Loading...
BCC Minutes 04/15/1997 R REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 15, 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 9:05 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: ALSO PRESENT: Timothy L. Hancock Timothy J. Constantine Pamela S. Hac'Kie Barbara B. Berry John C. Norris Hike HcNees, Interim County Hanager David C. Weigel, County Attorney Item #3 AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good morning. I'm going to call to order the Tuesday, April 15th, 1997 meeting of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners. This morning it's a pleasure to have Father Tim Navin of the St. Peter's Catholic Church here to address us for an invocation this morning, and following that will be the Pledge of Allegiance. Father Navin. FATHER NAVIN: Good morning. Let us pray. Oh, Lord, God, you have brought your people from oppression to freedom, from sin to salvation, death to life. You nurture us with the gifts -- you nurture us with the gifts of your world, that we might have life and liberty to serve you and one another in prosperity and peace. Bless with your grace and mercy the deliberations of the Collier County Board of Commissioners so that all the citizens of this county may live in a community that is at peace with you, itself and all the people of Florida, America and the world. Send your spirit of holy wisdom and justice to us all. We humbly ask, and indeed pray for Max Hasse and his wife, Louise, former commissioner and his wife. Hay the Lord save them and raise them up in this difficult time for their entire family. We ask this humbly in your holy and glorious name. Amen. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: On behalf of the board, Father Navin, thank you for being here this morning. FATHER NAVIN: Thank you, sir. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And thank you also for no harsh words about your Rattlesnake Hammock improvements that are -- FATHER NAVIN: No, no -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- so helpful at this time of the year. FATHER NAVIN: -- no, no. That's -- that's okay. We're -- we're just -- we pray for the best outcome. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And also all of our thoughts and prayers are -- are with Max and Louise this morning. Louise is doing fine physically, but Max is -- is not out of the woods, so we're keeping tabs on them, and our thoughts and best wishes are with them. Good morning, Mr. HcNees. MR. HCNEES: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, commissioners. Just a very few changes to your short agenda this morning. We have an add item which will become 8(E)(2), a resolution related to utility regulation and a proposed bill in Tallahassee that we'd like to have you approve. It's time sensitive related to the legislative process. That would become item 8(E)(2). We have one item, 16(A)(5), to move from the consent agenda related to an impact fee waiver -- or actually a refund of impact fees, which will become item 8(A)(1). Under board of county commissioners communications, we have the addition of a discussion regarding whether or not you want to have a meeting or a workshop next Tuesday, and those would be the only changes that we have. An agenda note, that you do have your joint planning commission workshop scheduled at the conclusion of your agenda. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, and the planning commission members were asked to be here at around ten o'clock, so that should dovetail quite nicely. Mr. Weigel, were there any additions? I note -- noted you handing something out previously. Is that for under board communications? MR. WEIGEL: That would just be under board communications. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just a question about if the affected parties on 16(A)(5) know that this has been pulled off of consent? MR. HCNEES: Yes, ma'am. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. Thanks. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Just one, Mr. Chairman. Under item 10, I would like to ask for board direction on an item. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We'll make that item 10(A)(2) -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's the topic? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- is that correct, Mr. HcNees? MR. HCNEES: If Mr. Weigel has an item, that would be 10(B) and this would be 10(C). CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. And the -- I'm sorry, Commissioner Constantine asked for the substance. MR. NORRIS: This was -- this concerns a piece of property on Marco relating to Naples Community Hospital. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Berry? COHMISSIONER BERRY: Under Board of County Commissioners 10, I guess it would be, where are we, D, E? MR. HCNEES: Mr. Weigel says he does not have an item, so we would be -- Commissioner Norris' item would be 10(B) and this will be 10(C). COHMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. Having to do with just a question regarding the opening of Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension and the current Pine Ridge situation. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. And the item on that would be? MR. HCNEES: That would be 10(C). COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just because I'm lost, what's 10(A)? MR. HCNEES: Discussion of whether or not you want to have a workshop or a meeting next week. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. WEIGEL: No, the 29th. MR. HCNEES: The 29th, excuse me. Not next week. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's fine. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have no changes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I have one item under board communications, just quickly, a county manager update. That actually will -- let's move that. Commissioner Constantine, you'd requested that under BCC communications. Let's make that 10(D) so that we can take action, formal action on that so that we can establish a date and finality for a decision. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And what is that question? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's regarding whether or not we will have a meeting on the 29th for the purposes of choosing a county manager or prioritizing that. We just need to discuss that time frame. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. I thought that was (A). MR. HCNEES: Yes, we're showing discussion of the 29th meeting as ~o (A). CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Then I will withdraw 10(D) -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Just combine those two. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- and combine them at 10(A). That's fine. Okay. Are there any further changes? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Make a motion to -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Make a motion to approve the agenda and consent agenda as amended. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. 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 25, 1997 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of March 25th, the regular meeting. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. Any discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none. Item #5A1 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING APRIL 14-18, 1997, AS VOLUNTEER SERVICES FOR ANIMALS WEEK - ADOPTED This morning under proclamations, I have the pleasure to designate April 14th through 18th as Volunteer Services for Animals week, and we have several individuals here that give up their time and effort and I'd like ask all of you to come forward that are here for Volunteer Services for Animals, stand up here and face the camera. Come on up. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Don't be shy. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You took the time to be here, we're going to put your pretty faces on TV. And I assume you are Louise Mard? Okay. Miss Mard, thank you. The proclamation reads as follows: WHEREAS, Volunteer Services for Animals was formed in April, 1982, 15 years ago this month, with the expressed desire to assist the County in its first ever County owned shelter for stray animals; and WHEREAS, the mission statement of Volunteer Services for Animals is to promote adoptions and provide comfort for the animals housed at the County shelter; and WHEREAS, Volunteer Service for Animals donates in excess of 3,200 hours a year in volunteer manpower working at the county shelter; and WHEREAS, Volunteer Services for Animals donates in excess of $8,000.00 annually to assist with medical treatment of pets; and WHEREAS, the quality of life for our county strays and the service to patrons would be adversely effected if Volunteer Services for Animals were not present in our community animal shelter; and WHEREAS, through the happy times and through the sad times it takes a special person to work in the animal shelter. NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that gratitude and appreciation for fifteen (15) years of service is extended to Volunteer Services for Animals and that the week of April 14th through 18th, 1997 be designated as Volunteer Services for Animals week. DONE AND ORDERED THIS 15th day of April, 1997. Timothy L. Hancock, Chairman. My colleagues, I would like to move this proclamation. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Thank you very much, Miss Hard. MS. HARD: I just want to thank everybody for this very elegant recognition of our years working at the county shelter. We've enjoyed it. I want to add that, as I talk, some of our volunteers are working out at our low cost veterinary clinic called Planned Pethood. They're not operating, and some of our -- as I've said, are here. I was going to introduce them, but you've already done it. Thanks very much. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Hiss Hard, thank you and to everyone else. Hiss Morelock? MS. MORELOCK: My name is Jodi Morelock and I'm the director for your domestic animal services department, and I would like to say, I met Louise 13 years ago and I asked her to be president for Volunteer Services for Animals and she has not been able to get away from that yet. She puts in three days a week minimum, three afternoons a week, and I think that it just takes a very special person to give the way she gives and we'd like to thank her from my staff. We have a certificate for dinner and roses. