Loading...
BCC Minutes 04/08/1997 RTRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, April 8, 1997 LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members ALSO PRESENT: present: CHAIRMAN: VICE-CHAIRMAN: ABSENT: Timothy L. Hancock Barbara Berry John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine Pamela S. Hac'Kie Hike HcNees, Interim County Hanager David Weigel, County Attorney Item #3 AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good morning. I want to call to order the April 8th meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. This morning it's a pleasure to have the Reverend George Lockhart from First Baptist Church of Golden Gate here. Reverend Lockhart, are you here? In that case it was a pleasure to have invited him. Mr. McNees, would you be so kind as to lead us in invocation and the pledge, please? MR. McNEES: Yes, sir. Our Heavenly Father, we ask your blessings this morning as we gather here to conduct the business of Collier County. We ask that you grant us wisdom as we face the difficult decisions that we have to make. We thank you for the opportunity to participate in a free and open way in the creation and the operation of this government. We ask these things in the name of thy son, Jesus. Amen. (Pledge of Allegiance recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Good morning, Mr. McNees. MR. McNEES: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. We have two changes to the agenda and one change to the change list this morning. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. McNEES: We are adding item 8(A) l, which is modification of an excavation permit related to two of your capital projects, the Bathey property effluent pond construction site and the Sugden Park site, a time sensitive issue where we can save quite a bit of money. The second change that you see on your change list has been deleted. We are not adding item 9(A) as an item that was requested by the clerks's office. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. McNEES: We are, also, adding item 10(B) which is a review of the itinerary of the county manager candidates at Commissioner Berry's request. Those would be the only changes we have this morning. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. For the record, Commissioner Mac'Kie will not be here this morning. Only four members of the board are present. All public petitions were noticed of that before and allowed to move their petition to another day if they so choose. Commissioner Norris, do you have any additions or changes? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: No, I do not. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry? COMHISSIONER BERRY: Nothing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No changes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I have no changes either. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I will make a motion we approve the agenda and the consent agenda as amended. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I will second that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. Any discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none. Item #4 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 18, 1997 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion we approve the minutes of March 18th, 1997 regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none. Item #5A1 PROCLAivLATION DESIGNATING APRIL 7-13, 1997, AS PUBLIC HEALTH WEEK - ADOPTED Number 5(A)(1) proclamations. First proclamation, Commissioner Constantine, deals with Public Health Week. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Our own Dr. Konigsberg is with us. If you will come on up, turn around and give a wave to everyone in TV land, and we will read the following proclamation: WHEREAS, recognizing that an annual celebration of Public Health Week in Florida and Collier County will increase awareness and understanding of the importance for a strong public health policy; and WHEREAS, realizing that Public Health Week is a community outreach effort to deliver health promotion messages directly to the community, ensuring that the general public and professionals have an opportunity to participate in the program and improve their understanding of and appreciation for the vital impact public health has upon shaping a healthier future; and WHEREAS, public health services benefit the entire population of Collier County, and are among the highest priorities of Collier County government; and WHEREAS, greater public knowledge and awareness of helpful behavior are cost-effective and contribute significantly to the reduction of needless suffering; and WHEREAS, public health professionals and others who promote public health play important roles in providing for health and welfare of our citizens and their efforts undertaken with genuine concern and compassion are worthy of widespread praise and appreciation; and WHEREAS, Public Health Week also recognizes the coalition of public and private health agencies, foundations, academia and health-related enterprises that are working to promote healthy behavior; NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of April 7 through 13, 1997 be designated as Public Health Week. DONE AND ORDERED this 8th day of April, 1997. BCC, Timothy L. Hancock, AICP, Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion we approve this proclamation. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none. Do you have any comments, Dr. Konigsberg? DR. KONIGSBERG: Well, just that I very much appreciate this. There will be a number of activities this week in recognition of Public Health Week, including some activities this weekend at the mall, and urge everybody to go out and participate, and thank you very much for this recognition. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Dr. Konigsberg, and welcome to Collier County. First chance to formally do that. Item #5A2 PROCLAivLATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF APRIL 13-19, 1997, AS COLLIER COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT VOLUNTEER WEEK - ADOPTED Secondly, this morning we have another proclamation regarding Law Enforcement Volunteer Week, Commissioner Norris. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Could we have Barbara DeSanzo step forward. Good morning. Face the camera, please, so everyone in television land can see you, and we will read this proclamation. WHEREAS, the week of April 13 to 19, 1997 has been designated as National Volunteer Week; and WHEREAS, the Sheriff of Collier County has designated this week as Collier County Law Enforcement Volunteer Week in appreciation of the dedicated law enforcement volunteers serving this community; and WHEREAS, the desire of the volunteers of the Collier County Sheriff's Office to make Collier County a better place is expressed in their slogan, "Volunteers Make It Happen;" and WHEREAS, the volunteers of the Collier County Sheriff's Office made it happen by unselfishly donating over 18,500 hours of service last year to Collier County citizens; and WHEREAS, the volunteers of the Collier County Sheriff's Office perform in an exemplary, dedicated and conscientious manner in many capacities and environments; and WHEREAS, this proclamation recognizes the tremendous contribution and experience our civilian volunteers bring to the Collier County Sheriff's Office and the community; NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of April 13 to 19 be designated as Collier County Law Enforcement Volunteer Week in honor of those who give so much of themselves to benefit others and to serve the citizens of Collier County. DONE AND ORDERED THIS 8th day of April, 1997, by the Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida. And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that we accept this proclamation. COMHISSIONER BERRY: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Congratulations. MS. DeSANZO: My name is, again, Barbara DeSanzo, and I am the volunteer coordinator currently with the Sheriff's Office, and I would like to thank you very much for approving this proclamation and giving attention to our volunteers and members of the auxiliary, too, that give so much of their time to the agency. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Item #5B EHPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED Next, this morning, we have service awards. Commissioner Berry. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman, it's my pleasure this morning to award a 20-year service award to Joyce Ernst in the Building Review and Permitting Department. Is Joyce here? (Applause) COHMISSIONER BERRY: Congratulations and thank you so much. Item #SA1 HODIFICATION OF DEVELOPHENT EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.560 - BATHEY EXCAVATION - TO COHMERICAL STATUS TO ALLOW OFFSITE HAULING - APPROVED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And also in the area of employee recognition -- the next area under presentations we're going to hold off on a few more minutes. Miss Watson is -- is en route, so to speak, so why don't we go ahead and go on to item 8(A)(1), excavation permit modification to Bathey excavation. Good morning, Mr. Arnold. MR. ARNOLD: Good morning, Commissioners. Wayne Arnold for the record. This is a modification to an excavation permit to allow excess fill material to be removed from your county park site out on the East Trail to the new Sugden Park. Excess fill at that particular site matches about the need at Sugden Park. We believe it's going to save the county in excess of $100,000 in fill costs. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So we're -- we're digging it up from the -- the area where the new effluent ponds are being created -- MR. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- and putting it at Sugden Park, where we need fill, and nobody is selling anything. It's not a cash transaction commercial permit? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do you have any speakers, Mr. McNees? MR. McNEES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. A motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response). CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, motion carries four to zero. Thank you. Item #BE1 COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY AUTHORIZED TO HIRE AN AIRPORT AUTHORITY FINANCE COORDINATOR Next is item 10(A) -- I'm sorry, we have 8(E)(1), board authorization for the Collier County Airport Authority to hire an airport authority finance coordinator. We have Hr. Drury here to address us on this matter. Mr. Drury, I believe you have had the opportunity to speak to each commissioner individually. MR. DRURY: That is correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. DRURY: John Drury, Executive Director of Collier County Airport Authority. The Collier County Airport Authority has done a study to recommend that we hire a finance coordinator whose primary goal is to get this airport authority self sufficient as quickly as possible. There are many, many other financial duties associated with that that are listed in your summary, and I think with that I will be happy to entertain any questions that you may have. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Drury, as we discussed in our meeting as I read the summary, it's my understanding that the hiring of this individual does not result and will not result in out years in an increase in subsidy from ad valorem by the Board of County Commissioners or an increase in loan amounts. In fact, it will even increase the payback time frame, or excuse me, decrease that payback time frame; is that correct? MR. DRURY: Yeah. We're looking at this position being funded true grants and through increased financial management of our revenues at the three airports for fuel. That's not to say the total budget for the airport authority will have impact on ad valorem taxes, but that should be decreasing as the years go down until one year we're self sufficient and actually paying back the board for its investment. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And your fuel sales receipts also exceeded expectations; is that correct? MR. DRURY: At all three airports, that is correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, if there are no public speakers, I will make a motion to approve this item. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Second it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Do we have any speakers on this, Mr. HcNees? MR. HcNEES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. With that, any discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response). CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Drury. MR. DRURY: Thank you. Item #10A DISCUSSION REGARDING BEACH BONFIRES - STAFF TO LOOK INTO MATTER FURTHER AND REPORT BACK TO THE BCC REGARDING AMENDING THE ORDINANCE TO ALLOW FOR BONFIRES ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS AND APPROVAL OF THE BCC CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Next is item 10(A), discussion regarding beach bonfires. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That was mine. It just occurred to me as we just finished up school season and school vacation and we will be having summer vacation in six or eight or ten weeks -- I don't know the school schedule. The success of Johnnie Nocera's beach bonfire last year -- we have a policy that prohibits that, blanket prohibition, and wondered if it might not be worth having Mr. Weigel do a little homework and at least entertain, under special conditions, allowing those, whether we had one of those during summer vacation or had something, but make a choice on an item-by-item basis, but at least open up. Right now my understanding is we're not allowed to do that at all by ordinance. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My personal feeling on that -- my experience in Tampa was that we had an area that people went out and routinely built bonfires on. It eventually was made illegal, because people would not appropriately care for them afterwards, and individuals were getting hurt the next day because they were still hot, they weren't taken care of properly. If we are going to look at something like this, it would in my opinion have to be in designated pit areas that are constructed that can be rented or reserved. There would also have to be monies set aside. I mean, there are certain requirements that the fire department can -- can list to make it safer, but .... COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree wholeheartedly. I am just saying right now we prohibit it no matter what. It might be worth looking at to see are there circumstances under which we would allow. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Could I ask, are you proposing that -- that private peoples just be allowed to go down and do that or are you saying that this would be government-sponsored or supervised? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm suggesting that any event would have to come before the board for approval, so yeah, government supervised in some way. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Olliff. MR. OLLIFF: For the record, Tom Olliff your public services administrator. We have, actually, as a result of the board's authorization of a bonfire at Sugden Regional Park, was attempting to use that as a test, and the staff has developed a couple of policy options that are working their way already through the parks and rec advisory board so that they will come to you probably within the next 30 to 45 days. So we have already been surveying other counties in Florida, have their policies, those that do allow bonfires, and also have some information on fire rings that are used up north at some of the Great Lakes areas, so hopefully you will already have something in the works that you will be able to look at in the way of a policy format shortly. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Does anyone have an objection to giving direction to Mr. -- I believe, Mr. Weigel, is that who you're suggesting? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Only because we have an ordinance that prohibits it right now, so he would probably be the appropriate one to amend that if we choose to. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Is there any objection to that? MR. WEIGEL: For clarification, I would be happy particularly working with Mr. Olliff and other county staff, of course, to either bring back to you some suggestions as to how it might be modified. I know there is a difference between bonfires and camp fires. The current ordinance prohibitions are in regard to any fires on the beach whatsoever, so we can bring back a package that discusses permitting, liability, coordinating with local fire officials in case there are no-burn periods that might be kind of preeminent over and need to enter our permitting review phase and things like that, so I think we can bring back something that would be very good for board discussion. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So if I can summarize, we're going to ask Mr. Weigel to work with Mr. Olliff in bringing back some -- some language for amendment to the ordinance to allow for bonfires; we're not talking about camp fires here. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. Bonfires, case-by-case basis requiring approval of the board. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Any objections to that? I don't think we need a specific motion. Thank you. Item #5C1 CHERYL WILSON-WATSON, EMS DEPARTMENT, SUPPORT SERVICE DIVISION, RECOGNIZED AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR APRIL, 1997 We are pleased to have with us an employee to be recognized as the Employee of the Month for April, 1997. Cheryl Wilson Watson is here. Cheryl, if I could ask you to come on up and so we can sufficiently embarrass you. I hope the VCR is running at home. Cheryl is a nine-year employee with Collier County EMS and was nominated by a co-worker and her supervisor. According to her supervisor, Cheryl puts 110 percent into the daily routine and always has a smile, and she's proving that this morning. She does a superior job, displays an unequaled positive attitude, and exercises diplomacy with customers and co-workers in, and in EMS that's tough. Cheryl is an example of a world-class employee. Without any reservations she was nominated and selected as employee of the month for April, 1997. Miss Watson, it is a pleasure this morning to present you with a letter of congratulations from the Board of County Commissioners, a $50 check to use as you see fit, and a plaque to hang in the back of your unit so everyone can see. (Applause) MS. WATSON: Commissioners, I would like to say -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Please use the microphone. MS. WATSON: Good morning, everybody. This is a very special award for me, and I want to thank my partner, Dave Kitchen, for nominating me for this. He's been a paramedic in our system for 18 years. Also, this $50 check today means something more to me. There was a call I had in Immokalee one day, and a 64-year-old woman had fallen and fractured her ankle. I checked on her a month ago later after surgery. She hasn't been able to work because of the swelling. She works in a packing house, so Miss Gadston (phonetic), today this check is for you. God bless you. Thank you. (Applause) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: She just got into the running for citizen of the year, too. Thank you. Very nice. That's pretty indicative of the care that our EMS people provide, and I think we're all proud of that. Item #10B REVIEW OF ITINERARY OF THE COUNTY MANAGER CANDIDATES - STAFF TO FOLLOW SCHEDULE OF COHMISSIONER BERRY'S MEMO. RECEPTION TO BE HELD ON APRIL 23, 1997 FROM 5:30 P.M. - 7:30 P.M. AT THE PHILHARMONIC. A BREAKFAST AND LUNCHEON ALSO TO BE HELD We are to item 10(B), review of itinerary for the county manager candidates. Commissioner Berry has been -- has been very -- I don't know -- nice to put together some things that have changed the itinerary and agenda for the folks that are coming in for interviews, I think much to the positive. I have given you all, this morning, a list of those changes, none of which actually -- they actually reduce the cost that the board would have been paying for the reception at the museum. That has been changed to a reception at the Phil from 5:30 to 7:30. The invitees are as shown and as discussed by this board with a couple of additions being people from the educational community, such as Dr. McTarnaghan from the university, Lou Traina from Edison Community College. In addition, the Chambers of Commerce have stepped forward to offer to the candidates breakfast to get a chance to meet with them and learn some more about the area. These parts are not mandatory. If the applicants wish to take the Chamber up on its offer, they can. The only thing we're asking they attend is the evening reception, the interviews, hopefully, and the -- I believe there's a luncheon that also is -- is anticipated they would attend. There is also the opportunity to give them an informative flight through the -- through the county to give them an overview of the geographic size and separation of some of our communities and areas. That's all spelled out for you in this memorandum, and because the board had discussed a set reception and location, I wanted this to come back before the board for your approval with any changes. And are there any questions or comments on -- on the memorandum you have in front of you? Seeing none, we gave specific direction to -- previously to handle things in a certain way. I assume that we will just go ahead and -- and direct staff to complete the schedule as outlined by Mr. Salmon in the memorandum for April 7, 1997. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. And Commissioner Berry, thank you once again for doing the leg work and putting that together. I for one am very appreciative. PUBLIC COMMENT - STAN OLDS DISCUSSION REGARDING SUPPORT OF THE FORD TEST TRACK AND DOROTHY FITCH REGARDING RECEPTION FOR COUNTY MANAGER CANDIDATES AND BEING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC We are to the public comment for the morning. Do we have any speakers this morning? MR. McNEES: You have one, Mr. Chairman, Stan Olds. MR. OLDS: I didn't expect to get here so early. Ladies and gentlemen of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners, I am Stan Olds, Co-President of the Taxpayer's Action Group of Collier County. Today I am speaking to you about a facility in Collier County which is an exemplary good citizen of this country -- county both economically and environmentally. This enterprise generates over 100 jobs and contributes millions to the local economy. It is also recognized nationally for its advanced and effective technology and practices in protecting the environment. What is this enterprise? It is the Ford Motor Company's global test operation located on 540 acres in east Collier County. To review some of the past record, in addition to over 100 local jobs, one, the Ford Motor Company, through this enterprise, has loaned the Collier County Sheriff's Department more than 58 cars valued at more than $700,000. This equates to a most effective tax cost savings to Collier County taxpayers. Two, the Sheriff's Department deputies and the City of Naples Police Department deputies receive defensive driving -- driver testing and driver training gratis from Ford through this enterprise. Again, a most effective tax cost savings for the people of Collier County. Three, the Naples Community Hospital, the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the Vo-Tech Center are other local community beneficiaries. Four, this local Ford global test operation's environmental program is a role model for the nation. It is fast emerging as a world model, not only for Ford, but also for other companies internationally. Five, this Ford installation won the "Keep America Beautiful" national award over a field of 160 contestants. Is there any other local entity that can make the same environmental claim. Six, during the winter months when testing is precluded in Dearborn, because of the severe weather in Michigan, Ford sends its engineers, executives, test drivers, design specialists and environmental experts to Naples. Why? To keep a time line continuity in testing. This continuity is a key element in making Ford competitive internationally. This continuity helps hundreds of thousands of our countrymen working. This continuity helps keep Ford auto prices affordable for the American people. This continuity generates millions of dollars in our local economy through jobs, condo rentals, hotel occupancy, restaurant patronage, retail purchases, etc., etc. In doing so it significantly adds to the local tourist tax revenues, sales tax revenues and property tax revenues. Firsthand inspection of this facility demonstrated state-of-the-art environmental care and precision in recycling waste water, oils, and any damaging materials occurring on the site. In addition, this firsthand inspection demonstrated no noise pollution at this site. Collier County has a five-star neighbor in the Golden Gate area. To lose such a neighbor will be a significant setback for the people and taxpayers of Collier County. The Taxpayer's Action Group of Collier County urges you to support the Ford global test operations in Collier County. This enterprise is vital to the county today, but more importantly it is in the interest of future generations, our children and our grandchildren. Thank you very much for your kind attention. Appreciate it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Olds. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Olds, Mr. Olds. Excuse me, Mr. Olds. MR. OLDS: Yes. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Is there anything at all that you can think of that gives you evidence that would -- that makes you think that the Collier County Commission has not supported the Ford test track? MR. OLDS: Yes, privately I can tell you more, but I would rather say that I don't know what the Collier County is doing, and that's why I have been trying to find out, and as far as I know there's a -- there's litigation against the county and the global test track, and from that point of view, I don't know what the Collier County is doing to support the global test track. And I would like to see some action by the County Board. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I might suggest you direct those questions to the County Hanager's Office, but I can assure you that we are very supportive of the Ford test track and are doing everything in our ability to -- to keep them here. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In effect, Mr. Olds, we also entered an agreement in which they constructed a sound pad, and the county agreed that should something occur and that sound pad have to be removed, that we would jointly work with them in the cost of removal of that sound pad. We have worked with them and offered to go to Dearborn to meet with their individuals to discuss the importance of their track to this community. We have taken those steps, and I -- I thought they were fairly apparent. They were even reported very well, when they occurred, in the local media. So I am a little -- I am a little confused by you saying you're not sure what we have done, because there actually is a track record of this board listing the support of Ford Motor Company's presence in this community. So what I would ask is if you will speak with the County Manager's Office, he can probably detail those steps for you and what may be in the future. MR. OLDS: Well, I would like to speak to him, because from -- my understanding is that there this lawsuit, and it's an environmental type of thing. And from what I have seen out there, this place is just -- well, it's unbelievable. It's just beautiful the way they handle everything in the way of environmental control. You could almost spit on the floor and they have already wiped it up and recycled it. I mean, that's the strange part of the whole thing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think you will find that we agree with you, but, however, you know, spending tax dollars by entering as a third party in a lawsuit is not typical. However, from a position of their presence in this community, we are very supportive as a board and I believe will continue to be. I appreciate your comments, but I think Mr. McNees can help you. MR. OLDS: I think Mr. Norris has gone to Dearborn on this, if I'm not mistaken; have you in the past? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, sir. I try not to go north of Bonita. MR. OLDS: Well, the weather does get bad. Anyway, thank you very much. Appreciate it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. McNEES: For the board's information as well as Mr. Olds, the administrative appeal of the water management permit, which is I believe what he's speaking about as opposed to a lawsuit, was not heard when it was scheduled a week ago, and the attorneys, to my understanding, were put on notice if they can't find a time to reschedule it, it is going to be dismissed by the -- by the governing board. In addition, I will be meeting next week with Mr. Sear (phonetic), who is the manager of the track here, and his boss from Michigan just to make sure that everything is on track and that we are communicating. So that -- that's been ongoing, just for your information. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, we encourage that to continue, and thank you. Any other public speakers? MR. McNEES: Yes, you have one registered, Dorothy Fitch. MS. FITCH: Good morning. Dorothy Fitch representing the League of Women Voters. This goes back to your previous discussion about the reception for the candidates. As you know, the League is big on meet-the-candidates projects, and we appreciate the fact that at your April 24th meeting you will have TV cameras running where the public can meet the candidates, but we also feel very strongly that the reception that you anticipate having the previous day should be open to the public who are concerned with actually shaking hands, perhaps, with the candidates. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ms. Fitch, I am sorry. We have always said it's open to the public. Where have we said it's closed to the public? MS. FITCH: You didn't say either way. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No, ma'am, we did. MS. FITCH: So I'm just bringing it out. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So are we. It is open to the public, because all five commissioners are in attendance. It will be advertised as a public meeting. MS. FITCH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. That ends the public comment. We are to the afternoon portion of our meeting, and I like saying that at 9:35 in the morning. Item #12C1 STIPULATED SETTLEHENT AGREEHENT BETWEEN FLORIDA DEPARTHENT OF COHMUNITY AFFAIRS, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, HARBOR DEVELOPMENT, INC., AND FAKAHATCHEE RESOURCES, INC. FOR THE PURPOSE OF SETTLING FLORIDA LAND AND WATER ADJUDICATORY COHMISSION CASE NUMBER APP-96-018 IN WHICH PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT APPROVAL FOR THE FAKAHATCHEE SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION AT PORT OF THE ISLANDS BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COHMISSION WAS CHALLENGED FOR FAILURE TO MEET THE BIG CYPRESS AREA OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN REGULATIONS FOR SITE ALTERATION - APPROVED Item 12(C)(1), recommendation the board consider for approval a stipulated settlement agreement regarding Port of the Islands. Mr. Arnold, good morning. MR. ARNOLD: Good morning. Wayne Arnold, Planning Services Director. This is a supplement agreement that you would enter in between the Department of Community Affairs, Collier County, and Harbor Development Company. It involves a single platted subdivision on the north portion of Port of the Islands. The preliminary subdivision plat was challenged by the Department of Community Affairs for possible inconsistencies with area critical state concern requirements. Staff felt at the time that it did not. Our interpretation was that it was consistent with those requirements. After negotiation between the Department of Community Affairs, Harbor Development and the county, the developer is able to bring back a development that meets the DCA's requirements and still retains the original intent to place 35 single-family homes on the tract of land, still, we believe, consistent with county policy. It does result in lesser impact to unimpacted lands on this tract. The impact is just about 18 acres on the total development. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Arnold, at this point DCA is happy with this, the private entity is happy with this, and the county staff thinks it's appropriate? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. Yes, this will have to go back through planning commission as an amendment to the original preliminary subdivision plat. Then it will eventually come to you as a subdivision plat. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think your comment is leading to something so .... COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, just -- if nobody who is involved in this has any opposition, I'm not sure it takes a lot of discussion. MR. ARNOLD: All parties involved at this point -- unless there's some members of the public here in opposition -- we're all supportive of the agreement. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. HcNees, do we have any speakers on this item? MR. HcNEES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Is there anything that the petitioner would like to get on the record? MR. DUANE: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I will close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, motion carries four to zero. Mr. Arnold and Mr. Duane, thank you very much. Item #12C2 RESOLUTION 97-200 RE PETITION AV-96-033, JOHN W. FAGERAND CHARLES W., HARTHA, HARK AND DARLENE MILLER, OWNERS, REQUESTING VACATION OF ALL PUBLIC INTEREST IN A PORTION OF A SIXTY FOOT ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY KNOWN AS 10TH STREET NORTH, PLATTED AS FIRST AVENUE ON THE PLAT OF BAD AXE SUBDIVISION - ADOPTED Item 12(C)(2) petition -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: For the record, that was Bob Duane who was representing the petitioner. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. I forgot that. Item 12(C)(2), petition AV 96-033, John Fager and Charles, HArtha, Mark and Darlene Miller requesting vacation of a 60-foot right-of-way. Good morning, Mr. Bobanick. MR. BOBANICK: Good morning. For the record, my name is Dave Bobanick, Transportation Director. Commissioners, this is the petition AV 96-033, a request to the board to consider a petition from John Fager, Charles, HArtha, Mark and Darlene Miller to vacate an unused and unopened portion of 10th Street North in the Bad Axe subdivision. Mr. Fager has mowed and maintained the unused right-of-way for 41 years and desires to plant trees in the vacated area when it becomes vacated. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just 41 years; is that all? MR. BOBANICK: Based on letters of no objection from the user agencies and potential increase in property value, staff recommends approval of this resolution for vacation. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The Bad Axe subdivision. VOICE FROM AUDIENCE: That's a-x-e. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are there any questions of staff? MR. HcNEES: You do have five registered speakers. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Why don't we hear from representative of the petitioner first if you have anything to -- is there someone here on behalf of the petitioner on this matter? There is not. Okay. Let's go ahead and go to -- VOICE FROM THE AUDIENCE: (Inaudible) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Sir, unfortunately I can't converse with you out in the audience. We need to -- are you the petitioner? VOICE FROM THE AUDIENCE: One or them. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. If you would come forward, please. I need your name for the record. MR. FAGER: My name is John Fager. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. FAGER: And I have lived at 1000 Michigan Avenue for 42 years now. If there's no objections, I don't need to talk, but if there is objection, I would like to. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The five individuals registered to speak, are they all with you as petitioners or are they -- MR. FAGER: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. They are not, okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are any of the five opposed? VOICE FROM THE AUDIENCE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Are there any reasons that you feel this board should have to support this vacation that you would like to get on the record at this point. MR. FAGER: He? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, sir. MR. FAGER: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. FAGER: I -- I can't see anything but -- but a benefit to the -- to the county, because this land has been sitting there for -- forever since God made it, and it's going to because there's -- this roadway that we're talking about, there's no place for it to go. In other words, the adjoining subdivision has no provisions for a roadway. There's actually a -- a parking lot there for the coastal -- Gulf Coast Bank. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. FAGER: And it can't go anywhere. The benefit to the county is we would pay taxes on that property now. They have had a benefit for some 40 years with really us taking care of it, and I can't see any reason why the county wouldn't want that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you very much. We will go ahead and call the registered speakers, please. MR. McNEES: Tom Trettis would be followed by Anthony DePiero. MR. TRETTIS: I oppose the -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry, your name for the record, please. MR. TRETTIS: Yeah, I'm sorry. Thomas Timothy Trettis, Jr., and I am here as a property owner. I received this notice of the public hearing. I do not live there. I do own property there, and I own some property on 12th Street, which is, also, as I recall, in the Bad Axe subdivision. And I have been -- I'm here on my own behalf and also on behalf of my son, Timothy Trettis, who lives on 12th Street North. Mary Adams, who lives on 1051 Michigan, said I could -- asked if I would represent her in this case. I -- I talked to some of the people in the area about the vacation, and we made up a -- a very hasty petition of those few I could talk to in the limited time I had, and it's -- I'll give this to the -- the manager. It states, we, the undersigned, object to and oppose the vacation of the above right-of-way known as 10th Street North of the Bad Axe subdivision, plat book four, page ten, public records of Collier County. Signed by me; Steven Walters, 1061 Michigan Avenue; Wayne Cochrane, 1151 Michigan; and as I say, I am also representing Timothy Trettis and Mary Adams. The general rule of law, as I recall, is that vacation of a street or right-of-way should only be entered into by a municipality or county if it's in the public interest or if it serves a public -- some public interest, and I don't think this does that. It's obviously serving a private interest. I did call one of the gentlemen involved with the -- one of the owners of the properties and tried to explain to him that the -- what's happening here is the adjoining owners of property, of course, who I think are -- one is just west of it and one east -- we each get 30 feet by about 150 feet. In talking with people in the neighborhood -- and, Tim, you mentioned summer vacation coming up. This street -- Michigan is sometimes almost blocked with children playing -- playing ball in the streets, playing in the streets. I have -- I have seen the neighborhood deputy sheriff wending his way -- wending his way through these children, and it's going to get worse. Someone proposed the idea that perhaps this -- this right-of-way could be used as a mini park, somewhere where the children could throw a ball, kick a soccer ball or whatever. Part of the -- part of this right-of-way has been mowed, but it would appear to me -- and I have been looking at it for about 30 years myself -- is that a -- there's a stand of Australian pines grown up there about 50, 60 feet in the air, and a snake couldn't get through there. But I do have some -- some folks, residents up there who are interested in a -- in a little park there, and I have some people, including myself, that would volunteer some -- some landscaping, etc. just for that. I had hoped that Commissioner Mac'Kie would be here today. That is her district, and I did mention it briefly to her. She, of course, is not here today. That's about all I have. Do any of you have questions? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Trettis, I have two questions. MR. TRETTIS: Sure. MR. HANCOCK: You have thrown up the idea of a park. Are you prepared in any way to guarantee maintenance in perpetuity if this were a park? MR. TRETTIS: No, but I should think that if we're worried about children building bonfires for them on the -- on the beach, we should certainly care about them in our neighborhoods. That's, that's -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry, I'm sorry, was my comment construed to mean I don't care about children? MR. TRETTIS: No, it does not mean that at all. It doesn't mean that at all, but I would think that the county has a program to help out children, and these children are children right now at risk playing in the street. This is -- this is a subdivision of very small -- very small homes, very small lots, very small yards. I wish you would go up there and take a look at it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I know the neighborhood very, very well. MR. TRETTIS: They're wonderful little children as all children are, and I would think that that would be of some concern. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. TRETTIS: There have been some -- but according to some of the neighbors there have been some near misses up there of children playing in the street. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My second question is you said there is no public interest served in vacation of this easement. Currently, the maintenance of that, although it's taken care of privately, if it were not, would become a liability for the public. We would have to maintain and mow it as the county, because it is a county right-of-way. MR. TRETTIS: It's a great asset, too. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In addition -- would you please let me finish? MR. TRETTIS: Sure. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. In addition, if this becomes a park, it becomes, again, a maintenance liability and we have a policy county wide of not funding small neighborhood parks, because they -- financially they just simply can't be done in an economically viable way. So those two things alone kind of eliminate what you call the only public -- or refer to as one of the few public interests that could be served by this parcel. The other side, as the gentleman mentioned, is it would become taxable property, and, therefore, we all who -- who benefit when additional property comes on the tax rolls would receive some benefit. So I think there is some public interest; whether it's sufficient or not is another discussion. MR. TRETTIS: Well, the other item is, and the other people concerned about it, it means commercialism creeps further into a residential neighborhood. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry, commercialism? MR. TRETTIS: Yeah, because one of their -- they're commercial lots. One of the lots west of the -- would profit by a vacation of 30 foot of the right-of-way -- is a commercial operation. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Trettis. MR. TRETTIS: Well, I am not finished. I feel that the rule of law here is simply as I have stated, and I think that's the way to go. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR TRETTIS: Thanks a lot. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. MR HcNEES: Mr. Depiero, and then your final speakers are the petitioners, Charles and Mark Miller registered. MR TRETTIS: Can I say one other comment? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No, sir. MR TRETTIS: I can't? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Your time is expired. MR TRETTIS: Well, how much time did I have? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Five minutes. MR TRETTIS: Did I have five minutes? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, sir. MR DEPIERO: Good morning. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good morning. MR DEPIERO: Tony Depiero. I live at 1070 Michigan Avenue, and I am here -- I am here because Mr. Fager is a good friend of mine. What I would like to -- what I would like to let you know about is Mr. Trettis came over to my house yesterday -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You need to speak into the microphone. MR. DEPIERO: Oh, yeah. You can't hear me? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If you will just face us. The court reporter needs to hear you on the microphone, please. MR. DEPIERO: All right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. DEPIERO: Mr. Trettis came to see me yesterday afternoon, and I had -- I had injured -- I had injured my leg about a minute -- about an hour -- about an hour before then, and I was laying on the couch in pain. So he came over with this petition, and now -- and he said that they were going to cut a road. What is that? That's 10th. That they were going to cut a road from 10th between Michigan and Cypress Hollow Way, I think, or Cypress Way. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Cypress. MR. DEPIERO: Right? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. DEPIERO: And -- and he said that Mr. Fager and Mr. Miller were -- were all for it. That he had spoken to them about it, and that he had spoken to Mike Licht (phonetic) on the corner and Mary Adams, and the guy across the street, too, Steve Miller. All right. So I saw John Fager this morning, and John Fager says -- and I told him about Mr. Trettis coming to see me, and he says, well, who is Mr. Trettis? And I said well, he had this petition here, and he says that there -- that instead of cutting a road, they're going to put a park in there. So I thought that I was -- that I was coerced a little bit the wrong way. So I -- so I personally came here in extreme pain to scratch my name off that list, because I am all for Mr. Fager, and I am not here to damage the integrity of Mr. Trettis, either, but I am just -- I am just here to -- to protect my own interest of -- of -- of signing something that I wasn't -- that I thought was a bad decision on my part. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. DEPIERO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you very much. MR. HcNEES: Charles Miller followed by Mark Miller. VOICE FROM THE AUDIENCE: (inaudible). CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Charles Miller has waived. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mark Miller waives. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mark Miller has waived, also. VOICE FROM THE AUDIENCE: (Inaudible). CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Unfortunately, we -- it's five minutes per person. You cannot waive time to another individual. This isn't the floor of the House or Senate. You only get five minutes per person. VOICE FROM THE AUDIENCE: (Inaudible). CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, then I would encourage you to use your time, then. Thank you. We don't waive to the gentleman from the across the street, unfortunately. MR. MILLER: Thank you. My name is Charles Miller. I have owned some of the property adjacent here for a number of years. My son, Mark Miller, is president of Sunmaster and has been there for 20 years. And we now have this property that's laid fallow for years and has a bunch of Australian pines and melaleucas on it, and I think it would be well for us to take it. If something did happen, we have no plans. If something did happen, I'm sure that between Mr. Fager and I, we would improve the lot by putting up trees, walls, whatever is necessary to protect the property owner. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Can I ask you a question, Mr. Miller? As part of the applicant, what is your intent to use this land for? Do you have any intention of using it for the purposes of commercial expansion? MR. MILLER: We do not at this time, no. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. MILLER: We have no plans. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any questions for Mr. Miller? COHMISSIONER BERRY: How can we -- Mr. Chairman, how can we assure that? Is there anything that we can do to assure that? I mean, I have no objection to somebody -- which would answer the problem if the intention is to simply plant trees or to do something, quote, nice for the property. That probably also benefits anyone who lives in that particular area, but if there's any thought of commercialization of that piece of property, I am not sure how I feel about that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Well, then it would be incumbent upon you to ask that that be a -- if you feel that strongly about it, that would be a stipulation. Mr. Weigel, how many votes does this vacation need? MR. WEIGEL: It only needs three, but, you know, vacation is recognized by statute by operation of law. When a local government vacates land having made the appropriate findings, it just goes to the adjacent land owners, and there is really no condition placed on vacation. It's either vacated or it's public road right-of-way. It -- the -- all of the zoning and every other local, state, environmental regulation that exists would pertain to that owner's added land that comes to him just by operation of law, but to impose restrictions on property that's vacated is -- it's a little untoward. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Miller, did you have anything else to add? MR. MILLER: I guess not. Thank you for listening. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. The next speaker was Mark Miller. Did he -- okay. Is that our last registered speaker, Mr. McNees? MR. McNEES: Yes, sir. MR. MARK MILLER: My name is Mark Miller. I am president of Sunmaster Awning, and the conversation we had with Mr. Fager just a little while ago -- he has lived there for 42 years, had lots that he mows that are vacant, that the kids play in all the time. So he's noting that for the record, also. Other than that, I have nothing else to say. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Miller. Close the public hearing. I do have a question, Mr. Bobanick. Will you help me with the land uses surrounding this parcel? Directly to the east we have a commercial building; what is that, specifically? MR. BOBANICK: Directly to the east? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That would be the left side of the survey. I'm sorry, it is the west, thank you. MR. BOBANICK: The west side. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Directly to the west, because the east is Mr. Fager. To the west we have what? What is that use? MR. BOBANICK: I'm not certain. I can't answer that at this time. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that Sunmaster? MR. MILLER: It's Pelican Crest. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Miller, Mark Miller, has told us that it's Pelican Crest. That's okay. Thank you. To the south I see a parking lot. Do we know what that parking lot is or to? MR. BOBANICK: No, I do not. MR. MILLER: That's to the bank. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Miller has indicated that it's to the bank. Okay, okay. So we have -- this piece is on two sides surrounded by commercial on one side, a house, who is a part of the application. Okay. I'm sorry, Commissioner Constantine has a question. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If Commissioner Norris has questions, that's fine, because I'm going to make a motion. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, is it in the board's purview to fezone that particular piece of property to some other use than commercial? MR. WEIGEL: It can be -- it can be done through the rezoning processes that we, the county, have. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: As I understand it, it's -- it's a 60-foot wide easement. Thirty feet would go to the property east; thirty feet would go to the property owner on the west. MR. WEIGEL: That is correct. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If we were to look at the 30 feet on the west if we wanted to make sure that it was not used for commercial purposes in the future, would we then be able to fezone that 30 feet on the west to some other usage? MR. WEIGEL: Yes, I think we're going into a little uncharted territory here where the county would be rezoning road right-of-way prior to vacating. I don't, in my history, recall that. Road right-of-way is road right-of-way, and -- and isn't generally subject to being commercial or not. It is road right-of-way or some other zoning determination. While it exists, it's road right-of-way. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think legally we cannot make a de facto fezone by today's action. MR. WEIGEL: Not by today's action, no. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No, not by today's action. That wasn't what I intended. What I was considering was to talk to that property owner, if he has no objection, that we could bring that -- that action forward and do the vacation simultaneously, perhaps, or something to that effect. Or if he has no objection and will sign a letter saying so, then we could do the vacation and come back with the fezone petition at a later date. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The property owner on the -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: West. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- the west side; is that the Millers, Mr. Bobanick? MR. BOBANICK: On the west side is the Millers, that's correct, yes . CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Do you want to make -- COHMISSIONER BERRY: Hr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. COHMISSIONER BERRY: What is there right now? If you were to go up and look at that area right now, what is there? I am familiar with Sunmaster, but what -- is this directly -- MR. MILLER: Pelican Crest apartment building. COHMISSIONER BERRY: That's what is located on this property? VOICE FROM THE AUDIENCE: (Inaudible). CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All right. One of two things, I'm either going to have to reopen the public hearing so we can have people from the audience come up or we're going to have to have our staff answer some of these questions, because the back and forth from the audience just -- that's not appropriate. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I will make a motion to approve. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that recognizing there is a public interest. We will have increased tax revenue. We will have no need to maintain in the future. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, motion carries four to zero. Thank you. Item #12C3 RESOLUTION 97-201 RE PETITION AV-97-001, W. TERRY COLE AS AGENT FOR OWNERS, JAMES AND MARY SILLOWAY, CASIHIR AND LILLIAN DOLEHBA, RAYMOND AND SHARON DEVITA, AND MATTHEW AND DOHENICA CRAIG, REQUESTING VACATION OF A PORTION OF A SPECIAL PRESERVE BLANKET DRAINAGE EASEMENT, AND PORTIONS OF A COLLIER COUNTY INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT LOCATED ON A PORTION OF LOT 20, BLOCK F, OF THE PLAT OF QUAIL WEST UNIT ONE REPLAT, BLOCKS E AND F FIRST ADDITION - ADOPTED Item 12(C)(3), petition AV 97-001, Terry Cole as agent for owners James and Mary Silloway. This is -- is the one on Marco Island? No. Okay. Another vacation for the Collier County ingress/egress easement located on Lot 20, Block F. Mr. Bobanick. MR. BOBANICK: Again, my name is Dave Bobanick, transportation director. Petition Av 97-001 is a request for the board to consider a petition to vacate portions of special preserve and blanket drainage easements in an ingress/egress easement on several lots in Quail West unit one subdivision. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Bobanick, this is -- this is all an internal vacation in this case, right? MR. BOBANICK: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No letters of objection. MR. BOBANICK: Pardon? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have any letters of objection? MR. BOBANICK: No letters of objection. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have public speakers, Mr. HcNees? MR. HcNEES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, motion carries four to zero. COURT REPORTER: Who made the motion and the second? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The motion was Commissioner Norris. The second was Commissioner Constantine. A very near second was Commissioner Berry. COHMISSIONER BERRY: She came in dead last. Item #13A1 PETITION V-96-25, TODD PRESSMAN REPRESENTING J. H. WILLIAMS OIL CO., INC., REQUESTING A 37 FOOT SIDE YARD VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 40 FEET ESTABLISHED FOR CAR WASHES IN THE C-4 ZONING DISTRICT TO 3 FEET FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1095 NORTH COLLIER BOULEVARD ON MARCH ISLAND - DENIED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Next item under board of zoning appeals, 13(A)(1), petition V-96-25, Todd Pressman, representing J.H. Williams Oil Company, requesting a 37-foot side yard variance from the required 40-foot side yard setback. This is North Collier Boulevard, Marco Island. Good morning, Mr. Badamtchian. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good morning. Chahran -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Dr. Badamtchian. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Chahran Badamtchian from planning services staff. As you mentioned, Mr. Todd Pressman is requesting this 37-foot variance from the required 40 feet established for gas station -- for car washes to three feet on Marco Island. The property is located at the corner of Elkcam Circle and Collier Boulevard, North Collier Boulevard. They are in the process of remodelling and expanding an existing gas station, and they also want to add the car wash to that site. They own 0.74 acres of land, and in the opinion of staff, there is not enough room to build all of these additions without a variance, therefore, staff have recommended denial. The planning commissioners reviewed this and recommended denial, also. The staff has received a letter of objection from MICA and another one from St. Marco Episcopal Church. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I may have been a little remiss. Mr. Weigel, do we need everyone sworn in on this item since it's under zoning appeals. MR. WEIGEL: Yes, you do. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. If I could ask everyone who intends to speak on this matter to please stand and raise your right-hand. Madam Court Reporter, would you please swear them in? (Speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. And Mr. Weigel, can we include Mr. Badamtchian's testimony to date as a part of the official record even though I failed to swear him in earlier? MR. WEIGEL: No, you may, in fact. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. Anything else on your part, Mr. Badamtchian? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do you have any questions of staff on this matter? Okay. Why don't we go ahead and go to the petitioner. MR. PRESSMAN: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, my name is Todd Pressman. We came all the way down last night from Tampa, Florida, which, Mr. Norris, if you haven't been north of Bonita Springs, so we will take you for a tour up there one day. I am here with Mr. Jay -- Mr. Hugh Williams and Mr. Elmer Singletary. Mr. Williams is the president of the company. Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, what if I told you that 80 percent of a property which you might own was taken away from you, unbuildable, unusable? That's the circumstance and situation here. This site is located at Elkcam and North Collier. You have a couple photos in file. I can pass a couple more around if they're not readily available for you, which is really just a 30-year old gas station built as they were 30 years ago. It really is nothing more than a small, free-standing beer and cigarette shop with beef jerky to sell on the side. J.H. Williams Company purchased the site just a few months ago, and they are posed or poised to invest a large sum at the site to bring it up to not only today's standards but Marco Island standards. If you look at the site, it's a slab of concrete. There's not a bush on the darn thing. They, of course, plan to bring it up to landscape standards and more. They intend on making a lot of other innovations and to bring the site up to a standard which, again, is at Marco Island standards. The sole issue that's before you today -- and there's been a lot of discussion and a lot of communication -- but the sole issue before you today, Mr. Chairman and board members, is simply a setback for car wash. Everything else that's planned at the station is permissible as far as we're able to tell and as far as we're able to understand and as it's been walked through by our engineers, but there's a couple of difficulties on the site plan in terms of the setback if I may show you. This is the site as it's proposed. Do you have a walking mike? I am going to gently try and sneak by here. Thank you. This is the site of North Collier and Elkcam Circle. You will see the existing building in the center with two small additions. All of that is permissible. What's proposed here is a small car wash building, your typical accessory car wash building, which is located to the rear for setback. Now, it's really a setback to a parking lot or to another business. Publix is moving into the rear evidently. I am not too familiar with those plans, but over here you have rearward building and a parking lot, and over here currently is a parking lot. When this site was first established or first built, evidently in about 1967, '68 -- the years have varied back and forth -- it was met with 10-foot setbacks on both the roadways, zero-foot setbacks on the rear, which all recounted for 11 percent loss of usable property at the site, but as you move into today's C-4 -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry, I'm going to have to ask for clarification. MR. PRESSMAN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: When you say "usable property," you're talking about setback? MR. PRESSMAN: Physical. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You're talking about physical building envelope now; is that correct? MR. PRESSMAN: That's correct, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So it's not lost property, it's just a physical building envelope. MR. PRESSMAN: That's correct. That's a correct clarification. That's correct. As you move into today's C-4 interior lot, what happens is because it's a corner lot and because you're at a very aggressive zoning C-4, you end up with greater setbacks, which results in a 41 percent hit in terms of setback -- setbacks as ascribed by the county. When moving to the most aggressive element, which is today -- or second most aggressive -- which is today's code level for an interior gas station, you're at 73 percent, and when you move into this particular site, which is today's station, which is a small lot -- it was started or built on a long time ago -- at a corner station which has more aggressive setbacks, and even more aggressive setbacks, again, because of the zoning, you end up with a very tight building envelope of 77 percent. Everything meets in this capacity except the car wash, so what we're really talking about here is a retrofit. A site that was permissible a long time ago and is still permissible for its uses and for uses proposed, but we're looking at a retrofit of a site. Now, what really drives home the point of the quirk or the quirkiness of the code and how it works is that the car wash can fit into the site except in a very inappropriate and unusable location, and we gerry-rigged a photo just to drive that home -- that point home to you. Here is a typical gasoline station with a canopy -- this is larger than the site as proposed. The car wash can go right in front of the -- right in front of the C-store. Well, that's how your code permits it to be developed today. Obviously, that's not how these stores are built. That's not how they operate, but we wanted to drive home the point of the difficulties of this site in terms of it being a retrofit to bring up to today's standards and to meet the expectations of the community in that respect. Now, we have spoken yesterday -- we came down to speak with MICA -- and what I want to draw your attention to, which I think is very important -- we sat down with him yesterday morning. We -- we talked with our building committee, and we discussed the issue with them at length, but if you reviewed their letter of October 24th, which is their communication to you, their letter does not indicate really, in any capacity, communication in regard to the sole issue before you, which is a setback to the car wash. What their concerns are, as I read from the letter, is that there are -- appear to be combining several businesses on the site. Well, that's a permissible use. They're going to have to meet traffic concurrency, and you folks are aware of that, and you know how that works, but there's nothing in this letter that indicates objection to the setback from the car wash. Now, we did meet, also, with St. Mark's Church, and that's one of the reasons Mr. Williams came down. We wanted to take the day to meet with some of these folks and explain to them exactly what was going