that was the problem. If they were advocating a particular angle, they weren't prepared to discuss the facts on other angles. And I think what we've looked at and say if there are various alternatives, we want to have factual information on all the alternatives. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't want to undo that, agreed. Item #14F COMMISSIONER HANCOCK RE SPECIALTY LICENSE PLATES The only item I have is from Hation County; I have a request to support something from them that is to provide a lic -- specialty license plate to promote adoption of children in lieu of women terminating unwanted pregnancies. Whether you agree or disagree with the idea, I think the bottom idea is we've got enough license plates, and I don't think we need to start making issue license plates, whether you agree or disagree with the subject matter. I have no intent of responding to this, but I felt it only appropriate to bring it to the board. If you wish me to do so as the chairman, I will. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree. I think we have 38 State of Florida license plates now, and that's plenty. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. I think -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: If we keep making more specialty license plates, we're going to have to expand Guy Carlton's building one more time. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Everyone can have their own plate. Okay. In that case there will be no response to that letter. Staff communications, Mr. Weigel. Item #15A ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY STUDENT RE APPEAL OF CIRCUIT COURT DECISION RE NAPLES BATH AND TENNIS CLUB - BCC DIRECTION TO PROCEED WITH APPEAL HR. WEIGEL: Yes, thank you. Three brief things. I'm going to ask Hargie Student to address the board briefly in regard to a recent court decision. Hargie. MS. STUDENT: For the record, Harjorie Student, assistant county attorney. This is a little bit of deja vu, but you recall the Naples Bath and Tennis Club PUD required the Planning Commission to give site plan approval for an accessory use identified in that PUD for a hotel facility accessory to the tennis academy. The Planning Commission heard that in June and approved it, and it was appealed by -- to circuit court by the property owners. Last week we received an order from the circuit court overturning the Planning Commission's decision. We feel that it is in a very good posture to take an appeal, and we would like board authorization to do that because the court based its decision upon items that were totally outside of the record and never presented to the Planning Commission, and even if they had been, we had staff testimony that there was nothing in the PUD that stood as an impediment to that. That was also the opinion of our office, and we feel the court, even though it was improper, misconstrued the provisions of the PUD that it's based its decision on. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Since you're requesting board action -- we're under communications. Mr. Weigel, I don't believe that's appropriate. MR. WEIGEL: Well, we wanted to inform you. It's actually -- even a consensus. It's just that we would -- we would normally proceed to preserve this as an issue to the next level, and we're not looking for a formal vote. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: But if there's a consensus, we'll just go forward, and we wanted to inform you -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, of what Miss Student has said. Then we're operating on a premise that won't hold up in court, and I would want to appeal that. MR. WEIGEL: The county is not a stake holder as such. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. MR. WEIGEL: But at the same time we think that the method of analysis is err -- erroneous here. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I think since we base a lot of our decisions on the fact that the record alone enters the court system after it's being heard, if something other than that is occurring, we need to clarify it one way or the other. And if the only way to do that is through appeal, I would be supportive. I see two heads shaking, three, four, okay, that's five. Item #15B COUNTY ATTORNEY WEIGEL RE CONTRACT REVIEWS MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. The other item is in regard to contract review or contract invention, if you will. So much of the time the county attorney office reviews contracts for legal sufficiency. They may be sufficient. They may not necessarily be operationally the tightest or necessarily have a point of view. And to a certain extent maybe that comes from attorney experience as to how much we want as attorneys to involve ourselves in the business process of the contract. I think we're going to involve ourselves a little more so in that regard. We understand those things quite well. Item #15C COUNTY ATTORNEY WEIGEL RE REQUEST FROM FORMER COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF TRAVEL EXPENSES Lastly, I bring up the fact that the chairman had received a letter from an attorney on behalf of former Commissioner Matthews in regard to the reimbursement request the board had made officially November 19th at the board meeting. And the response letter was, in fact, a request for reimbursement for some expenses of approximately $281 incurred in November and December for Miss Matthews and, well, a categorical rejection of her previous offer to refund 60 percent of the Leadership Florida costs and a rejection of the board's request and -- and -- and follow-up correspondence of an 80 percent payment of the Leadership Florida costs. The request of the attorney on behalf of former Commissioner Matthews is that this reimbursement of the $281-plus dollars be made promptly. I am prepared, based on the previous board action, to file a response that there is an outstanding determined obligation of the board, an obligation upon Miss Matthews to make the payment. We have the opportunity at whatever point that the board may direct to file in small claims court if we wish to. I'm not necessarily recommending that at this point. It may be that Miss Matthews through her attorney may or may not decide to file in small claims court for reimbursement of these -- of these -- of her reimbursement request, upon which time the county would assert its appropriate responsive request for significant more reimbursement and, of course, than the nothing that it's received so far. I just wanted to inform the board that as nothing more than an attorney professional protocol, I would be responding to this attorney in the negative to his request for reimbursement inviting them to resolve the issue based upon the previous determination of the board. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would think, at most, if -- if they're appropriate reimbursement expenses, you could credit that against what she owes the taxpayers of Collier County, but I wouldn't be willing to do any more than that. MR. WEIGEL: Well, based on the fact that they're November, December expenses, it would appear that they are beyond your original determination of what would be reimbursable. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And all those, again, I think, is consistent with the previous board action, is that all those expenditures that are consistent with board policies through the term of her office are eligible for reimbursement but not until the taxpayer is repaid for those dollars that we originally requested. Commissioner Mac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just one comment. I think that as unpleasant as all of this is, that we need to be as consistent with this as we're trying to be with other county issues and -- and develop a board policy because just for example, I mean, with -- with the county attorney leaving, Mr. Cuyler, I would imagine -- and correct me, please, if I'm wrong -- that we had -- the county had paid, for example, his Collier County Bar dues for the year. When he left, does he owe the county back a pro rata two months if there were two months left in that calendar year of bar dues? So let's -- let's develop a standard policy. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If you want to add that for -- for an item on a future agenda, I don't have a problem with it, because the difference there is he has to be a member of the bar to be our county attorney. This was an elective opportunity for someone. The two are very, very different. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And it may well be -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- that a policy would distinguish between them -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And, frankly, the fact that Commissioner Matthews is going to go to a very expensive hotel in March and again in Hay and spend the weekend with Leadership Florida people is of clearly no benefit to the public anymore, and so I think that's -- you're right. We need to have a policy. There's a clear distinction in those cases. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm not suggesting there's not a distinction. I'm asking that we develop an across-the-board policy. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I have no problem with you wanting to put that together and put it on a future agenda. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Anyone else? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Miss Filson. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Miss Filson. MS. FILSON: Nothing. MR. HcNEES: I have -- Item #15D ACTING COUNTY MANAGER RE STAFF PREPARATION OF AGENDA ITEHS COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Forgot about the county manager. MR. HcNEES: -- just two brief items by way of response to a couple of your communication issues. I want to make it clear that your concerns today regarding accuracy and completeness of executive summaries have been duly noted. Some of you may recall from your productivity committee days a number of years ago that we went through an exhaustive process of redefining how we write fiscal impact statements and how we deal with the financial part of executive summaries. It may be time for us to take a little bit harder look at the other information. What I would ask you is -- what staff wants is to give you what you need to make your decisions, and so as we go through this, if you'll continue to communicate with me and with even the other staff members, we want to bring you what you want, and we'll make a concerted effort to do that. The other thing regarding the Ford Motor Company, I have a meeting already scheduled with a gentleman representing Ford who wants to talk about the things that they need to be able to continue to do business here, and I'll keep you all informed on what those things are and what the process will be so that we don't let that one slip away. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. McNees. Is there anything further? Seeing none, the meeting is adjourned. Commissioner Mac'Kie moved, seconded by Commissioner Norris and carried 4/0 (Commissioner Hancock out), that the following items under the consent agenda be approved and/or adopted: Item #16A1 ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES FOR CAMELOT PARK AT THE VINEYARDS - SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS O.R. Book Pages Item #16B1 PROPOSAL FROM HASKINS, INC. TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF PURCHASE ORDER NO. 702227, TO PROVIDE FOR THE REPAIR OF AN EXISTING RECLAIMED WATER MAIN PRIOR TO CONNECTION OF A NEW MAIN WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY OF DAVIS BOULEVARD - IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,550 Item #1682 AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE A REPLACEHENT 580L BACKHOE THROUGH STATE BID #38-760-001 FROM FALCON POWER IN THE A_MOUNT OF $50,862.00 Item #1683 BUDGET A_MENDHENT TO FUND NECESSARY HODIFICATIONS TO THE NAPLES LANDFILL LEACHATE PUMP STATION Item #16C1 BUDGET A_MENDHENT RECOGNIZING AN ADDITIONAL $29,989 IN STATE AID TO LIBRARIES IN FY 97 Item #16C2 AUTHORIZATION FOR THE PARKS AND RECREATION/SOLID WASTE DEPARTHENTS TO PURCHASE RECYCLED PLAYGROUND SPORTS TURF FROM CONTRACT CONNECTIONS, INC. FOR THE THE GOLDEN GATE COHMUNITY CENTER PLAYGROUND PROJECT UTILIZING THE FLORIDA STATE NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT PRICING SCHEDULE CONTRACT - IN THE A_MOUNT OF $40,000.00 Item #16C3 ACCEPTANCE OF $30,000 FLORINET ENHANCED CONNECTIVITY ASSISTANCE GRANT (LEVEL II) FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SERVICES, AND THAT THE FUNDS BE PLACED IN EXPENDITURE ACCOUNTS Item #16D1 ACCEPTANCE OF DRAINAGE EASEHENT FROH VINCENT W. HALERBA AND KATHLEEN H. HALERBA WHO OWN LOTS 11 AND 12, BLOCK 37, MARCO BEACH UNIT TWO, MARCO ISLAND, FLORIDA, TO ALLOW THE RELOCATION OF AN EXISTING STORM DRAIN Item #16D2 RECOHMENDATION TO DECLARE CERTAIN COUNTY-OWNED PROPERTY AS SURPLUS AND AUTHORIZE A SALE OF THE SURPLUS PROPERTY Item #16D3 BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING CARRY FORWARD IN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUND 505 Item #16D4 ASSIGNMENT OF THE LAWSUIT TITLED, GREGORY VS. COLLIER COUNTY, CASE #97-0122-CA-01-TB TO DAVID E. BRYANT, ESQUIRE; STAFF AUTHORIZED TO PREPARE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CURRENT CONTRACT BETWEEN DAVID E. BRYANT, ESQUIRE AND THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COHMISSIONERS Item #16El - Deleted Item #16E2 BUDGET AMENDMENTS 97-142 AND 97-147 Item #16G 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: There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:09 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK TIMOTHY L. HANCOCK, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Barbara A. Donovan