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Hiss Morelock. And I always remember my first workday in the county was -- was cleaning cat cages and doing things at the -- at Animal Control and I learned a little bit more about what you folks do, and thank you for all your efforts on behalf of the animals out there. Item #7A LAURIE MITCHELL REGARDING LAND USE IN AGRICULTURAL AREAS - NO ACTION Our next item on the agenda is item 7(A), public petitions. Laurie Mitchell regarding land use in agricultural areas. As is typical under public petitions, the board does not take any formal action, but may give staff direction, if appropriate. Miss Mitchell, good morning. MS. MITCHELL: Good morning. I still reside on my small tree farm outside of town, and I'm here on behalf of the fact that we need our agricultural land because it sustains our urban development and it's locally, economically wise to provide for landscaped trees of this nature as well as other plants. Collier County planners, I believe, could draft an amendment to the land development code pertaining to the cape -- compatibility and the conveyances in agriculturally zoned land 20 acres or less, aiding in the prevention of possible pollution or disruption of surface water movement and run off by requiring land use plans and commencement notices noting restrictions of the permit and possible fines on property 20 acres or less, for single family homes being permitted and built in or on agriculturally zoned land with domestic wells issued and potential property rights pertaining to agricultural exemption, and the county, of course, is permitting without consideration of risks or facts. I feel that all development should apply to land use activities now and in the future. We don't have the diversity here in farming as they do elsewhere and we also have a very environmentally sensitive county. Some land isn't suitable for farming and some farming isn't suitable for some land. I'm proposing that the ag land use should be based on technical facts and risk issues, and perhaps a percentage of the impact fee could be used to hire a reviewer for the agricultural land development 20 acres or less. Raising our standards by having strict requirements based on directives by not allowing a property owner driven ultimately by agricultural tax exemptions be the stewards of our agriculturally zoned land. We have a very environmentally sensitive county. We don't have the diversity here, so we need to regulate by more active county involvement, recommendations and land use plans. Not to pit neighbor against neighbor. It is not a civil matter, and the county also should assure the people of Collier County that they are adhering to the water quality standards of the State of Florida. I believe that a reviewer would investigate potential problem areas, public health safety and welfare, and possibly look to deed restrictions governing ag laws that are already in place, USDA regulations, studies by the University of Florida, federal, state, local laws that are already in place before these permits are issued. Some land is not suitable for farming. Some farming is not suitable for some land. Some farming is not compatible with some of the farming that's occurring right now. This would ensure Collier County would be able to supply the urban areas with their landscaping plans, especially the nursery owners would be assured that they could continue to have a business there, they can maintain a stable, compatible, progressive agricultural community in Collier County, meanwhile, the county adhering to the water quality standards of the State of Florida. So I'm -- I think that an amendment could help to stop violations before they start and to keep in mind the inseparable nature of the surface water and ground water. Land use plans should be used as a management tool to provide good compatibility and to promote progressive environmental practices by getting the highest and best use from this land and not hodgepodging our agricultural community. I see I have some time left. Do you have questions for me? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, Hiss Hitchell. I'm a little confused. I'm not really sure what it is you're asking this board to consider or MS. HITCHELL: Well, what I'm -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- or do. MS. HITCHELL: -- asking them to consider is perhaps a commencement notice at the time that they give someone permission to build a house on five acres agriculturally zoned. Perhaps they will then be aware that they need to answer to the county for any further future plans that they might have in going for agricultural exemption, rather than just putting up a fence and perhaps housing a hundred or so pigs and then going down to get agricultural exemptions, goats, whatever. It might not be compatible. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So you're saying that -- that having pigs or goats is not compatible with other farming; is that -- MS. HITCHELL: Possibly not. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- the center of your issue? MS. HITCHELL: Well, look what's happening in Mexico with the strawberries. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Okay. But this isn't Mexico -- MS. HITCHELL: I hope not. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- and we aren't the USDA and we're not going to spend local tax dollars enforcing federal guidelines. That's duplication of effort and a waste of money, quite frankly. MS. HITCHELL: Well, what I'm saying is that people might be driven by agricultural exemption in the future to change the use of their land, and I'm just trying to create something for the county where an impact fee, a percentage would be used to hire a planner to look at that plan to see if it's compatible, and right now it seems that there's nothing in place. It's a free for all. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The only way anyone can change the use of their land is to come to this board anyway. I'm not sure why you'd add an extra step -- MS. HITCHELL: That's the -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- in that process. MS. HITCHELL: -- person that would be forthright and honest with the county about his ultimate objectives in living in agricultural land, is -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry, you just said if someone wanted to change their zoning -- MS. HITCHELL: Right. No, no, no, it's ag zoned. They have a house. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. MS. HITCHELL: So perhaps they want to, in the future, get the benefit of agricultural exemption, and thus not being compatible with what already exists. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What -- I don't understand where pigs aren't compatible in an ag zone. I -- MS. HITCHELL: In a flood prone area, no. It could wipe out a lot of the nurseries that are out there if it's permitted. It could happen anywhere in the county because of agricultural rights. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I just have a rule of thumb that before government goes getting further involved in someone's daily life that there be a problem on the horizon that's valid that is -- and I'm just having a tough time finding a handle to grab onto. MS. HITCHELL: Well, the people that eventually move out to the Estates in agriculturally zoned land might perhaps decide to complain about the noise and the fumes about a agricultural operation nearby, thus being -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's agriculture property. MS. HITCHELL: Right, it is agri -- they need to be noticed -- or they need to be notified that there will be agricultural activity since they are moving into an agricultural area, but ultimately they might want to pursue an agricultural exemption themselves, being already permitted by the county to live on that land. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Call me crazy, but I think if a person moves to an agriculturally zoned area, they have some responsibility to realize that there might be agricultural activity in that area. MS. HITCHELL: That's an assumption. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, it's not an assumption. That's a fact. If they don't, then '- MS. HITCHELL: But then ultimately maybe they want to -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You don't mind if I respond? If they don't, that's their responsibility. I'm sorry. If they don't realize that agricultural activity takes on -- takes place on agricultural land, that's not really this board's problem. They need to understand where they're living and take a little responsibility for themselves. MS. HITCHELL: I understand that. I'm just saying, what about a change in the future. They don't have to sign a commencement notice or anything notifying them that they have to put the county on notice if they decide to farm their land. I understand they have to go through water management or whatever for a permit -- UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: They do go through water management. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Hey -- folks, listen. This is not a question and answer with the audience. MS. HITCHELL: I'm just saying that they already have been issued a domestic water use permit with their home, with their single family home. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Hiss Hitchell, I -- I -- I'm starting to understand what you're requesting and I think it -- it -- it really falls apart in there are a lot of people out there that have gardens that could be considered agricultural uses for -- for their own consumption, for their own production, for 4-H programs that are in ag properties, and to create an impact fee and an additional level of review for those individuals I think is unnecessary. So we have to look at everyone you're impacting, not just the one or two that are maybe problematic for an adjacent nursery, and I -- I'm starting to sense that that -- you may be having a problem with a neighbor here, is that -- is that '- MS. HITCHELL: Yes, it seems like though it could happen anywhere in Collier County zoned agricultural land five acres or less because there's no planning required, unless you go to USDA to seek additional funding for your farm. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I -- I think -- if I understand what you're saying, you want us to categorize different types of agricultural uses and -- MS. MITCHELL: No, I just want you to take a look at what you have out there and see how the county benefits from nurseries and how they provide locally the trees in the urban areas and the plants needed in the urban areas. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Do you have someone raising pigs near you? MS. MITCHELL: It's a possibility. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Do you have them now? MS. MITCHELL: No, sir. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any further questions for Miss Mitchell? Thank you, Miss Mitchell. Item #SA1 RECOHMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE THE WAIVER OF ROAD IMPACT FEES AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES IMPACT FEES FOR THE IHMOKALEE CHILD CARE CENTER - DENIED To item 8(A), which is an addition. It was formerly 16(A)(5), waiver of road impact fees and EHS impact fees for Immokalee Child Care Center. Good morning, Mr. Hihalic. MR. HIHALIC: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Greg Hihalic from housing and urban improvement. We come before you this morning to ask you to authorize the waiver of impact fees for Immokalee Child Care Center in the amount of $8,228.70 and the reimbursement of these impact fees back to Immokalee Child Care Center. This issue really goes back quite a ways, and in June of 1994, the Immokalee Child Care Center filed an application with the county manager's office for a -- a waiver of their impact fees on their Immokalee Child Care Center, which they were proposing to build in the Oak Haven affordable housing complex, which was in Immokalee. And they came before the board on August 2nd, 1994 in a public petition asking for that. The board directed staff to amend the ordinances, and on September 28th, '94, we amended the impact fees ordinances to allow for this type of waiver to be granted, and we also allowed for interest on impact fee funds to be used as one of the funding sources for that type of waiver. We then developed a resolution in the companion agenda items to be brought forward in November of '94. However, Immokalee Child Care Center did not have a long-term lease on the property. They had an agreement with the owner of the property to let them use it for building a child care center, but I felt that we needed a long-term lease to be sure that we would have a continuum of it being used that way for at least 15 years, which is what we normally do for our impact fee waivers. They pulled their building permits in October of 1995 for the child care center and they signed a long-term lease, a 99 year lease on this parcel in Hay of 1996, a 99 year lease at one dollar per year with the owner of Oak Haven, and we then moved to update the documents again to bring it forward to you, but at that time they weren't sure they wanted to proceed ahead and ask for the waiver of impact fees. In December of 1996, they -- Immokalee Child Care Center wrote a -- another letter to the county manager asking that the board consider waiving their impact fees, and that's what we're bringing forward to you today. Can I answer any questions? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Mihalic, refresh me on this one. When was the Oak Haven project permitted? MR. MIHALIC: It was originally permitted in 1991, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And at that time, did the permit show the Immokalee Child Care Center on site? MR. MIHALIC: It showed a conceptual plan, if I may give it to you. Commissioner, it showed a conceptual plan for a child care center on that site, which required a conditional use, and -- and that came back in front of the board for that conditional use to allow that, and that's what I handed out to you. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The -- the conditional use was granted then in 19937 MR. MIHALIC: The conditional use was granted in 1994, Commissioner. March 8th, 1994, and then there was an extension of that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The -- but you're saying that this site plan was the original one submitted in 19917 MR. HIHALIC: To the best of my knowledge, Commissioner. I -- I -- I didn't pull the original one, but it -- it talks about a conceptual master plan with a provision for a child care center in it. I -- I can't be sure this is the exact drawing that was issued at that time. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, it's an important point because the impact fee ordinance, I believe, allows a waiver only if the child care facility was included in the original site plan. MR. HIHALIC: Yes, Commissioner. I -- I'm afraid I -- I -- I do not have -- I can't -- I can't verify directly that this is the original conceptual master plan with the PUD. I'm -- I'm just not sure about that. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But -- but you are saying that there was reference in the original approval to -- is the question, because this is an important question, is the question just whether or not this particular plan was attached or is the question whether or not there was an approved child care center in the original approval, because it -- I think the question is whether or not there was a child care center approved originally. Whether it's this site plan or not, I don't think is a critical question. MR. HIHALIC: To -- to the best of my recollection, it was, and Mr. Hulhere also affirms that it was. MR. HULHERE: I reviewed -- I reviewed this -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Your name for the record, please. MR. HULHERE: My name, for the record is Bob Hulhere, Current Planning Manager -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. HULHERE: -- and I reviewed this petition back in 1993 and '94. My recollection is that it was -- that a child care center was included as part of the original approval. There were no specifics at that time in terms of numbers of children. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That being the case, how do you explain then that it had to come back for a conditional use at a later date for a day care center? MR. HULHERE: I believe that was because there were no specifics. What they did was they showed a section of the property that was going to be used for an on-site child care center. Then later on it was determined that they would be drawing some children not only from the project itself, but from the surrounding neighborhood as well, and therefore they submitted a conditional use. That's my recollection. I certainly can go and review the records. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The -- so the -- in essence though, this child care center is occupying property on the project, but it's not specifically for the project, it's open to other people as well? MR. MULHERE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's -- that's part of the concern. The other part of the concern is, there's -- there's really two issues that I wanted to clear up today. One of them is the technical issue of whether there was an original child care facility included in the plans when it was first permitted. The second one is whether the board thinks that -- that this waiver should be granted even if it was technically legal. We certainly do not waive impact fees for churches, for example, and day care centers that are not associated with affordable housing projects. So we're left with the -- the problem here, is there something different about this one, and it seems to me that -- that you have here a -- a child care facility that is not specific for this complex, but just is available to the complex because it occupies the same parcel of property. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we know, Mr. Mihalic, if it -- if the enrollment at the Immokalee Child Care Center draws specifically or draws a -- a fair portion from the immediate neighborhood that does not require vehicular transport to get the kids to and from -- MR. MIHALIC: We have representatives here from Immokalee Child Care Center. I'd like them to speak directly on that issue. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that really the heart of what you're discussing, Commissioner Norris, on that item is-- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm just trying to get the board to make a determination on the appropriateness of waiving these impact fees for this facility. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess I'd say that we made that determination when the ordinance was adopted, and you know, people have rights based on what the laws are, and the laws say that there is -- that this is available. MR. MIHALIC: It is not mandatory, Commissioners, that you grant it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Understood. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's ask representatives of the Immokalee Child Care Center, if they're here, to -- to come forward. MR. MCNEES: You have Mr. David Turner registered to speak. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: While he's coming to the podium, a question comes to mind. Mr. Mihalic, was the purpose of this element of the impact fee waiver within the ordinance intended to serve on-site type facilities that did not generate external impacts, was that the nexus of that being included in the -- the impact fee ordinance? MR. MIHALIC: No, Commissioner, it was specifically by public petition of the Immokalee Child Care Center to have their impact fees waived for their establishment and not have an expanded role at that time. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My question goes back to the formation of the ordinance. MR. MIHALIC: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: When we ant -- when we put in waivers for these types of uses -- MR. MIHALIC: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- the fact that it would be an internal oriented use, in other words, on-site of a housing complex serving mostly that complex, and what comes to mind is Farmworker's Village, you know, day care on-site there handles predominantly that complex. It doesn't create the -- the road trips that our impact fees are intended to mitigate. Was that, more or less, the original intent when the waiver element was included in the ordinance? MR. MIHALIC: I -- I can't speak to that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. MIHALIC: I know that the impact fees were negotiated substantially downward when it was pointed out to the road impact fee managers that there would not be a lot of traffic that would be coming from outside. So the road impact fees were cut in half from the original determination at that time, but I can't speak to everybody's thoughts at the time that the impact fee ordinances were amended. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: One last question. Mr. Mihalic -- Excuse me, Mr. Turner. One last question. Were the impact fees waived for the Oak Haven project? MR. MIHALIC: Yes, they were, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Were they waived or deferred? MR. MIHALIC: Commissioner, it was a 15 year deferral. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. MR. MIHALIC: You're absolutely right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Turner, good morning. MR. TURNER: Good morning. Mr. Chairman and members of the Collier County Board, my name is Dave Turner. I've been connected with the -- associated with the Immokalee Child Care Center for approximately 11 years. I've been past president of it, and now involved in some of the operations of the center. I have with me this morning the first vice-president of our association -- or our organization, Mr. Bob David, who is the first vice-president who's a business consultant here, and Mrs. Livian -- Vivian Lauger, who is on our board and an acting attorney here in the City of Naples. The question -- the express purpose for our request is that we feel the impact fee on the basis of the resolution that was passed, I think it was in 1994, substantially covers what we represent in the way of a child care nonprofit organization, and I refer to the section of the resolution which substantially states that the equity requesting a waiver is a non -- for a nonprofit organization or business or charitable organization, and down in Part G, the entity is a child care or similar support facility which is included in the original site development plans of an affordable housing project and which project has qualified for an affordable housing waiver or deferral. When we made the original agreement with the Oak Haven organization, they came to us and asked us if we would be willing to put up a center if they gave us the ground and also take care of their children. They have quite a sizable housing program there. Frankly, we don't take care of too many of their children because they don't have any, but any they -- any that they have submitted to us, we have opened our -- our doors to. So we feel that we are a part of the Oak Hill -- or the Oak Haven program and that we have done everything that we can do under the guide of the resolution that was -- has been passed by the commissioners. I'd like to point out a couple of things, and timewise I'll make it brief, but we put this new facility into operation in July of -- July 22nd, 1996, and it's an 11,000 square foot building. Host of this is repetitious to you, but just to give a little more background on it, and we have now today in the 11,000 square foot building, a first class facility in handling 90 children. These 90 children represent a very substantial portion, all of them in the low -- very, very low income families. We subsidize these children approximately 80 percent. Costs, financial problems are on the top -- on the top shelf with us. They are high in priority and we raise our money through grants, solicitations, personal solicitations, and the government of the State of Florida provides us with approximately $45,000 for food and part-time pay for a cook. Other than that, our annual budget is 500 -- over -- exceeds slightly over $500,000 a year, so we have to go out and put this money on the table in order to pay our debts. I'd like to report too that the Immokalee Child Care Center had built this building. We raised a million two. We built the building. We don't have a mortgage. We don't owe anybody a nickel, but this didn't come just out of the blue. It came from a lot of hard work from a lot of very, very dedicated people, and we did it for the children. These children are so in need, and statistics have shown time and time again, when you get these children where we handle them, from two months of age to five years, this is the vulnerable age for the brain ability to accept teaching, and this, we do. We train these children a minimum of two hours to three hours a day. We have recreation. We nurture them. We work them and we have documentation showing that when they go into preschool, they are, not all of them, but many of them are out front, and this is our goal. This is the thing that we have established which is formulated by the Church Women United of Collier County, primarily of Naples, in 1964. So for 33 years, we've put this program into service and it has worked, and I'm done here. But I just wanted to get -- understand what we're trying to do, and this $8,228.71 -- or 70 cents is paramount to our -- putting ourself (sic), putting the organization in -- in -- not necessarily in the black, but it helps us tremendously to take care of the -- the miscellaneous expenses. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Turner. Unfortunately, our decision today isn't as simple as do we approve of and are we supportive of all of the efforts that the hundreds of individuals have put forward to make the Immokalee Child Care Center a success and a success for the community of Immokalee. We all recognize that. We have an ordinance and an application that -- that is not as broad as -- as you might like or some of us might like, and that's where our decision has to be focused today. My concern, and I'm looking for a little bit of assistance from you, Mr. Hihalic, is that the intent of the impact fee waiver was to do two things. One was to encourage child care within affordable housing projects, and I feel fairly safe that that was one of the intents, because that's an area in which it is probably one of the most needed in the county. The second was, that by locating it internal to those projects, there was somewhat of a capture rate. You would serve the children within that project and possibly adjacent projects that was not going to generate any substantial amounts of traffic, so therefore, that qualified for the elimination of impact fees because they were -- there was no -- or relatively no impact. This obviously meets the first of those two. The question for me is, does it meet the second element that the capture rate is significant enough that the 50 percent reduction that has already been applied is not enough, and I don't know that. I don't have the numbers in front of me. A church doesn't apply to that typically. This is a very narrow application to child care centers. My question again is, we've encouraged it to be located within affordable housing complexes, or those that qualify for that. The question is, is that second litmus test met by this day care center? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I give you my thoughts on the second question? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My thoughts on the second question are that it would be shortsighted of us to take this moment in time to judge this project. I don't know the answer either. I don't know the answer, and so maybe the answer is it's, you know, 90 percent of the kids are out of this project. I doubt it, but -- but certainly the location of the project in proximity to this affordable housing encourages the working together between the two projects, between -- it encourages the affordable housing owners to use this as a day care center. If today, there aren't a lot of children there, that doesn't mean that in five years, there won't be a lot of children there, so we should be careful in what's the snapshot that we use to judge this, if that's a really important criteria, so -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, Mr. Chairman brought out some very good points about the -- the work of Immokalee Child Care Center, and he's right. They do an excellent job. They -- they provide an extremely valuable service out in Immokalee. No one's questioning that. This board has been very supportive, as have I, in the past. I -- refresh me, I think it's $11,000 worth of utility bills that we're paying for you. I -- I think that this board has evidenced its support for the Immokalee Child Care Center in the past by such actions, and I -- I think it's necessary for you to know that -- that I -- I assume the board is still extremely supportive, but there's a couple of problems with this request in that this -- this doesn't technically meet what I -- I consider, in my opinion, the original intent of the impact fee waiver ordinance was and the -- the complex itself did not receive an impact fee waiver. We've not done this, to my knowledge, in the past for any other project. We don't do it for churches and their day -- associated day -- day care centers. I really just can't see the justification here. These -- it's not -- we need to also remember that these impact fees have already been paid. What they're really asking for is to be reimbursed. I just -- I'm very sorry, but I just can't support the request and I make a motion to deny. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a reality check, Mr. McNees. The money here doesn't just magically go away. Who -- who ends up paying for this if we waive the impact fee? MR. MCNEES: I suspect Mr. Mihalic may have another idea. It would be fund 111, your general fund, unincorporated area reserves. MR. MIHALIC: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've got to agree not -- with Commissioner Norris, not because I don't support the child care center, but I -- I think if we're -- if we're going to make the decision based on law and the way the law -- the ordinances are written, the only direction we really have is what you've said, so I'm going to go ahead and second the motion. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. Is there further discussion by the board? Seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Aye. COMHISSIONER BERRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Opposed? Aye. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries three two. The request is denied. Thank you for being here this morning MR. TURNER: Thank you for the privilege of giving this -- our side of the story. I'm sorry that this has developed this way, but perhaps down the line, down the road someplace, we can make some further adjustments, and I think that we, if it's agreeable, we will probably proceed in that direction. We just feel that this is something that we really should have, and I appreciate the judgments that you're giving it and I think we'll be back someday, okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Turner. Item #BE1 CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENT OF EDGAR ILSCHNER, JR., AS PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION ADMINISTRATOR - CONFIRMED Next item on the agenda this morning is item 8(E)(1), confirmation of appointment of Edgar Ilschner, Jr. as Public Works Division Administrator. Mr. HcNees. MR. HCNEES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's with great pleasure this morning that I recommend to you Mr. Ilschner for selection as your public works administrator from a field of more than a hundred applicants, I believe it was 120. A small subcommittee natrowed down to three external and three internal candidates, all of whom were exceptionally qualified for this job, and we interviewed each of those six and were unanimously in agreement that Mr. Ilschner stood head and shoulders really above the others. He appeared to be a fine gentleman of exceptional character with 30 years of public works experience, an NPA, master's in public administration, to go with his bachelor in civil engineering and his registration as a Texas professional engineer. So without reservation, I recommend him to you. I'd like to thank Ray Miller in particular for his assistance as we went through this process and to citizens who donated their time. Mr. Rick Barber and Mr. Michael Saadeh who donated their time to assist in this selection process and read all the resumes and -- and helped us narrow it down and their assistance was invaluable, gives me an even higher level of comfort that -- that this gentleman is -- is a good candidate for you since we had such varied involvement in this selection process. It went very well. I am very pleased with the result and am happy to recommend Mr. Ilschner to you today. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think on behalf of the board to Mr. Barber and Mr. Saadeh, we thank them for their time and efforts, but more importantly, we need to thank Mr. Miller for coming out of semi-retirement. Luckily Alice hasn't beat up on us too much about borrowing you for a while, but you've really filled a gap and a niche that was very important to this community, and we want to thank you for your community minded spirit and all of your effort on behalf of this board. MR. MILLER: Ray Miller, Administrator of Public Works interim, almost emeritus or something like that, for the record. I just want to thank you all. This has been a great opportunity. It's been a -- a pleasure working with all the people here, and I really mean this, that it has been an eye opener for me. I've enjoyed this short time tour, and with some reservation, I would -- I would say it'd be great if it was a longer tour, but this is what we committed to and -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Careful what you ask for, Ray. MR. MILLER: Right, and I really support Mr. HcNees' comments regarding Mr. Ilschner. He's -- looks to be a fine, qualified individual, and thanks for the opportunity. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Again, thank you. MR. HCNEES: Don't -- don't let Mr. Miller fool you. He had an opportunity for a longer tenure. He -- he had first dibs on this job. We made him a formal offer and he wants to go fishing, so I want to personally thank him. It's been great having him here. He's made my job an awful lot easier. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'd like the board to take formal action regarding the confirmation of Mr. Edgar Ilschner. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion approved. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So moved. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I have a motion. Is there a second? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. HcNees. MR. HCNEES: We expect to have Mr. Ilschner on board on April 28th, so he's on his way and I think you'll be pleased. Thank you very much. Item #8E2 RESOLUTION 97-203 OPPOSING SENATE BILL 1368, HOURSE BILL 1699, AND COHMITTEE SUBSTITUTE/HOUSE BILL 0715, RELATING TO CERTAIN RATEMAKING PROVISIONS OF INVESTOR-OWNED WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEMS, BEFORE THE 1997 REGULAR SESSION OF THE LEGISLATURE - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Next item, it was an add on, item 8(E)(2), resolution opposing Senate Bill 1368 and House Bill 1699. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. This is a -- an action that we have taken last year, I believe, during session and nothing has changed. Is there any further discussion on the matter? Seeing none, call to question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, the house -- Senate Bill 1368 and House Bill 1699 are officially imposed by this board and that resolution will be forwarded to our legislative delegation, I assume. MR. MCNEES: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you very much. On to -- MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, sir? MR. WALLACE: For the record, Lou Wallace of the -- your utility regulation office. The county attorney's office did add one paragraph to that resolution. I wanted to bring your attention to it. It was done this morning, and that additional paragraph, all it does is authorize staff to forward that resolution to the Florida Association of Counties and to the legislative delegation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. He provided that to us and I certainly intended that to be incorporated in the motion. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: He did. I misspoke. My apologies. Thank you for bringing that to my attention, Mr. Wallace. Item #10A DISCUSSION RE WORKSHOP/MEETING OF APRIL 29 - NO MEETING TO BE HELD. DECISION ON COUNTY MANAGER TO BE MADE ON APRIL 24 AFTER INTERVIEWS On to item 10(A), discussion regarding the county manager selection process. Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We had talked about whether or not we're going to have a special meeting and we got a memo from you whether or not to have a special meeting the 29th. I have a couple concerns. One, that being a fifth Tuesday, I'm already scheduled and have purchased airline tickets and am not going to be in town the 29th, and I'd really like to be a part -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We're really going to miss you on that vote, so -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- of the selection process. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We can proxy that -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. We'll pass that on to you. Secondarily, I'm just thinking for Mr. McNees and Mr. Ochs and the gentleman from Alachua County, I'm wondering if we might not make that decision the 24th rather than wait another five days, and even if we want to take a break after our interviews and go away and mull it over and come back and meet again, but I don't know that we need five days, and -- and certainly to drag them out for another five days. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Particularly in light of Mr. Rivera's comments regarding the time frame in which our selection process has taken, which I thought was rather expeditious compared to other counties and other processes, but that being the case, I think I'm fully capable, I believe, of making a decision on the 24th. Is -- is that an acceptable format for this board? COMMISSIONER BERRY: I agree with that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER BERRY: There's no sense in dragging it out any longer. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Then we will -- we will, after the interviews on the 24th, take a 15 or 20 minute recess, give each individual commissioner time to review your notes, come back and take formal action on -- on ranking these selections. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Lots of discussion in the Sunshine there. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Lots of discussion, names everywhere. It's gonna be -- it's just gonna be a party. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The ballot box is going to be located where? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Are there any other items on county manager recruitment we wish to discuss this morning? Okay. Seeing none, let's go to item 10 -- MR. MCNEES: Mr. Chairman, we make the assumption then that you have no desire to schedule any workshop items for the 29th and we'll have that as -- as an off day for the -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Not unless we want to discuss something that Commissioner Constantine is opposed to, then we'll go ahead and schedule that for the -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's definitely do that then. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, no, the 29th -- there will be no board meeting on the 29th unless something comes up on an emergency basis in the interim. MR. MCNEES: Thank you. Item #10B DISCUSSION REGARDING HEALTHCARE PROPERTY AT INTERSECTION OF 92 AND HEATHWOOD ON MARCO ISLAND - COUNTY ATTORNEY TO EXAMINE CHAIN OF TITLE ON THIS PROPERTY AND MAKE A DETERMINATION CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: On to item 10(B), board direction regarding a Marco property. Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: This simply -- there's been a question raised, some citizens groups on Marco Island have discovered what they feel is a -- a strange chain of title concerning the health care property there that's at the intersection of Highway 92 and Bald Eagle, or actually Heathwood, I guess, and if they're correct, the county actually owns that property. The important point is that they -- the question has been raised, there is some question about it. All I'm suggesting is that we direct our county attorney to examine the chain of title and make a determination for us. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The difference here being -- when you first started talking about this, my concern was that we don't get into association fights over property, but you're saying if the property did revert -- or reverts to the ownership of Collier County, the taxpayer does have some stake in this? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, that's correct, and I think it's important for someone to settle the question, and so that's -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I support your suggestion. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I certainly don't want the county commission to -- to buy into settling the question, you know, the broader question, the many questions that they have out there about, you know, the association fights, as Mr. Hancock described them, but if there's a possibility that we own a valuable piece of land, I want to know. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Then let's give -- Commissioner Berry? Let's give sufficient direction to the county attorney that would narrow the scope to those actions pertaining to a revert -- reversion or reverting in title of the property to Collier County, but issues regarding consistency with deed restrictions and so forth are not issues that the county attorney's office will become involved in. Is that fair direction, Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It is indeed. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Specific question, do we own it. Item #10C DISCUSSION REGARDING OPENING OF VANDERBILT BEACH EXTENSION EASTWARD AND ROADS IN PINE RIDGE ROAD AREA, BERMS AND TEMPORARY STRUCTURES - UPON FINAL COMPLETION OF VANDERBILT BEACH TO U.S. 41, TRANSPORTATION NLA/~AGER TO DO CORRIDOR NLA/~AGEHENT STUDY CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. Item 10(C). Commissioner Berry. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes, sir. This just came about of driving down Goodlette Road Extension within the past week and noticing with the event of Vanderbilt Beach Road, the new extension area east of Goodlette Road over to Airport Road getting ready to open, it appears that on an entrance into Pine Ridge, there has a berm -- a berm has appeared in front of the former concrete barriers, and it's nicely landscaped. It's beautiful. I was not on the commission at the time all of this discussion took place. I guess I was under the assumption, as a private citizen, that when that roadway was completed, that all the entrances or whatever, exits, however you want to look at it, into the Pine Ridge area would be open. What I'm asking for is, number one, just a clarification, are roads in Pine Ridge, number one, are they public roads, and number two, what currently -- I understand they -- you know, what was done was done with permit, et cetera, et cetera, so there was, as I can see it, there was nothing that was, quote, done illegally in terms of permitting or anything like that, but I would just like the clarification, and if there needs to be some adjustment made, if that berm is, number one, to stay or if it is furthermore to be removed, then what adjustments need to be made in terms of the entrance or -- ingress or egress of that particular property. I just would like that clarified. I don't know how the rest of you feel about it. I'm -- as I said, I was not on the commission at the time that took place, but it was just an assumption as a private citizen that I had at that time. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think only a couple were on the board at the time. I know I wasn't, so I assume Tim Hancock, Chairman Hancock was not either. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No, the -- well, we were here for some of the decisions, but not all of them. I mean -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It originated January 26th, 1993. I even remember the date. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good God, that's scary. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Must be a vivid memory. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a very vivid memory, but I hope that the answer -- because my assumption was the same as a private citizen that those were temporary barriers that were coming out when the road was connected, so '- COMMISSIONER BERRY: And I understood the impact into that area, but now with all of these additional roadways, and I have to tell you, it's -- I, for one, certainly have welcomed the extension of Vanderbilt Beach Road from where I live. I don't know how you all felt, but I have to drive in that area on a, well, daily basis, and I certainly am waiting for this next part to open up because it's going to save a lot for me, so I -- but I just had a question about this. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As much as I appreciate your assumptions, I think there is a history here that dates back to 1950 that neither of you are aware of. Of all of the connections to existing Goodlette Frank Road, those were stub-out roads that one time ended at a railroad. The original plans for Pine Ridge were that they would connect to a mirror residential community on the other side of the railroad tracks. That was the original plat in the 50's. At some point, I believe in the 70's, where Collier County had right of way, which is -- it would have been adjacent to Monterey and the Crossings, they swapped it with the railroad. That wasn't done in a public meeting. It was just done, and this is according to the, quote, history of Pine Ridge, and that's subject to -- we can -- we can take a look at that and verify whether it did or didn't happen in a public meeting, but in the end, the residents in Pine Ridge, particularly those adjacent to the land, were not notified of that action. So what went to people buying land that backed up to the railroad tracks now bought it backing up to an arterial, and roads that were supposed to stub out to a residential neighborhood now stubbed out to a future arterial roadway. That's a little bit of the history. On the other side, if, Commissioner Berry, you're advocating a full signalized intersection at Orange Blossom and Goodlette Frank that includes the -- the Pine Ridge Road, then I have to -- I will contest that strongly. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I'm not advocating anything. All I'm -- all I want to know is a clarification. I'm not advocating doing one thing one way or the other. That's not what I said. What I said was, I just want a clarification, number one, of public roadways, and that's number one, and number two, what was -- what was to happen when these big major roadways, the Vanderbilt Beach Road was to open, what was supposed to happen to these other roads that have been blocked off. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The answers are yes, and nothing specific. There was no particular plan for those roadways. Original plans to actually block northbound to westbound movement on Hickory have been put off again. So it's a question that -- what I was hoping to do is, once Vanderbilt Beach Road was completed, was to do a full access management plan in Pine Ridge so that we don't put ourselves in a position that five years from now we are being asked to put up traffic calming devices inside Pine Ridge because people from Orange Blossom begin using those streets as a thruway to US 41. We are dealing with that in other communities now, whether it's speed bumps, traffic circles, whatever, and I don't want to create another problem for ourselves in a residential neighborhood, so there was no board action or board plan, but I think we -- I think it was something we were going to have to visit in the future. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Right, and I'm not looking for trouble, Mr. Hancock, in any way, shape or form, but I would rather be ahead of it instead of behind it, and if there is something that we need to do down the road or direct staff to take a look at in terms of addressing this problem, then I think we should do it, you know, and I'm talking about the neighborhood. I'm not -- you know, I'm not interested in directing traffic through the Pine Ridge community. That certainly isn't my direction at all. I just want the clarification and then there's no question later on. That's all. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris may help me with this. My recollection is similar to what you said, and that is, we revisit the issue as necessary. We didn't have any specific plan that we were going to come back. I know we had talked about what to do with Hickory, which really is moot at this point since there isn't a northern opening anymore and doesn't allow for through traffic. One of the things I think the board has tried to be fairly consistent on is protecting existing neighborhoods as we deal with our transportation network and future planning. Much like we did with Countryside and had -- and I realize theirs is only two-tenths of a mile to the major thoroughfare, Santa Barbara, and they looked for a privatization, but the underlying issue there was, you know, is it really that inconvenient for the public to go an extra two-tenths of a mile and be on a major roadway, and here I think it's four-tenths of a mile up to the -- to the Vanderbilt, but I don't really have a problem with -- with that one entrance at Orange Blossom being closed if it protects the neighborhood. It doesn't privatize Pine Ridge. There are 13 entrances to Pine Ridge, so it certainly in no way is privatizing them or making them a gated community, and I really don't see it as a major inconvenience for someone who's coming across Orange Blossom to go four-tenths of a mile to the north or, I think it's eight or nine-tenths of a mile to the south, and I think if it's a minor traveling inconvenience to make sure we protect the existing neighborhood, and one of our oldest neighborhoods, we need to do that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: My research has always indicated that Commissioner Hancock's assessment is correct and that those entrances that are there, the stub-out entrances along Goodlette were never intended to be public access entrances. They were always intended -- from the outset, at least, intended to be, as he correctly points out, inter-connection into the same residential area. The primary reason for opening that up would be to allow cut-through traffic. That's really the only logical reason or the primary logical reason that anyone would have to -- to ask to have that opened up is to be able to cut through an existing neighborhood. I don't think that's a very good way to operate and it's referenced in our growth management plan. I can't call the number for you, but it's in their policy that says that -- that we encourage inter-connection of neighborhoods, but not if it encourages cut-through traffic. So that is a point that's referenced in our growth management plan and I don't -- I would not be supportive of opening that up without some other kind of justification. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So let's -- we -- the point still remains though that it sounds like the decisions made by the -- by the board were to look at this when that connection is made to Vandie, and so it's getting to be time to look at it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Can I -- can I suggest that once Vanderbilt Beach Road is completed from Airport Road to US 41 that we direct our transportation staff to present a traffic management plan for that corridor that includes the -- the subdivision of Pine Ridge and those areas that wish to be protected or we wish to protect from cut-through traffic can be either closed or operated as right in, right out only, and then we put this thing to bed once and for all, we're done with it, we're done talking about it, they're done talking about it and -- and we can move ahead. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the way to go. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that an acceptable direction? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't mind looking at it. I just find it hard to imagine there will be any compelling reason to open it. COMMISSIONER BERRY: But I think you need to be aware that there are some residents in Pine Ridge that would not be opposed to opening up some of those accesses, and I'm only saying that because, number one, of a school access road, okay, if you're coming out of Pine Ridge, it would make sense -- if you wanted to go to Barton Collier High School, it would make sense if you wanted to come across that intersection to get over to Barton Collier and I'm not, you know, I'm not -- you know, I'm not arguing the point. It's -- frankly, it's immaterial to me. I don't go through that neighborhood. It's too much of a -- like going through a maze, as far as I'm concerned -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Amen. You think Golden Gate's hard. COMMISSIONER BERRY: So you know, the shortest distance for me is point A to point B on that straight road that's on the north end of it, so I have nothing to gain here. I'm not interested in it personally, but it's just -- I think we do need a clarification down the road, and I certainly agree with you, Mr. Chairman, that, you know, an assessment of that by our traffic department is certainly in line and I think we ought to do that. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Has that entrance ever been open? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I didn't think that it had ever been open, and I really don't see the point of pushing traffic right through somebody's subdivision. We would not even consider that at anybody else's subdivision. I don't know why we'd even talk about it in Pine Ridge. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, I think if for no other reason to put an end to this discussion, we will -- will have transportation prepare, whether it includes berms, right in, right out only or whatever. I'll tell you one thing, that berm's a lot prettier than those barricades were, so let's give them community beautification points, if nothing else. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I didn't say it was ugly. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So why don't we take that route and then we can -- we can put this to rest, and Ms. Berry, I'm acutely aware of not just what's inside Pine Ridge, but there are also individuals in other communities that wish to have that open for their use, and so we will -- we will hear from all of them, ten-fold. We'll meet here just one final time, I hope. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Emphasis on final. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Final, yeah, kind of like gatehouse solutions, final. Okay. Item 10(C). Anything further? Okay. Thank you. And 10(D) was eliminated. PUBLIC COHMENT - KATHY WORLEY - ASSESSMENT OF THE CLAM BAY MANAGEMENT PLAN We are to public comment on general topics. Mr. McNees. MR. HCNEES: You have two speakers, Mr. Chairman. The first is Kathy Worley who will be followed by Gil Erlichman. MS. WORLEY: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. My name is Kathy Worley -- I'm sorry. My name is Kathy Worley. I'm from the Conservancy of Southwest Florida and I would like to submit, for the record, our initial assessment of the Clam Bay Restoration Plan. I have copies for you all. I don't -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Pass it to Mr. Weigel. Thank you. MS. WORLEY: The Conservancy can't take a position on this plan since it was received for review only last Wednesday, April 9th, and we simple -- simply have not had enough time to evaluate this. We strongly feel that a review period should be established, during which all interested parties, including the permitting agencies, and we can all have our concerns addressed. Although we have only done a cursory review of the plan, we've found that some elements are encouraging, such as the initiative to acquire a long-term permit to keep Clam Pass open. However, we also have some initial concerns and we would like to see them resolved. The Conservancy feels that it's critical to consider the functioning of the entire ecosystem when you evaluate this plan. Thank you for listening. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, and I do want to assure you, I spoke to -- to Mr. Guggenheim yesterday afternoon, and of course, one of the reasons for the formal review process of the state and federal agencies is so that interested parties can have these type of concerns answered, and if that process is not sufficient, I've told Mr. Guggenheim I'll work with him to get those answers provided. MS. WORLEY: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. PUBLIC COHMENT - GIL ERLICHHAN REGARDING MEDIA RECEIVING AGENDA PACKETS AT NO CHARGE AND GIL ERLICHHAN AND TY AGOSTIN REGARDING INCINERATION ISSUE MR. MCNEES: And Mr. Erlichman. MR. ERLICHHAN: Good morning, commissioners. Gil Erlichman. I reside in East Naples and I'm a taxpayer and elector in Collier County. I would like to address, for the third time, the issue of the dissemination and -- and giving to the media our executive summary at no charge, whereas the public have to pay for that executive summary to the tune of $450 per year. It's -- to me, it's a principle. There's a principle involved here, and the principle is that the county has to pay the newspaper, Naples Daily News, for publishing the agenda in the Sunday paper, and that amounts to a few thousand dollars a year, whereas the newspaper pays nothing for the executive summary, and I was told that this is in the public interest, the dissemination of the executive summary to the media for public information. Well, to me, it's a quid pro -- quid pro quo situation. I, as a taxpayer, have to pay and -- for the publication of the agenda in the newspaper indirectly, through my taxes, whereas, the newspaper obtains the executive summary for nothing. I, as an individual or member of an organization, have to pay $450 for that executive summary. Well, I consider it a -- a direct tax upon me as a private citizen, whereas the media obtain the executive summary for nothing. My second point is, last night at a TAG meeting, the question of landfill was brought up and it occurred to me that the county has not explored the question of a -- of incineration, to my knowledge. I've only lived here since 1988, and I don't know -- and of course, I don't know what the -- inner workings of the county occurred prior to '88 and what has happened subsequent to 1988, but to me, the advancement and technology of incineration is such that I question the idea of continuing landfill operations without a good study of incineration. All of Western Europe, all the advanced countries of the world practice incineration. A lot of metropolitan communities in the United States have incineration. I don't know why Collier County hasn't considered it up to this point. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You haven't seen community involvement in this town until you mention the word incineration. Just prior to your getting here, Mr. Erlichman, incinerator was discussed and it was discussed en masse. The outcry was so strong at that time, because I went back and looked at this. I, like you, was not here in '87. I wasn't as far north, but I was north. MR. ERLICHHAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But Commissioner Norris well remembers that -- that discussion and can enlighten you as to the community's feelings at that time and the strength of that, because I -- it is significant. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Where is Ellie Krier? Talk to her. She can tell you some stories. MR. ERLICHHAN: I'm trying to find out, what is the -- what is the reason for the public outcry against incineration? I -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The reasons for not -- MR. ERLICHMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- having public outcry were much shorter and easier to go through. It was -- it was pretty -- it was pretty significant, so I -- again, it's all a part of the public record because it was a -- a huge meeting, and Mr. McNees can probably provide you with the dates of those meetings for your review. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ellie, talk to TAG about incineration. MR. ERLICHMAN: Okay. Thank you. COMHISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman, if I might. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. COMHISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Erlichman, I might tell you that it was -- it reached beyond the county commission. It was also -- the school board got brought into that particular issue as well, and I remember it very well because I was on the board at the time, but it's -- it has a very long history in Collier County. When I was here with you last night I didn't get into it because we could have spent an hour in discussion on what transpired. MR. MCNEES: If you want to discuss it again, I'll volunteer to go to Sweden to -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You might need a commissioner with you though. MR. MCNEES: You have one more speaker, Ty Agoston. MR. AGOSTON: Morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Ty Agoston. I live in Golden Gate Estates and the apparent recipient of the new landfill that we're discussing. The longevity in the Naples realtor market is somewhere in the area of three and a half years. What I mean by that is that every three and a half years, every apartment or every condo or every house gets resold. These are statistics I just somewhere picked up, but at any rate, when you're talking about something that happened ten years ago, which obviously I wasn't here, those people may not be around and it seems that this incinerator issue that Mr. Erlichman has brought up may, at this point, be handled as a political hot potato, which it may not be. Maybe those opponents of yours ten years ago have moved away in either direction or just moved out of the county. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: They're shaking their heads no. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They're back in the back. MR. AGOSTON: At any rate, to be honest with you, I am concerned when someone gets a larger consideration than another, and I don't want to feel -- and I'm not quite sure how I should put this because I have always been for the rich and don't want to come across as against the coastal rich because it almost becomes a cliche, but the fact of the matter is, is that from where I look at this, the landfill will come to either side of me, so it's not the object. I know that we're not going to put it on Gulf Shore Boulevard, so everybody knows that. Now, whether these people feel that an incinerator will harm their quality of life, I think bears an investigation, and this is a bitter fight on the part of the people in Immokalee or anybody on all the roads who would receive this landfill, but they're not powerful enough to bring in attorneys and slick speakers to provide for their interest. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You know, in, I don't know what year it was, Commissioner Norris might be able to help me out, '93, '94, we polled the board and we actually sent out requests for proposals for any and every technology on the planet, with the exception of incinerators. That was the only one we were not open to. I'm not prepared to alter that, and that was a unanimous decision by the then-board. All five commissioners said, we're willing to look at anything except incinerators, and I haven't changed my mind since then. I don't know if anybody else on the board has, but we probably can put that to rest now if -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I still don't have an interest. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I didn't then, don't know. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Some events in life are significant enough that you don't need to revisit them every ten years, and from my review of what occurred ten years ago, the reasons for not wanting incinerators are still there and the people who had them are still here, so '- MR. AGOSTON: You sure? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So I -- I think we'd be opening up the same can of worms with the same results and wasting everyone's time. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, we need to see a headline tomorrow, TAG proposes incinerator. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And -- and I know everybody feels this way too, but even -- it's not just public sentiment in the fact that we don't want to sit through all those hearings, I personally think consideration is a bad idea. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If you think landfilling has unknowns. Okay. COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, the headlines will probably read, commission considers incineration by merely talking about it, you know, just saying the words. That did it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. That did it? Item #15A UPDATE RE HOUSE BILL 1173 RELATING TO PERIMETER AND BISECTING EASEMENTS IN GOLDEN GATE Well, we are to BCC communications. Are there any, Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Nope. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry? COMMISSIONER BERRY: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Likewise. Staff communications. Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. I just wanted to update you in regard to CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As -- as he hits the brakes. MR. WEIGEL: -- House Bill 1173, which was the county initiative sponsored by state representative Butt Saunders' bill concerning perimeter and bisecting easements in Golden Gate. It's been really working well in its review through the county's -- our office -- committees. Our office has had a lot of discussion with committee persons. DEP raised concern for a clarification in the bill as drafted, and -- and we have worked with Attorney Bill Roberts. He was the long-time attorney with the Florida Association of Counties, now with DEP, and I have passed out to you and provided to the record a couple of sentences that specifically indicate that the -- this act, this special act doesn't apply to any public easement, including public right of way as a clarification, and additional language which indicates that the perimeter easements and bisecting easements that would be extinguished over a period of time, except those necessary to retain legal access, and again, these are clarifications of the original intent of the language. I'm not asking for the board to officially act, but I wanted to bring to your attention if in case Representative Saunders, the legislative delegation or any committee asks if our board has seen this language and consensually approved it. If you do consensually approve, if you could give me that nod or that affirmation, that would be just fine. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Is there any difficulty in the language presented? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So nodded. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none -- so nodded, according to Commissioner Mac'Kie. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. McNees. MR. MCNEES: I wouldn't dare, and I would only ask if you want to take a five or ten minute break, we'll reconfigure the room for your workshop CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, actually, we will close this hearing and reopen a workshop following, and we'll take a ten minute break in between. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Miss Filson have anything? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Miss Filson, did you have anything for the meeting? MS. FILSON: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Then the BCC meeting is adjourned. Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner Norris and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted: Item #16A1 BID #97-2652 FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF MATERIAL FOR THE MARCO ISLAND 2.5 MILE ARTIFICIAL REEF PROJECT - AWARDED TO HCCULLEY MARINE SERVICES, INC. Item #16A2 AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE APPLICATION FOR A GRANT TO REMOVE ABANDONED DERELICT VESSELS FROM THE COUNTY'S WATERS Item #16A3 RESOLUTION 97-202 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER, AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF HUNTINGTON LAKES, UNIT ONE, AND RELEASE OF SECURITY Item #16A4 AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN A SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT WITH TEXTRON FINANCIAL CORPORATION/TEXTRON CAPITAL CORPORATION Item #16A5 - Moved to Item #SA1 Item #16B1 - Deleted Item #1682 - Deleted Item #1683 - Deleted Item #1684 - Deleted Item #1685 REINSTATEMENT OF CHANGE ORDER AUTHORITY FOR CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION SERVICES FOR THE VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD FOUR LANING PROJECT FROM HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE TO AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD Item #1686 BUDGET AMENDMENT TO FUND EMERGENCY REPAIR CONSTRUCTION SERVICES FOR SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT SEPTIC TANK DRAINFIELD REPAIR Item #1687 Deleted Item #1688 BID 97-2634R FOR A 1997 D3C-III CATERPILLAR BULLDOZER FOR $48,945 - AWARDED TO KELLY TRACTOR OF FT. MYERS Item #16C1 TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO REIMBURSE FUND #368 FOR IMPROVEMENT RELATIVE TO THE COLLIER COUNTY RACQUET FACILITY LOCATED ON MARCO ISLAND Item #16C2 BID #97-2635 FOR THE PURCHASE OF ARTS AND CRAFT SUPPLIES - AWARDED TO TRIARCO ARTS AND CRAFTS AS PRIMARY SUPPLIER AND S & S ARTS AND CRAFTS AS SECONDARY SUPPLIER Item #16D1 BID #97-2647 FOR FILM AND FILM PROCESSING - AWARDED TO PHOTO LAB Item #16El AUTHORIZATION FOR PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION TO SUBMIT THE CLAM BAY RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN TO THE FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES Item #16E2 BUDGET AMENDMENT 97-231 Item #16G1 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the various departments as indicated: Item #16H1 USE OF CONFISCATED TRUST FUNDS TO PURCHASE SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT BY THE COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND RECOGNIZE ADDITIONAL CARRY FORWARD FROM FISCAL YEAR 1996 Item #16H2 AUTHORIZATION FOR FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING DPEARTHENT TO FILE THE STATE OF FLORIDA ANNUAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AS REQUIRED BY FLORIDA STATUTE 218.32 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:18 a.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS 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 GREGORY COURT REPORTING BY: Heather L. Casassa