on, and as we met with the church -- we met with Mr. Cliff Blanchard, who is the chairman of the committee. And what they were concerned about were a number of elements which I will submit into the record which we have changed on the site. Things of, for example, the location of the trash dumpster. They wanted to have us put up a little bit of a blind so the headlights didn't bleed over to the other property. And as Mr. Blanchard communicated to us verbally, he indicated the church would not have opposition as long as we included these particular items, and I will submit this into the record for that purpose, if I may. I am not sure -- Mr. Badamtchian. Thank you. They are the only abutting property owner who has a difficulty here. I remind you that this setback abuts up against a commercial business and a parking lot. We haven't heard from those folks. There's no objection in that respect. Finally, the last element or the gentleman in opposition -- and I recognize him from the last meeting. He's a fine gentleman. He's here in the audience today. He's in a competing business around the corner and down the street a bit. I don't know what his intentions are, but I know that he owns a service station that -- that provides gasoline and a car wash, which brings up one additional point, which is that the use that we're asking for here, which is under the setback request that you gentlemen are -- or that we have before you and for Miss Berry -- is that this is a typical use in the general vicinity. We're just asking for this use to be at par with everybody else. There's the Amoco station down the street, and there's the gentleman's location, and there's one other location; I can't remember which one it is. They all have car wash facilities. Now, there might be another one or two in the general vicinity, but we did drive around and check out the location. So we're really just seeking to have the same thing everybody else has. So in summary, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, what you have here is a -- really a drastic difficulty in trying to retrofit a site, and I think your test there is if Mr. Williams was coming to town to look for a new station, he would look for a site that was able to accommodate all of these setbacks, but we're working with a retrofitted site, a site that we want to bring up to speed and to a common, everyday level and beyond that. It's retrofitted. It's an old, tired, concrete slab of a site. The sole issue is a setback. It can go in. The car wash can go in here, but it's the quirkiness of the code that pushes it to an area that no one wants it. It's a use that others have in the area, and it's a use that abuts commercial with no opposition from surrounding property owners. The last thought I will leave you with is that I know in any variance you have a concern of other people trotting up before you saying gee, you gave them a variance; give them to us. I know that's a fear with any variance, even north of Bonita Springs, Mr. Norris, but I will say to you that if anyone comes before you and is able to present the same scenario of these uniquenesses and these singularities, I think they're due a variance. I think that's a very unique and singular condition which cries for a variance. So if there's any additional questions or concerns, I will be happy to answer for you. Mr. Williams is here. We came down today to speak with you, because we know you have heard from a lot of people and to try to place the issues to you in a reasonable fashion. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just so I understand, you are -- you have additions proposed to the existing building that physically attach to it in roughly the equivalent of 1,200 square feet. Does that ring true to you, sir? I just added them up myself. I came to about 1,200 feet. MR. PRESSMAN: I will appreciate -- I will appreciate your math skills, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The car wash itself is 576 square feet as -- as shown. So in essence you're adding 1,200 and you can do that within the envelope. You can do more within the physical envelope, but you really have made a space consideration decision to request the car wash be separate and apart from the building. MR. PRESSMAN: It's -- it's -- it's the way that car washes should be. They should be in the rear lot. They should be in the more appropriate location. You're also looking at considerations of traffic flow in the sense of how it works around the site as well. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Can I ask the purpose of the building addition that will front Elkcam Circle, 18 feet by 44 feet; what is that intended to be used for, because I see a sign that says a pick-up window? MR. PRESSMAN: Yes, there is proposed a -- my positioning with this board is -- let me just move this board over here so I can get back and forth. What is proposed is a pick-up window for fast food service, which will -- circulation will come around the building in this fashion. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That -- that's what I thought. You bought an older site with -- just several months ago -- with setbacks that were known to you at that time. MR. PRESSMAN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You have placed priorities on the additions, and I'm sorry, the term that keeps coming to mind is ten pounds in a five-pound bag. You're putting a lot of things on the site, and I think you need to make a judgment decision within that building envelope, because it can be done. If a car wash is that important to you, it can be on site, but you may have to give up your fast-food window. I think you need to make a value decision there, because I don't see the justification on the building envelope alone for a setback of three feet that runs in perpetuity with the land. That car wash can be demolished, and something else could be constructed in its place to that setback of three feet that would be more offensive or maybe not in agreement with the adjacent property owners. That's the problem with a variance. It runs with the land. It is not specific to this car wash or this site plan. And so, you know, I think you're making a lot of modifications to this site. I just simply think you're trying to put too much on a site that you should have decided at time of purchase whether or not you could fit all of those things in with our existing regulations. MR. PRESSMAN: May I respond, Mr. Hancock? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Certainly. MR. PRESSMAN: With the greatest respect, and I do mean with the greatest respect, I think it is easy to come to a determination that you're putting too much on this site, but what I would suggest to you is that you need to look at concurrency levels. You need to look at what the elements are, and when you look at concurrency elements in terms of impact from surrounding traffic considerations, they will have to meet concurrency. Our engineers have told us that they will. What we're looking at is a use that normally is placed outside of a normal building envelope. We're looking at a use that is normally placed to the rear of a lot, not necessarily on the existing building. There's exceptions to those. So when you look at the footprint, you're looking certainly at a site that would meet the footprint and is a normal, everyday location at all of these stations, but I will also suggest to your latter point, sir, that any variance board, and correct me if I am wrong, and I have been throughout different areas of the state, are always empowered to place any condition upon a variance. And I am sure -- as I look at Mr. Williams, I am sure that he would be very happy to accept the condition that this variance be allowed only for this car wash or in some fashion any condition that would fasten that use down. That's their only interest for that particular -- for that particular variance. So whatever condition you would feel safe with. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I am not familiar with your background, but as a certified professional planner -- MR. PRESSMAN: Yes sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- concurrency doesn't apply to car washes. Concurrency does not apply to what is done in the market today. A site is a site. It's developed with existing setbacks, and if you want to exceed those, there needs to be due cause and due reason for you to exceed those. I don't think a car wash is due cause and due reason, nor do I think that's the only place a car wash can be located on site. You may have to make other judgment decisions. I'm just not comfortable that I have seen sufficient reason to grant a 37-foot reduction in a 40-foot setback. We're not talking feet. We're not talking fractions of a foot. We're talking all of the setback but three feet. That's pretty dramatic to me, and I think -- I think it's a pattern that we typically don't want to set for redevelopment scenarios or Marco Island or anywhere else in this community. If it's that important, I suggest it go in place of something else within the existing building envelope. I don't see sufficient reason for it to -- to merit that kind of a reduction in setback. Do we have public speakers, Mr. McNees? MR. McNEES: You have one, Mr. Chairman. Mr. M. Kelly. MR. KELLY: I will pass. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: He has waived. Are there any questions of the petitioner or staff at this point? MR. PRESSMAN: One final comment if I may. And the comments that you're making, Mr. Hancock, obviously your background gives you a certain perspective of this site. What we looked at closely were the variance criteria, which we believe we have addressed, and I think that those point you in a direction away from, you know, market considerations and other considerations which are still very important, but we feel that when you look at those criteria that it is an element, it is a stepping stone to what we're proposing here in terms of a retrofit in terms of bringing this site up to standard. We appreciate your consideration. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. I will close the public hearing. Mr. Weigel, it's my understanding in the past as we have tried to place certain conditions on variances, it has been your recommendation that we needed to adopt a policy that allowed for that as far as whether it ran with the physical structure versus the land, because under state statute it runs with the land; am I correct in that? MR. WEIGEL: I think you are absolutely correct on that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, noting that the planning commission unanimously recommended denial, that the staff recommends denial and that the criteria for granting variances according to our backup material here don't seem to be met, I will make a motion to deny. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion to deny. Is there a second? COMHISSIONER BERRY: I will second it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And a second. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, V-96-25 is denied. MR. PRESSMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, board members. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Item #14A DISCUSSION REGARDING FIRST AMENDMENT AND CENSORSHIP We are on to BCC communications, Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing today. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry? COHMISSIONER BERRY: Nothing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have one item, and usually I know each of the board members are pretty good about ignoring things we disagree with in the paper, but there was one item that I had to comment on and that was some time in the past week an article headlines county -- something to the effect of county set to clash with first amendment, and as I went on and read, it was about the topic of Internet and whether or not we may use blocking devices. First and foremost, the board hasn't discussed the item at all so I'm not sure we're set to clash with it or set to do anything else, but I just wanted to hit on a topic for a moment and that is that what the first amendment says -- I tell you what it doesn't say. It doesn't say that government is required to provide anything and everything that's in print, and if we want to talk about censorship or the first amendment, it's not censorship if we simply don't stock something in our library. When we look at publications, we don't provide Playboy magazine. It's not censorship, because you can go to countless locations in the county and get that. We don't have the ability nor I suspect do we have the desire to try to prohibit people's personal choices and what they do in their home, and if they choose to go to a store and purchase that, that's their -- certainly their right. We have chosen not to provide that at the library, and that in no way is censorship. That's simply a choice as to what materials we will provide. The Internet issue, which may or may not come to us, is the same. We can choose what to provide from there, and if we choose not to provide certain things, that still doesn't prohibit anyone from using their personal computer or someone else's computer from accessing that information. That is in no way censorship. You can open up a dictionary and look at what the definition of censorship is; that doesn't come close. So I take -- when we talk about first amendment issues, I take that very seriously. I take great offense when the newspaper is suggesting that the county government is participating in censorship and violating the first amendment, because we don't come anywhere close. First, we haven't made a decision on that, but even if we do choose to use blocking devices, that doesn't come anywhere close to meeting the definition of censorship. (Applause) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: To be quite frank, if having the Internet in our libraries means making pornography available to minors, we won't have the Internet in our libraries from my position. When -- when the country changes its laws that eight year olds can go buy those types of magazines, then maybe there's a problem with blocking that, but not until then. I thought that was ridiculous. I don't have anything else. Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: No, nothing, thank you. Item #15A DISCUSSION REGARDING WAIVER OF PERMIT FEES CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. McNees? MR. McNEES: Yes, sir, I have three things I would like to make you aware of. You had asked last week about how many permit fees you had waived over the past year. I have a memo detailing those that I will hand to you. You will have that in your office today. You have waived ten different types of fees over the past year to the tune of about $1,600, so it's not a huge magnitude, and I will have that information for you. Item #15B JOINT WORKSHOP WITH CCPC TO BE HELD ON APRIL 15, 1997, IHMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE REGULAR MEETING The second thing, just remind you, you had scheduled a joint workshop next Tuesday with your planning commission and that agenda looks extremely short, so you will be able to get that over with, I am sure, in the morning, and I will be letting the planning commission know they need to be here early for that. Item #15C RECOHMENDATION FOR PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATOR TO BE MADE ON APRIL 15, 1997 The third thing just for your information, the small selection committee that I had put together has come up with a number-one choice for our public works administrator. I will be negotiating with that gentleman about 11:30 and see if we can't -- he is in the running in a couple of other locations and is a finalist and I think may have already received at least one other offer. So we are anxious to negotiate with him, and hopefully on next Tuesday's agenda I will have a recommendation for you on that. But we're real happy with our choice and hope we can land him. I wanted you to be aware that that was ongoing. Item #14B DISCUSSION REGARDING BOARD'S DESIRE TO RECONSIDER ANY OF THE COUNTY MANAGER CANDIDATES CHAIRKLAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. I do have one item to add other than the fact that that decision means that Mr. Miller can now start playing golf. We appreciate, Ray, everything you have done coming in and helping us out during the interim, and we will have the time to thank you later, but you may have noticed on the memorandum that you received from Mr. Salmon that one of our two choices, Mr. Rivera, has received an offer from Falls Church, Virginia as city manager and seems to be leaning in the direction of taking that position. He may be cancelled out of our interview process by that -- that manner. That would leave Mr. Fernandez and two internal candidates. We have a field of three. I am compelled to ask if this board has any desire to reconsider any other candidates on that sheet to interview or to bring in. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I am not. Excuse me, I am not, because it wasn't a matter of how many did we get it down to. It was a matter of what individuals am I comfortable with as trying to fill Mr. Dorrill's shoes and fill the position of county manager, and my comfort level with the candidates we have is there. My comfort level with the ones that were eliminated was not there. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is there anyone on the board that looks at that area differently? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, the -- my observation might be that these -- I assume that the candidates that we declined to invite have already been informed that they weren't. Now to go back and ask them to come back, that we have changed our mind -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't disagree. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: -- probably wouldn't be the right thing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't disagree, but I felt that I needed to at least make that known to you and put the option out there. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: The only -- the only solution if you wanted to add more people to the mix at this point would be to readvertise, I would suspect. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct, but I, like you, am very comfortable with the three candidates we have that are -- at least three that are currently vying for the position, so we will just move ahead with the process. That's all I have. Miss Filson, is there anything else? MS. FILSON: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All right. We're adjourned. Thank you. Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner Norris and carried 4/0 (Commissioner Mac'Kie absent) that the following items under the Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted: ***** Item #16A1 BID #96-2606 FOR AN ENGINEERING BLUEPRINT COPIER FOR THE BUILDING REVIEW AND PERMITTING DEPARTMENT - AWARDED TO BLUE LINE, INC. BASED ON A LEASE/PURCHASE AGREEMENT Item #16A2 WATER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR THE BILTHORE AT BAY COLONY - WITH STIPULATIONS OR BOOK PAGES Item #16A3 WATER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR LALIQUE AT THE VINEYARDS - WITH STIPULATIONS OR BOOK PAGES Item #16B1 CHANGE ORDER #2 TO WORK ORDER #VB-15 TO VANDERBILT BAY CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR REPAIRS TO THE VINEYARDS COHMUNITY PARK COHMUNITY CENTER IN THE A_MOUNT OF $18,118 Item #1682 CHANGE ORDER #4 FOR THE SOUTH REGIONAL RECLAIHED WATER STORAGE POND PROJECT TO THE GLADES, INC. CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $137,250 WHICH PROVIDES FOR FURNISHING FILL MATERIAL FOR SUGDEN REGIONAL PARK Item #1683 CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE REAL ESTATE PURCHASE OPTION AGREEHENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE EXPANSION OF AIRPORT ROAD. IF THE APPRAISAL REFLECTS $320,000 OR GREATER, CHAIRMAN AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE Item #1684 NOTICES OF CLAIM OF LIEN FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE NOTICE TO PAY SEWER IMPACT FEE STATEMENT FOR THE WYNDEHERE SUBDIVISION Item #1685 NOTICES OF CLAIM OF LIEN FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE NOTICE TO PAY WATER IMPACT FEE STATEMENT FOR THE WYNDEHERE SUBDIVISION Item #1686 A_MENDHENTS TO RIGHT-OF-WAY USE LICENSE AND AGREEHENT WITH FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY FOR NEW RECLAIMED WATER MAIN IN FPL RIGHT-OF-WAY BETWEEN RADIO ROAD AND DAVIS BLVD. Item #1687 RESOLUTION 97-198 AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, SIDEWALK, UTILITY, DRAINAGE, MAINTENANCE AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCITON EASEMENTS AND/OR FEE SIMPLE TITLE FOR AIRPORT-PULLING ORAD PROJECT AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 96-130 Item #16C1 RESOLTUION 97-199 APPOINTING THE 1997-98 OFFICERS FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY AGRICULTURAL FAIR AND EXPOSITION, INC. BOARD OF DIRECTORS Item #16C2 BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING FUNDS RECEIVED FROMS INSURANCE CLAIM REGARDING DAivLAGES SUSTAINED TO THE HEADQUARTERS LIBRARY IN THE A_MOUNT OF $3,600 Item #16C3 REQUEST FOR FUNDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A PARTIAL REGULATION BASEBALL FIELD RELATIVE TO THE IHMOKALEE COHMUNITY PARK SITE IN THE A_MOUNT OF $125,000 Item #16C4 LEASE AGREEMENT WITH TRACT B, INC. FOR TEMPORARY SPACE TO BE USED AS A LIBRARY DURING THE CONSTRUCTION AND RENOVATIONS AT THE EXISTING MARCO ISLAND LIBRARY Item #16D1 EXECUTION OF SATISFACTIONS OF CLAIM OF LIENS FOR REGAL ENTERPRISES OF NAPLES, INC.; SHELL OIL COMPANY; AND SOUTHERN MANAGEMENT CORP. Item #16G1 SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER Item #16G2 EXECUTION OF SATISFACTION OF CIVIL JUDGMENT LIEN Item #1663 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the Board of County Commissioners has been filed and/or referred 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 10:25 a.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 presented or as corrected · as TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY DEBRA PETERSON