Loading...
BCC Minutes 05/06/1997 R REGULAR MEETING OF HAY 6, 1997 OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, in and for County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Timothy L. Hancock Timothy J. Constantine John C. Norris Barbara B. Berry Pamela S. Hac'Kie STAFF PRESENT: David C. Weigel, County Attorney HArjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney Mike HcNees, Acting County Manager Thomas W. Olliff, Public Services Administrator Wayne Arnold, Planning Services Director Leo Ochs, Jr., Support Services Administator Steve Camell, Purchasing Director William D. Lorenz, Natural Resources Director Dan Croft, St. Risk Management Analyst Ray Bellows, Project Planner Vincent Cautero, Comm. Dev. & Env. Set. Administrator Ed Ilschner, Public Works Administrator Sue Filson, BCC Administrative Assistant Item #3 AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'd like to call to order the Hay 6, 1997 meeting of the Board of -- Collier County Board of County Commissioners. This morning it's a pleasure for the invocation to have Reverend Charles West of the Naples First Church of the Nazarene. Reverend West, if I could ask you to come to the podium and offer the invocation this morning and we'll follow that with the Pledge of Allegiance. REVEREND WEST: Could we pray together. Father, thank you for another beautiful day which is a gift that we receive from you. We thank you for the area of Collier County in which we are privileged to reside. For all the community members that are here in their great diversity of resources and gifts and abilities and energies, we give you thanks. We pray your particular protection upon those who might have been in harm's way or still are due to last evening's fires. We'd ask that you'd watch over them and protect them and be with them. We would ask specifically today that you would grant wisdom and insight and courage in the administration of the affairs of this community. We commend it into your care. In the name of Jesus Christ, we ask it. Amen. (Pledge of Allegiance recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Reverend West, thank you for taking time out of your schedule to be with us this morning. We appreciate it very much. Good morning, Mr. HcNees. MR. HCNEES: Good morning, Chairman, commissioners. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What do we have in the way of changes today? MR. HCNEES: Only two from staff this morning. Item 8(B)(1) that's some recommendations regarding median landscaping of Bonita Beach Road that we're asking you to continue until Hay the 13th. That's actually at the request of Commissioner Judah from Lee County. Neither he nor the key staff person from Lee County were able to be at the meeting today, so I had told him that you and I would certainly have no problem with continuing that for a week. They would like to come down here and work out something with you to help get this project rolling or keep it rolling, so we are continuing that a week. The other is an item removed from consent agenda, 16(D)(2), will become Item 8(D)(2). It's an award of bid for tire purchases. Those are the only staff changes we have. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Weigel, any changes? MR. WEIGEL: None, thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just wondered if we might have an update on, and wherever this would be appropriate, an update on when the candidate for county manager might be coming back to town and the status on negotiations. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I had, I had intended under just BCC communications to convey to you the status and what's gone on to date -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Super. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- and what to expect. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's all I ask. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing today. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry? COHMISSIONER BERRY: Nothing, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we could add Item 10(D) which would be discussion and possible action regarding the forwarding error made by our staff on the Growth Management Plan. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have that as an additional item, Item 10(D). Other than the mentioned -- the item I mentioned under BCC communication, I have no changes to the agenda. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we approve the agenda and consent agenda as amended. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Second it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. ALL COHMISSIONERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Opposed? (No response.) Item #4 MINUTES OF APRIL 8 AND 15, 1997 REGULAR MEETINGS AND APRIL 15, 1997 WORKSHOP - APPROVED AS PRESENTED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, we're to approval of minutes COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion we approve the minutes of the April 8 and April 15, 1997 regular meeting and our workshop of April 15, 1997. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: ALL COMHISSIONERS: CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. Any All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Seeing none, carries unanimously. Item #5A1 PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING HAY 4-10, 1997 AS COLLIER COUNTY TOURISM WEEK - ADOPTED Proclamations and service awards this morning. First proclamation is regarding Collier County Tourism Week and Commissioner Mac'kie. COMHISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm looking for John Ayres. There you are, John. Please do come up. John's going to accept this proclamation as President of Visit Naples. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Inc. COMHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Inc. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Nice article in the paper. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Very nice. MR. AYRES: This is Joe DeNunzio with the Naples Area Accommodations Association. COMHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Wonderful. If you'll face the camera while I read this, I'd appreciate it. Whereas, the travel and tourism industry supports the vital interest of Collier County, contributing to our employment, economic prosperity, peace, understanding and goodwill; and Whereas, travel and tourism ranks as one of Collier County's largest industries in terms of revenues generated; and Whereas, an approximately three million travelers visiting Collier County contributed 27.53 percent of the annual taxable sales to the economy in 1996; and Whereas, those travelers provided jobs for approximately twenty-two thousand citizens in Collier County; and Whereas, travel and tourism provides employment for more people than any other industry; and Whereas, given these laudable contributions to the economic, social and cultural well-being of the citizens of Collier County, it is fitting that we recognize the importance of travel and tourism. Now therefore be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of May 4 through 10, 1997 be designated as Collier County Tourism Week. Done and ordered this 6th day of May, 1997, Board of County Commissioners. I'd like to move we accept this proclamation. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a couple of seconds. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. ALL COHMISSIONERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Ayres. MR. AYRES: Thank you very much. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If you'd like to say something, feel free. MR. AYRES: Well, if we had anything to say, it would probably be too touristy, but nonetheless, we do appreciate it very much. We've, we've all been, through the TDC and through your efforts, wrestling with this monster of tourism dollars and how to spend them appropriately and it's just, it's very fitting today that, that we would receive these proclamations and unanimous support and we always knew somehow we could, we could get together on this thing and make the right decisions and it's very comforting that, that we're at that point today. We thank you very much. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. Item #5A2 PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING THE MONTH OF HAY, 1997 AS MOTORCYCLE SAFETY AND AWARENESS MONTH - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Ayres, thank you. Our next proclamation this morning is designating the month of May 1997 as motorcycle safety and awareness month. Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we have Jim Morris here from the -- I want to -- MR. MORRIS: I have Mr. Murphy with me. He is my safety officer. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And Mr. Murphy as well. If you'll both turn around and face the TV lens, we'll read the following proclamation. Whereas, motorcycles are increasingly being used as a regular means of transportation due to the current need to conserve fuel and our state's favorable climate for this mode of transportation and they're a darn lot of fun; and Whereas, the motorcycle is an energy efficient vehicle and reduces fuel consumption, traffic, and parking congestion; and Whereas, the motorcycle has proved to be an important form of transportation for commuting, as well as touring, and recreation both on and off the roads; and Whereas, as a matter of safety, it's necessary to develop skills and an awareness of proper driving habits to handle these vehicles on the highways of our state. Now therefore be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that the month of Hay 1997 be designated as motorcycle safety and awareness month in recognition of the need for a greater public awareness of the motorcycle and its proper use on our highways. Done and ordered this 6th day of Hay, 1997, BCC, Timothy L. Hancock, Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion we approve this proclamation. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. ALL COHMISSIONERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Gentlemen. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: By the way, Jan and I are celebrating motorcycle safety and awareness month by taking a course on Friday this month. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Well, I'm one step ahead of you, Commissioner. I'm already certified currently. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was years ago before getting mowed down by an oil truck, so this is a refresher course. MR. MORRIS: I hope those are all on Gold Wings, right? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, they hope so, too. MR. MORRIS: The Collier County Gold Wing Chapter appreciates you having this proclamation. As you know, the governor also signed for the State of Florida. This is the third year straight for the State of Florida and all the motorcyclists in the county really appreciate it. Thank you very much. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Appreciate you being here. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I wasn't aware we had a biker board. Commissioner Berry, Commissioner Constantine and I share a commonality, surprise, we both got mowed down on motorcycles when we were in our teens, so spent some quality time in the hospital. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You've either been down or you're going down on a motorcycle. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or you're not on one. Item #5A3 PROCLAivLATION PROCLAIMING HAY 6, 1997 AS FAMILY AND COHMUNITY EDUCATOR APPRECIATION WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: 5(A)(3), proclamation for Family and Community Educator Appreciation Week. Commissioner Berry. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes, sir. It's a pleasure this morning to be able to read this proclamation. Could I have Doris Wolf from the Florida -- or I'm sorry, the Family and Community Education Group in Immokalee. She's also president, I believe, of that particular group. Jo Selvia, is Jo here this morning? She's president of the Island, okay. Ann Hoskins, county council FCE secretary and president of the Henderson Creek Club; Ruth Conroy, county council FCE treasurer and representing the North Naples Group; and Jean Dunn, president of the Golden Gate FCE Club. The proclamation reads, whereas, family and community educator volunteers are an integral part of Collier County government; and Whereas, the Collier County FCE program offers opportunities for citizens who wish to volunteer in a variety of different ways such as sharing educational information with adults and youth; and Whereas, during the past five years, the FCE organization has donated in excess of twelve thousand hours to the Cooperative Extension Service and the community; and Whereas, family and community educators support such worthwhile efforts as the 4-H Youth Development Program and the Collier County Agricultural Fair; and Whereas, without family and community educators, the quality of service to Collier County residents and their children would be greatly reduced. Now therefore be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that gratitude and appreciation is extended to all the family and community educator volunteers who give of their time and energies to Collier County government. We, the Board of Collier County Commissioners, do affirm our commitment to the Family and Community Educator Program and value our partnership with the University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service in honoring these citizens who have given so much to Collier County and therefore proclaim May 4 through the 10th, 1997 as Family and Community Educator Appreciation Week in Collier County. Done and ordered this 6th day of May, 1997, signed by Timothy L. Hancock, Chairman. I would, Mr. Chairman, like to move this proclamation, please. COMHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. ALL COMHISSIONERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Also, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to present at this time a plaque to I believe it's Jean Dunn from the Golden Gate FCE Club. This is the group which has apparently done some outstanding work and we would like to present this plaque to you, Jean. MS. DUNN: Thank you. COMHISSIONER BERRY: Doris, if you'd like to say something, you may step over to the podium, Ruth -- MS. DUNN: We're going to let her say it. COHHISSIONER BERRY: Okay, then. Okay. Ann Hoskins, I'm sorry, thank you. Jean, okay, and it's Cephus Grief, do you know her, Cephus? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That'll be next. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's the next one. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I'm sorry. How did I get this? Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Five more years, you'll have this down pat. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I'll get this down. MS. WOLF: Thank you. My name is Doris Wolf and I am president of the County Council Family and Community Educators and also president of my local club. Thank you for taking a few minutes of your busy time today to honor us. We really enjoy as much as we receive. Some of the projects that we work on and one that Jean Dunn's club is especially interested in is the Abused Shelter for Women of Collier County. This year they have donated around two thousand dollars in material things and money and, of course, our first love, the 4-H Clubs of Collier County. One of the mothers said that if it wasn't for the Family and Community Educators, there wouldn't be any 4-H Clubs in Collier County. I'm sure this is just a stretch of the imagination, but we feel like that the things that we do are a help to the club. We feel like that our future leaders, many will come from our 4-H Clubs. Some of the things that we do is, of course, the Collier County Fair and other things we do with the -- and we do the county events and then we help with many of the fund-raising projects of the 4-H thing. Thank you again for your time. Item #5A4 PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING MAY 4-10, 1997 AS FINANCIAL COUNSELOR APPRECIATION WEEK - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you very much. Our next proclamation is for Financial Counselor Appreciation Week. Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. Could we ask Tab Grief to come forward, please. MR. GRIER: Hi there. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Welcome, Mr. Grief. I'll read the proclamation for you here. Whereas, financial counselor volunteers are an integral part of the Collier County government; and Whereas, the Collier County Financial Counselor Program offers opportunities for citizens who wish to offer their time and talents to help families and individuals become competent county managers -- sorry. I'm jumping ahead to the next item. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Don't do that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: To become competent money managers; and Whereas, financial counselors play a critical role in the success of the extension's home loan program by offering home buyers educational training to home loan applicants; and Whereas, this home buyers' training emphasizes the financial obligations of a new homeowner, thus, helping to safeguard over five million dollars in home loans from foreclosures; and Whereas, financial counselors also offer one on one credit counseling to persons who would like to qualify for the home loan program; and Whereas, without the volunteer services of financial counselors, the quality of service to Collier County residents would be greatly reduced. Now therefore be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that gratitude and appreciation is extended to all the financial counselor volunteers who give of their time and energies to Collier County government. We, the Board of Collier County Commissioners, do affirm our commitment to the financial counselor program and value our partnership with the University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service in honoring these citizens who have given so much to Collier County, and therefore proclaim May 4 to the 10th, 1997 as Financial Counselor Appreciation Week in Collier County. Done and ordered this 6th day of May, 1997. Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that we accept this proclamation. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. ALL COMHISSIONERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Congratulations, Mr. Grief. Thank you. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And if you'd like to say a few words, please use our podium and there's a personal certificate for you as well as a proclamation. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MR. GRIER: Asking a sales manager would he like to say a few words, that's interesting. Good morning. I'm Tab Grief. I recently retired and I moved to Collier County approximately nineteen months ago. I was a region sales manager with General Electric and RCA for the past thirty-two years, so I've moved around quite a lot and I've looked at the area and this is where I decided to make my home. Very brief background, wherever I have lived and whatever community I've lived in in raising my children, I have been an active part of that community and I saw some needs here, so without going too much into that, I would like to take this opportunity on behalf of all of the financial counselors to thank you very much for the honor that you have bestowed upon us. As being a financial counselor working under the very capable leadership of Jan Bennett and Denise Blanton, we serve, I think, a very serious position in the community where we give of our time and our efforts to help develop the people within the community, so I believe it is a very important function and I'm very happy to be a part of that. Very briefly, I would like to update you on the home loan program which started in March 1997 which is now nine months in its operation. The total amount in the loans committed is now 7.4 million dollars. The number of loans are a hundred and one. The total -- the average loan amount is seventy-three thousand five hundred dollars. The total purchase is 7.9 million. This represents approximately seventy-nine thousand eight hundred dollars in taxes for the county and, again, this is the importance of the type of work that we're doing, getting out to the people, helping them to achieve financial stability and get into their own homes, so as you can see, this program is certainly working. In closing, I would like to thank the board for their continued support of the financial counselors and the Corporate Extension Services of Collier County. Again, thank you very much. Have a good day. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. It's worthwhile to note that Mr. Grief and the other volunteers in financial counseling have helped this community reach one of the board's goals which was priority of ownership over -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- short-term rentals and we thank you and all the other volunteers in that same respect. To service awards this morning, we have three. Our first one this morning for fifteen years of service is to Miss Marilyn Matthes. See, you're halfway there, Marilyn. MS. MATTHES: Thank you. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Good job. Item #5B EHPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Second, we have Miss Cheryl Soter from Building Review and Permitting for ten year's service. Thank you. MS. SOTER: Thank you so much. Item #5C JESSE KOHORNY, WATER DEPARTMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION - RECOGNIZED AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR HAY, 1997 CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have Joseph Collins, Department of Revenue, ten years. Thank you. This morning, I have the pleasure, as each chairman does once a month, to recognize an individual county employee for their effort, in recognizing Jesse Komorny of our Water Department as employee of the month for Hay of 1997. Jesse, where are you out there? There you are. Come on up, Jesse, so we can sufficiently embarrass you. Stand here to my left and face the camera. I'd like to read a letter from the board. Dear Mr. Komorny, it is indeed a pleasure for us to announce your selection as Collier County's employee of the month for Hay 1997. This well deserved recognition is for your valuable contributions to the county through your work in the Water Department. This honor includes an exceptional performance plaque as well as a fifty dollar cash award which I am proud to present to you. On behalf of the Board of Commissioners, I offer our sincere congratulations and also our gratitude for your dependability and dedication. Jesse, this is a plaque for you to hang in prominent display for all to see and, of course, a fifty dollar check that you won't want to hang in any prominent display. I'll give you the letter and, Jesse, congratulations and thank you. Some day I'm going to figure out how, out of all the employees we have, we come up with one a month. That's got to be a dogfight among the department managers. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It can be. Item #7A DOUGLAS A. WOOD, SIESKY, PILON & WOOD RE ORDINANCE 96-18, NO WAKE ZONE FOR CLAIM BAY - NO ACTION COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Next under public petitions, Item 7(A). We have Douglas Wood from Siesky, Pilon & Wood. I'd like to remind the two petitions this morning that petitioners are given approximately ten minutes for their presentation. The board does not take action specifically on public petitions but may direct our staff to bring the item back under a regularly scheduled agenda. Good morning, Mr. Wood. MR. WOOD: Good morning, commissioner, good morning, commissioners. My name is Doug Wood. I'm an attorney with Siesky, Pilon & Wood. I'm here on behalf of Terry and Pay Brzeski who are residents of Seahorse Avenue in the Seagate Subdivision. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Wood, could you pull the microphone down a little bit? MR. WOOD: Oh, okay. Is that better? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. I think that'll do it. MR. WOOD: I have a copy of the transcript of the minutes from the last that I'd like to pass to the commissioners. This is the -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That may have been -- MR. WOOD: -- transcript -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That may have been made a part of our record, I believe. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's in our packet. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's the same as what you submitted. MR. WOOD: Okay. Is it part of the record? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, we do. I have it. MR. WOOD: Okay. As you may recall, approximately a year ago, I was here on behalf, in front of the board on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Brzeski at that time when the board was considering adopting and did, in fact, adopt Ordinance 96-16 which approved the no wake zone in the Clam Bay system. Our main concerns were at that time was that if you adopted the no wake zone in the Clam Bay system, it essentially would give -- take away my clients and the other residents of Seagate who lived along Clam Bay the right to use their boats and their watercraft. The reason being is there is no access to the gulf through the Clam Bay system. At that time, Commissioner Constantine had asked Mr. Dugan if there was access to the gulf and it was represented to the board that there was a dredge permit in place, that they were dredging the Clam Pass and that there would be access within a couple of weeks. Since that time, I've spoken with a number of people from staff, Harry Huber of Capital Projects, Ken Humiston, the project engineer, Vince Cautero and Bill Lorenz, the natural resources director. That dredge permit was never meant for the purposes of making the pass navigable for boats, vessels, watercraft. It was simply for the, for water circulation purposes. In fact, at this time, that pass is very narrow, and depending upon the tides, you know, it's as shallow as six inches to a foot in depth. It's just not safe for boats or any type of watercraft to have access to the gulf, so now my clients along with the other residents of Clam Bay are forced with, yeah, they can use their, their personal watercrafts and their vessels in Clam Bay but only at no wake and I think the commission will recognize that people who buy boats or personal watercrafts want the ability to be able to use them, drive them more than a no wake and so right now since there's no access to the gulf, they're forced, even though they spent large amounts of dollars to live on the water, and in my clients' case, was able to use her watercrafts and her boats for sixteen years, now she's forced with the situation where she's got to trailer her boat and watercraft and put it in the water somewhere else if she wants to use it. What we would like is for the Commission to send this back to staff to re-evaluate and take into consideration not only the, I guess, the environmental interests in Clam Bay because we recognize that's a legitimate interest, but also take into consideration if this isn't a navigable pass, one that you may not have the environmental concerns with the manatees that was originally thought to, you may have had, and two, if you take into consideration the other property owners who live along Clam Bay, I think maybe there's a better compromise there. Rather than a wholesale no wake zone in Clam Bay system, maybe we can do something where we have the no wake zone in certain areas, certain locations in Clam Bay system or certain, during certain periods of the day. I think the Commission should also recognize and I think staff will recognize, talking to Mr. Cautero and Mr. Lorenz, that you're not going to have a lot of boat traffic in Clam Bay. There's no dock facilities in there and I don't think there's going to be any since there's no access to the gulf. You don't have people coming into Clam Bay from the gulf. Really, the only people using the Clam Bay system are the people that live there on Clam Bay. The boat traffic's not going to be significant, but I think if you take into consideration the other property owners and their rights to use their watercraft in an enjoyable manner, the better solution might be to either limit the location or the time for the no wake zone. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Wood. Commissioner Norris? MR. WOOD: And I apologize. My client was going to be here to address you as well today, but -- oh, as a matter of fact, here she is. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Under, under public petition, you're afforded a time frame and -- MR. WOOD: It's ten minutes total, isn't it? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct, but it's typically a single presentation, rather than having someone count and five people giving two minutes each. I -- we appreciate that your client is here, but we assume that you're either speaking for them or they would be here themselves to speak. MR. WOOD: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have a question for Mr. Dugan and while he's coming up, Mr. Wood, aren't these the same arguments that you used in the original public hearing? MR. WOOD: Yes, except for, Commissioner, at the original public hearing, I wasn't -- I -- my client had called me the day before the hearing. I wasn't even aware at that time that, you know, the county was obtaining a dredge permit to dredge the channel and based upon what was said at that time, I think it was my understanding, along with the Commission's understanding, that when the channel was dredged, the residents of Clam Bay were going to have access with their boats to the gulf. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Mr. Dugan, is this an idle speed zone or a no wake zone? MR. DUGAN: Kevin Dugan, Natural Resources Department. The Clam Bay system is posted as idle speed, no wake. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. And so that means that they, they can't move along fast at all, right? MR. DUGAN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That means that they just have to -- there's a different designation where you can run a little faster as long as you're not -- that's a slow speed, no wake? MR. DUGAN: It would be slow speed, minimum wake, correct. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Minimum wake, okay, but this is an idle speed, no wake? MR. DUGAN: (Nodding head.) COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there, in fact, no access to the gulf? MR. DUGAN: There is access to the gulf. Mr. Wood is correct when he said it was not for navigational purposes. The Clam Bay system is under a conservation easement that does not allow dredging for navigable purposes. However, there was a project that was just completed within the last few weeks that reopened the Clam Bay system. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And at low tide, there is just one foot of water? MR. DUGAN: Probably in some areas back up inside the bay but not within the pass itself. I was up there yesterday, as a matter of fact, to walk through to see just how deep the water was. Back up between where the bridge is and where the pass is, there was an area that was, was quite shallow. In fact, I met a canoeist up there that, you know, he had to get out and push his boat through, but I might also add that, you know, when I spoke with the canoeist, he was, he was concerned a year ago before the ordinance went into effect that he almost had the bow of his canoe taken off by a personal watercraft. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'm, I'm aware that some people are unsafe and, you know, that's a different issue to me from whether, from the -- whether or not people should have access. I know that we're looking back over these minutes. Both Commissioner Constantine and I were under the impression that even though I understand this is not a navigation pass, it's not maintained for that purpose, but we had expected that within a week of the, within a week of the hearing, there would be access to the gulf again as a result of the -- as a result of the dredging. I think it, I think it is an important issue that people who live in Seagate have, you know, some right to use the waterfront property that they, that they bought, so it's critical to me again to understand what is the nature of their access to the gulf, so can you tell me, if you were in a personal watercraft during, you know -- what percentage of time would you have access to the gulf? MR. DUGAN: Probably ninety-nine point nine percent of the time. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: These things run in eight inches of water. MR. DUGAN: Right. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, I know they do and that's, that's really my bottom line. I understand you're not going to be able to, you know, your client won't be able to zip around in the, in the canals around Seagate, but if you still have some reasonable access to the gulf, that seems to me to be a fair balance. You might want to talk to your client because she's shaking her head that you don't have any access. MR. WOOD: Well, if I may, one thing I want the commissioners to consider is, as Commissioner Hancock pointed out, yeah, maybe Seadoos can run in eight inches of water. I don't think that's the ideal condition to run Seadoos in. That's still, in my opinion, I think if you have staff investigate it, that's not a, not a safe condition to have Seadoos running through eight feet of water -- eight inches of water and, and that doesn't take into consideration boats. You can't run, unless it's a small flat boat, you can't run a boat through eight inches of water. I don't think that's a safe condition and I think the residents of Seagate, as Commissioner Mac'Kie pointed out, have the right to use the water and use it in an enjoyable manner. They paid a lot of money to live on the water. They shouldn't be forced to operate either their boats or their personal watercrafts through what may be dangerous conditions in order to try to get out to the Gulf of Mexico. If there isn't safe conditions for them to navigate out to the Gulf of Mexico, they ought to be able to use their craft in Clam Bay, you know, under some conditions. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Wood, you know, you're here as an advocate for your client and I fully appreciate that. However, what we're dealing with here is not the elimination of the use of a waterbody. What we're talking about is a balance between some environmental interests and the indiscriminate use of personal watercraft. Prior to this no wake zone being implemented, I had two experiences in the Clam Bay system much like the individual Mr. Dugan spoke to. I had Representative Livingston in a canoe trying to show him the pass when we were coming around a mangrove bin and almost had the front of our canoe taken off by someone who was operating at unsafe speed with a personal watercraft. The second thing I feel that was a question from, question from Representative Livingston on the scarring of the seagrass beds. Why were these swaths in a foot of water cut through a seagrass bed eliminating the seagrass? The answer is personal watercraft. I don't disagree that there may be a way in which they can be used in a safe manner back there and in a compatible manner. However, that requires being sensitive to what is around you and the typical use of personal watercraft does not take that into consideration. They're running in a foot of water or were running in a foot of water back there consistently, enough to chew up seagrass beds. There's an enforcement difficulty. When we get too specific on the speed zone, the sheriff's office has no way to get a boat in there, so the enforcement is almost nonexistent. If there is a middle ground, I'm all ears, but the problem is that just opening it up to use, you say that it's unsafe to run it in a foot of water or less. Well, that would disallow the majority of the Clam Bay system at low tide. That would disallow access beyond the position of the pass if you're going northward because that area at low tide is about a foot. Now, two things are happening. One is that when the pass closes up, we have continually reopened it to maintain a flow of water into the system. The second thing is that the permit has been submitted that would allow for a ten year permit that would not just open the pass but open up a channel into the, to the pass that makes a southerly turn towards Seagate. Are you aware of that plan and its submission? MR. WOOD: No, I'm not. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. My problem is that by removing this, the no wake zone during the day, what we're doing is we're opening up those seabed areas once again to the damage that was being incurred initially, and the seabeds aren't just for manatees. I mean they're, they're basically beds for trout, you know. It's kind of an area in which small fishery can exist. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sort of an incubator. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A little bit, so I, you know -- again, I'm trying to balance the interest of that's one of our indicators. When we're looking at whether the Clam Bay system's getting healthy or dying, the seagrass bed's one of the first indicators you look at and if they're being torn up by use, we've got a conflict and I'm not sure how to answer the conflict and we answered it pretty definitively the first time. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, our only question really this morning is whether or not we want to bring this back as a full blown hearing on it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed. I'm just trying to give as comprehensive an approach to this as possible. My feeling -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I can tell you're going toward a no. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, I'm, I'm going there for the simple reason that the ten year permit is far more extensive than what has been done to date and the conditions within that pass, if that permit is issued, will improve access to the gulf beyond what is currently there. I've run, I've run personal watercraft, and at slow speed, they don't draw more than a foot. There are places all over the county that boaters cannot access at low tide and that's just a, that's a sea condition, so I don't see enough here to bring it back to lift the no wake zone in Clam Bay, not at this point. If we fail in getting the permit, we may have to revisit this, but not at this point. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: In view of the proposed permitting project and the fact that I don't see anything different from the first time we heard it, I don't, I don't think I have any interest in bringing it back at this point, either. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just have a factual question and I'm going to have to rely on Mr. Dugan to -- who's telling me that ninety-nine point nine percent of the time there's access to the gulf, and if that's the case, then I don't think we're, we're harming anybody. If, if that proves not to be the case, then that's, that's a problem and, you know, we talk about diminishing people's property values if we aren't, if we're taking away their right to use the water, so, so based on it, based on there being ninety-nine point nine percent of the time access to the gulf, I'm satisfied that that's reasonable. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry? COMHISSIONER BERRY: No comment. I'm just listening. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sounds like you've got three. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Wood, thank you for your petition. I assume you and your client will be monitoring this and our staff can probably give you the information on that permit if you'd, if you'd like it to provide to your client. MR. WOOD: Thank you, Commissioner. Item #7B FREDRICK PAULY REGARDING BRENTWOOD PUD REQUESTING ZONING EXTENSION - NO ACTION CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Next item, Public Petition 7(B), Frederick Pauly regarding Brentwood PUD. Mr. Pauly has a representative here, Mr. Dwayne. MR. DWAYNE: Good morning. For the record, Bob Dwayne from Hole-Montes & Associates representing Mr. Pauly, and we're here requesting a reconsideration of prior board action which required the Brentwood PUD to come back before you in the form of a PUD amendment. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Mulhere or Mr. Arnold, I'm going to have a procedural question on this at the conclusion of the presentation. MR. DWAYNE: There are two items that, that I may shed some light on your prior discussion on November 19th. The first goes to the PUD Master Plan. As you can see in the area outlined in yellow, tract one is the only tract that permits retail uses in this planned unit development. One of those uses which was a representative list of neighborhood type units uses was a liquor store. The board had some concern with that. They also had some concern with the potential for on-site consumption of alcohol. I've tried to address both those points in my letter. With regard to the on-site consumption of alcohol, they would require approval before this board because they're less than five hundred feet from the property located immediately to the east which is developed with a church. There's a separation of approximately three hundred feet between tract one and the property line on the east side of the canal. We think that's an ample separation, particularly when you take into consideration the other kinds of office commerce related uses which are permitted between tract one and the adjacent property and we just wanted you to be aware of that, and our request, again, is to have you reconsider the staff's initial recommendation which was the two year extension and I hope that that adds some clarification regarding the liquor store and the on-site consumption. Other issues that were discussed in your attached minutes was the architectural standards. My understanding is that whether we amend this PU -- PUD or not, those architectural standards, as well as the landscaping standards that have, which have been adopted since this PUD was approved in the late 1980s will still apply, so we, we believe there's ample safeguards attached to the existing ordinances to address any future concerns that you may have with the development of this property and I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have, commissioners. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. My question is for either Mr. Arnold or Mr. Hulhere, whichever is appropriate. First of all, the -- Mr. HcNees, did this request meet the proper timing for reconsideration? MR. HCNEES: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Arnold, as I read back to this, there were two main concerns we brought and I, I really brought, you know, the two of them up myself. It sounds like the liquor store wasn't as much a problem as an associated lounge. Is what Mr. Dwayne's saying correct, that if they were to put any type of a cocktail lounge or liquor service there other than retail sale of alcohol, that they'd be required to come back before the board due to the location of the church? MR. ARNOLD: There is a five hundred foot separation requirement currently in our Land Development Code which they would have to meet. Whether or not every parcel on that project is within five hundred feet of the church, I'm not certain, but. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. According to you, Mr. Dwayne, only one parcel is eligible? MR. DWAYNE: Yeah. The only one is that tract one that would permit retail uses and it's approximately three hundred feet. The board has the right to waive that distance if there's a separation of a barrier such as a canal, which we have, but it would require your approval. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The second element was not just architectural standards as they apply today, but the internal architectural standards that we require now. If you're going to go in and do kind of a pieced development, we would, we generally ask that you make it all integrated architecturally so it doesn't look like a hodgepodge like some of the older PUDs have, have developed out. If that were the only outstanding issue, is that an insubstantial change as far as addition and would it allow the amendment of the PUD without significant other efforts by just adding that? MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think certainly when this came before the county commission in the first hearing, it was contemplated that we were going to come back and see not only the lounge/liquor store modification, landscape modification, some language to address architectural compatibility, but much as the board decided on the Hocake PUD located adjacent to this one, you're going to see some consistency hopefully within that interchange activity center in terms of uses and this was an opportunity in the amendment process that was mandated. Related to the architectural standards, that was one thing you also addressed at Hocake was the issue of mini warehouse storage and, and whether or not that was a consistent use but also the issue of internal architectural compatibility and that's something that was addressed in the Brentwood PUD as well. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So that there is a baseline of consistency there in requesting these interchange activity center parcels come back? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Questions for Mr. Dwayne or Mr. Arnold? MR. HCNEES: Commissioner, I believe Hiss Student has some concerns about if you're going to do this actually under the reconsideration ordinance, whether there's, whether this request is timely. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Hiss Student? MS. STUDENT: For the record, Harjorie Student, assistant county attorney. If this is a reconsideration as set forth in our regular Collier County code, it does not meet the requirements for that type of reconsideration either under the general section or the land use section, but just as a public petition, coming back to you and using the term reconsideration loosely, then I, you know, think it's appropriate for the petitioner to come back and make whatever arguments he wishes to make, but it would not meet our reconsideration procedures under either heading of land use or general under our code because there's a fifteen day requirement that a letter be sent to the county manager, and if I understand correctly, this was heard in November and, obviously, I think the county manager received a letter in April. Is that not correct? So, obviously, it's been longer than fifteen days under the strict reconsideration procedure we have. MR. DWAYNE: We understand that, Commissioner, that it would require another public hearing for you to take action. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I appreciate the presentation by Mr. Dwayne and all. It seems to me, though, that if we have a reconsideration ordinance to establish a time line on when we can rehear some item, then that, the purpose of that is to basically establish that time line. To allow someone to come up under a public petition and escape the, the time set forth for a reason in our Land Development Code I don't think is appropriate. I'm not supportive of doing it this way. I have a procedural concern about it as well. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have some procedural hesitation about opening up a floodgate here, but this one, with all due respect to staff, I think, has one distinguishing characteristic and that is that we didn't know about the five hundred foot issue when we were discussing this. I didn't know that this was in, within five hundred feet of a church and, therefore, that I didn't need to worry about on-site, you know, service of alcohol, consumption on the premises. I didn't realize at the time that, that the board would have to approve something in order for that one, you know, one issue that we were the most concerned about to come forward, to come to fruition. Not having been advised of that by staff, I think that makes this one a little different. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Except that if I read the minutes correctly, you weren't concerned about the liquor store but the internal compatibility for architecture. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, and frankly, when this comes -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I just, I just remember reading that. That's the only reason I say that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And it's true, and if this comes back for a hearing, I'm going to be asking them if they would voluntarily do that because I do still have that architectural concern. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any other questions for the petitioner? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. Just a couple of comments. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One, I agree with Commissioner Norris on timing and, two, I think it's the petitioner's responsibility, if they fail to bring those items up during the first public hearing, that's their responsibility. That's the reason for having the public hearing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Berry, any additional? COMHISSIONER BERRY: I was just looking for consistency between this one and the neighboring one of Mocake and I had asked staff what, what the consistency was because I think didn't we ask them to do something a little bit differently and so I think we need to, to stay consistent. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, we did. In, in light of the, the upcoming look at interchange activity centers all together that we're doing and the, the problem with, with a reconsideration, I find that we would be stretching a little bit to authorize a reconsideration on that decision, so I'm going to agree with Commissioners Norris and Constantine and not ask for the staff to bring this back. Any further discussion on this item? Item #10C COUNTY EMPLOYEE TUITION REIMBURSEMENT BENEFITS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION - STAFF TO PREPARE AND PRESENT POLICY FOR CONSIDERATION COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, before we move on, can I ask -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- your indulgence and the board's indulgence? Dr. Roy McTarnigan, President of the university, is here. He's here for Item 10(C) which is our next to last item and I wondered, I know we try to keep our agenda in order, but as a courtesy to him, I wonder if we might take that up front. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I was wondering why I saw Roy out there and I thought it was for the education. I couldn't figure out what he was here for. Does the board have any objection to hearing Item 10(C) at this time? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: None. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: None? Mr. McTarnigan, if I could ask you to come to the podium. Commissioner Constantine, this was an add-on that you requested, I believe? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure. It's not an add-on -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- but it's a, y'all may recall about three years ago we discontinued the employee tuition program at the time Mr. Damarask was -- we had a management level approval for whatever people wanted to take. The, the intent was if people wanted to improve themselves within their field, that was fine, and I think the course of study that had been taken by one employee was deviant sexual behavior and we had a little trouble figuring out how that helped out a librarian, but, and that led to us stripping away that program. Mr. HcNees and I have had some discussions, and particularly with the new university opening up, we wondered if we put some stricter controls in making sure that the courses taken were actually, A, completed before we reimbursed for tuition and, B, actually had direct benefit to the position our employees were in, if it might not be worth reinstating that type of program. Mr. HcNees has some details. MR. HCNEES: What we would propose to do, we took the policy under which you formerly granted tuition reimbursements and made some edits to it. The basic change would be a course that has no relationship to your county employment and is not required for an approved degree program, we would not reimburse. The courses that are, that are not job related but are mandated or are requirements of an approved degree program, you would reimburse and that's a slight change from the way the policy was. Where on the way up, I have copies for you of the proposed policy and the former policy so you can compare the two. This was a case where we had a couple of courses that were kind of out there in left field that, that employees took and got reimbursed for and essentially we threw the baby out with the bath water and for -- we spent maybe eight or nine thousand dollars a year for this program. The, the morale benefit and the staff development benefit was far in excess of the cost and what I would be proposing would be eliminating a position in the county manager's office in the proposed budget one of the assistant county manager's positions as a way of not only funding this program and use that money for staff development and that would be about a third of that money and the rest of that would just be savings, so we don't want to propose this as it's going to cost you money. We're willing to take the pain in the manager's office as a way to, to provide the staff development for the rest of the staff. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the idea is to kind of tighten it down and make sure it actually has direct benefit to the county and the role individuals play working for us and Dr. HcTarnigan can tell us some of the specific areas that might apply. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Morning, Dr. HcTarnigan. DR. HCTARNIGAN: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, Roy HcTarnigan, Florida Gulf Coast University. I appreciate your support. I appreciate especially the conversations Commissioner Constantine and I have had about our university service to the community and especially to county staff. We will open August 25, about twenty-five hundred students and I hope our growth plan in the next five years will bring it up to close to six thousand, so we're looking forward in areas such as business administration, an HPA program, Master in Public Administration, master of social work as examples, some of these specialized programs that I think would fit very neatly with some of your needs and some of your employees' needs. One good way to make this a partnership that works is to sit down in advance to let both our staffs talk with each other about the kind of services you need and to approve in advance the kind of courses or programs that will fit the bill. Also, as Commissioner Constantine and I have talked this over, we would like very much to look at some telecommunications, audio and video distance learning opportunities through compressed video or Internet services where people can access information and materials at their own time and place and we will be working closely with Edison Community College to offer some formal courses at the Lely campus, but I hope that through your county offices, there may also be an opportunity sometimes for small seminars by use of compressed video or you can use a PC and a video screen at the same time and actually hold a small seminar without getting on the road and burning up the miles back and forth, so I look at this as an opportunity for us as a university to serve you and your employees and I would pledge to work closely in the planning process to make sure the courses and programs meet both our objectives. MR. MCNEES: Mr. Chairman, I'd throw one more detail in there. I sit on the advisory committee for the development of the new MPA program, Master in Public Administration. In our first meeting, what was emphasized by the Florida Gulf Coast staff, they wanted to know from us who were working in the field what skills do we want employees that come out of their program to have and they're giving us an opportunity to tell them how we want our people to be trained by them and it's, it's a great opportunity for us to have input on both ends and to have something to say about what we want MPA graduates to look like so that we can put them to work, so we feel like this is a great opportunity for us to get on board all the way around and at the same time provide the development and the morale opportunities for our own people. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Glad to see you down here, Mr. -- Dr. McTarnigan. In the original discussion of this, I recall that the objection was made on some of the specific courses that were being funded by the county, but I think more importantly, the discussion focused on whether it was appropriate for the county to make this expenditure at all and I believe Commissioner Constantine at the time, you agreed with that principle, so I don't know that there's anything different about this proposal than there was back in those days. I, I don't know that I've changed my mind on the appropriateness of the county making these reimbursements. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One important change is the opening of Florida Gulf Coast University in our backyard and, frankly, I think it was a mistake to, it was a baby out with the bath water. I wasn't on the board at the time, but my observation from the outside was that that was an extreme reaction. I absolutely support tuition reimbursement and I think that if we can have some reasonable guidelines, that it's, it's exactly the kind of benefit that you should have when you're working for government. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, I don't draw the line between government and private sector on tuition reimbursement. We had a, in the time I worked in the private sector, it was if you were seeking a degree that would be of some benefit to the company you worked for, it then qualified, but you then entered a contract that said you would obtain the degree and work for that company for a, for a set period of time after its obtaining. What I'm afraid of is they take advantage of the benefit, they get their MPA, and they go apply to, to a small city in Alabama and go become a city manager somewhere else. We've paid the bill and another community gets the benefit, so if we're going to look at this in any way, it has to be looked at in the manner in which you say to an employee, if you want to go to the next level, you need "x" amount of education, are you willing to do it? If so, a shared cost program, I think, is acceptable, but there has to be an employment requirement that, that comes after that. The degree must be usable to the county and if it's not or that employment term is not met, then the amount is taken from that individual at time of termination. Those are the kind of things that need to be worked out if, if we're going to look at this and if everyone doesn't agree on that, then I have to agree with Commissioner Norris. I think it's, you know, it's giving money away, basically. MR. MCNEES: There's a provision in the proposed policy that if you separate within twelve months after getting reimbursed, you pay the money back. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I want to be a little tighter. I want to know that that -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: What's the reality of that happening? If I'm on my way out the door, you're going to have to catch me to get the money. MR. MCNEES: We have your last check, so. COMMISSIONER BERRY: But guaranteed that that last check probably isn't going to -- MR. MCNEES: Perhaps. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- come close to tuition reimbursement. I know what you're trying to do here and, for the most part, I would support that. I support the education component with the work requirement of "x" number of months or a year or two or whatever you want to make it, that doesn't make any difference to me, but he or she shall reimburse the county for all tuition refund? I mean the likelihood of that, I don't even know if you can enforce it. Can you? MR. MCNEES: Generally speaking, the way I'd address that is can I tell you there will never be a situation where an employee might take advantage of us, you know, work for four or five years in their spare time earning a master's degree and then jump to some other county who offers them a position that we're not able to offer them? Sure, that might happen, but for the four or five years they're out there working, you've had the benefit of a motivated employee who's willing to spend his own free time bettering himself, making himself more productive and I'm going to tell you that's going to be a huge minority and, and if that's the price we pay for giving our people these kind of -- make it a small minority, sorry. If that's the price we pay for offering this benefit to the rest of our employees, given the cost which I keep coming back to, the cost is just not that much, given the cost, it's worth it and I'll tell you if we lose one now and then, my philosophy has always been if we can make our people that well trained that other people want to hire them, that's not the worst problem we can have. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I think the question is, you've kind of hit on the, the nail on the head there. The question is, is every employee that, that we help educate likely to go? No. Will we lose some somewhere along the line? Probably, but I think most will stay. As you said, you don't want to cut the line between private sector and public sector and I think if you were in a good private business and they take care of you, you stay and work for that company and I think we've seen that with the employees we've taken good care of here and we'll see that again if we take better care of them, so. Commissioner Hancock, we do have a twelve month item in here. I don't, I don't -- there was a time frame Mr. McNees had plugged in because we had the same concern you did. I don't have any objection if you want to make that eighteen months or some other time frame, but I, I agree with you, we need to have a protection component so they don't get reimbursed one day and leave the next, but I don't want to go too far on that either. I don't want five years or -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What I don't see is I don't see an evaluation on whether or not the course of study they're pursuing is of some benefit to the county on the administration side. MR. MCNEES: Yes, that is, that's a provision. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I again -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's in here. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that's the problem with trying to do this today. In my opinion, we got this just handed to us. I would like to just offer a general statement of support, encourage staff to come up with guidelines, give us a chance to look at these more carefully, maybe make some comments, but, but a general statement of support with some guidelines and ask staff to go develop a policy. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I'll balance that with a general statement of concern. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And, and express your areas of concern because the time line as far as people leaving, I think, is an appropriate concern and one -- but one that can be addressed. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think if they're going to take advantage of tuition reimbursement, it needs to be a shared responsibility. In other words, we don't pay for a hundred percent of the tuition reimbursement, if an individual invests something of their own and they are truly willing to put forth the effort, not just the time, so I'd like to see a ratio of reimbursement, whether it be fifty percent or seventy percent. It says you have to invest a little bit of your own to get there, not just your time. The second thing, or before we even go that far is to determine whether or not the course of study is of some benefit to Collier County. If it is, then we enter into a contract that says upon completion of the study, you will be required to work for Collier County in whatever position for a minimum period of, and I'm thinking two years because the cost of -- even though it's a state university and I mean people laugh when they tell -- when I tell them what I paid for, per hour. It was like twenty-two dollars an hour in college. It was, it was nothing compared to what it is today. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Way back when we were kids. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sorry. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You know, so it's not -- but over a period of four years, that's a lot of money, so those are, those are the things I'm looking for. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I, I agree with you and that's why I said to Mr. McNees in our initial conversations, one of my primary objections a couple of years ago was there were no guidelines. You had -- and the example I used was a very good one, that it didn't have to have anything to do with what people were doing in their job and if we are going to help them out, it should be for the benefit of the county at large. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And the employee, but. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right, and, and the two go hand in hand and so I agree and I'd agree with Commissioner Mac'Kie's suggestion that we bring this back in a final forum if there is just general support, as long as those items can be met. MR. HCNEES: Commissioner, I'd make a couple of more comments. One, the number of employees that stay because we offer this benefit will far exceed the number of employees that leave because they completed a degree program and want to go to work somewhere else. I can guarantee you that. The other thing I would say is I'd ask that you, if we're going to try to nail down, you know, specific requirements, that's great. We've already written into the policy that it needs to be job related, but we'd ask that you give us at least some discretion to, this is a benefit and, generally speaking, the people who are going to take advantage of it are investing their own time and we have an interest in people not taking advantage of and not wasting the county's money, but the more we try to make hard definitive definitions of exactly what we'll pay for, the more we get into the kind of situation we always get into which is we'll pay for donuts but we won't pay for coffee types of things that we get into every time we try to get a check cut and so we would ask that we be allowed to write the policy with some discretion so that we're -- and you're going to see one of those on next week's agenda, by the way, so I think you understand what I'm getting at, that we need a little bit of flexibility and discretion in the policy, that the more we try to firm it and write a hard policy, the more trouble we're going to have in administering it, I guess is what I'm saying. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I think we're, we're all talking and we have an expert here, Dr. HcTarnigan, who could offer us some advice and counsel, as we go through this process about, you know, what is the experience that other university systems have with other governments and try to give us some guidance as we develop a policy. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sure that's why he's been standing here patiently, but rather than having, rather than having this discussion all over again, if we're going to bring this back and discuss the meat and content, then let's have that discussion once. In the meantime, you know, you've heard my concerns and, obviously, if you meet all those concerns, then you find me in the column of supporting, but it does need to be sufficiently narrow so that we don't have to recoil and eliminate the entire program somewhere down the road because one or two individuals abuse it and we have egg on our face, so we, we can't let that happen. MR. HCNEES: Well, and, frankly, that's our job to make sure the county's money doesn't get wasted. That's why I sit here. COHMISSIONER BERRY: And as much as I said what I said, there's also situations that may arise where a person doesn't have a choice about whether they have to leave the county or not and so at that, that certainly is something that in your position would be a discretionary area that if the spouse somehow or other is transferred out of Collier County, they don't have a choice whether they're going to stay or not. Those are things that you would have to determine whether you want to be, have that money reimbursed or not. I think overall it's a good idea. I certainly am supportive of it, but I think you just have to be mindful that some of these things can happen and that we need to make sure that in the policy, that those things are clearly stated and, and again, there's going to have to be some discretion given and if we don't like the discretion the way it's done, well -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We can change it. Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I can see that I'm going to be in the minority on this one, but a suggestion that might help overcome the problem of the time spent after education would be to reimburse overtime, maybe some percentage up front, some percentage after a year, some percentage after two years or something to that effect to make sure that you get some benefit out of it. That, that would be one suggestion for consideration. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's, that's hard to do when you're making eighteen thousand dollars, you know. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No, no interest college loans. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I think that is a bookkeeping nightmare. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- put the money out, though. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. That's a no interest college loan. Sounds -- I was taking it when I was there. COHMISSIONER BERRY: But I, I think it's an accounting nightmare to do it that way. I really do. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Dr. HcTarnigan? DR. HCTARNIGAN: The good news is that we're here to serve and work with you and your staff and a lot of good things have happened and there are several options that have been discussed and we're pleased to work with you to try to bring something back that will meet your needs. That's my job -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. DR. HCTARNIGAN: -- and I'm pledged to do that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. I know that you will and why don't we ask that Commissioner Constantine, if you want to continue working with Mr. HcNees to maybe refine this a little bit further based on what you've heard today, we'll bring it back and take a vote on it and see where we go. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great. Item #SA1 RESOLUTION 97-228 EXTENDING THE CURRENT PUD APPROVAL FOR THE R. ROBERTS ESTATES PUD TO HAY 6, 1999 - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you, Dr. HcTarnigan. That was 10(C). We're going to move back on the agenda to Item 8(A)(1), staff review and recommendations relative to Ordinance 92-7, the R. Roberts Estates PUD. Good morning, Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: Good morning. For the record, Ray Bellows of Planning Services Staff presenting the R. Roberts Estates PUD for consideration for the Sunset Provisions of the Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Bellows, would it hurt your feelings if I prefer to cut to the chase on this one? MR. BELLOWS: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We heard this shortly before accepting a 4.1 acre -- I know I have a speaker, but a 4.1 acre historic site. Some of the densities may seem a little high, but this is kind of the, the downtown Immokalee area in which they're probably needed more than others. I don't, for one, see a lot of reason to make change in this. I don't know if the board wants to kind of put its toes in the water, so to speak, and then go to speakers or that would be my, my direction. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I, I agree completely. I don't see any need to make a change. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll put my toes in. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have three sets of toes in the water. Let's go to speakers, if we may, Mr. HcNees. MR. WEIGEL: Dallas Townsend. MR. TOWNSEND: The staff, and I'd like to thank them for alerting us to this, has recommended that we be given a two year extension to get this thing off the ground. As you probably are aware, the economic climate in Immokalee has been somewhat stressed due to the NAFTA effect on the vegetable industry and more recently the price decline in citrus, so we've been a little bit struggling with getting this project off the ground trying to entice a developer in there to make this property the kind of a development in Immokalee that the residents need and so we are respectfully asking a two year extension on this PUD document. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, sir. Next speaker? Is there any? MR. WEIGEL: No more. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. ALL COHMISSIONERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, Mr. Bellows, thank you very much. Item #8C1 BUDGET AMENDMENT TO PAY INCREASED MANDATED MEDICAID COSTS - APPROVED Item 8(B)(1) has been continued. How -- oh, that's the median landscaping, okay. Item 8(C)(1), recommendation that the BCC approve a budget amendment to pay increased mandated Medicaid costs. Mr. Olliff, I see the word increase and mandated, not a good combination. MR. OLLIFF: No, sir and unfortunately, I'm Tom Olliff here to present this item, your Public Services Administrator. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that unfortunately you're Tom Olliff or unfortunately you're here. MR. OLLIFF: Unfortunately, I'm here to present -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. OLLIFF: -- the item. As you all know and we've talked about this particular issue each time that we have a budget workshop session with you, the Social Services Staff has over the years been holding the state's feet to the fire in terms of what they are required to submit to us for reimbursement for Medicaid payments, and in most cases, we've been able to make a large number of deductions in each of the monthly mandated bills because in most parts, the state does not submit with its billing the required residency information or some other type of information and I think if you will look at the Executive Summary, it says, over the past four years, we've actually been able to delete over a million dollars in the mandated Medicaid bills. That's the good news and, and I think what has happened is that other counties have realized the same thing and, and perhaps when the problem at the state level was only Collier County, it may not have been something that was, something that they pursued with a great deal of vigor, but as more and more counties have done the same thing that Collier County has done, I think the amount of reimbursement that is coming from the counties to the state has grown to the point where they needed to start dealing with it and so we have seen at the last quarter of last year and beginning this year each and every month rebillings from previous bills that weren't paid in months past, and to date, we have been receiving about thirty-three percent of the bills that come in every month are febills from previous bills that were submitted that we didn't pay and what we've got is a budget of eight hundred sixty-five thousand dollars, and year to date, our billings have been eight hundred thousand dollars, so I think we've tried to straightline project that out for what it would be the rest of the year and it looks as if our mandated Medicaid billings are going to run about a million three hundred thousand dollars, so we're here asking the board to approve a budget amendment of four hundred and thirty-five thousand dollars from the general fund reserves to transfer to the Social Services Department to allow Martha Skinner and her department staff to, to make our mandated Medicaid payments. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Olliff, just for probably for those people who may not understand this benefit, this is a mandate from the State of Florida that the county must pay with local tax dollars on Medicaid bills; is that correct? MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. And we -- that totals, that's totaled in the past somewhere in the area of between six and eight hundred thousand dollars a year in local tax dollars paying Medicaid bills. MR. OLLIFF: (Nodding head.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Ms. Skinner's been very diligent in not letting the state rip off Collier County in the past. It sounds to me like some of that has come home to roost in the rebilling. Have they basically gone back and changed the areas that caused us not to pay the bill and resubmitted? MR. OLLIFF: I think so, and what we have seen is they have actually assigned an individual on their staff for each district who is doing nothing but going back and poring over old bills that weren't paid to try and verify and get the residency information and resubmit bills. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What's the limitation on that? How far back can they go? MR. OLLIFF: There is, from what we understand, at least from the attorney general's office, I think, was the opinion that I saw, said that there is no limitation on rebilling. MS. SKINNER: Back to 1984. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ms. Skinner indicated back to 1984. Okay. Are we, on these rebillings, are we questioning them or are -- I mean these are, these are solid when they're coming back? MR. OLLIFF: We continue to do the same exercise that we do on rebillings or fresh new billings. We're going to make sure that everything is required before we pay them. The good news is I think going into this year, because of the experience we had at last quarter of last year, I think the budget office was aware of, of the issue and I think that they were aware that this year we were probably going to be in this position and I think your general fund reserve, while it's never as good as you would like for it to be, it is, it is fairly comfortable at this point and I think this was an anticipated item that was going to come up in front of you mid year. What we did want to make sure was that you had this information in front of you before you sat down and did budget reviews so that your general fund reserve balance took this into account before you actually started to review next year's budgets. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Any questions for Mr. Olliff? No? The words mandated generally mean we don't have a lot of choice here, so we need a motion to approve the budget amendment. COMHISSIONER BERRY: Move approval. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: ALL COMMISSIONERS: CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Olliff. -- and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Seeing none, an unhappy unanimous decision. Ms. Skinner, thank you. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: And thank you again to Ms. Skinner for all the work that she does. She, you know -- the entire state is now modeling their, their programs after hers and how she's catching them when they mess up, so I thank you again. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Can we patent that and sell it, Ms. Skinner? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. MS. SKINNER: I don't know. Item #8C2 RECOMMENDATION TO CONTINUE ANY DISCUSSION RE THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF NAPLES REGARDING BEACH PARKING - CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF MAY 20, 1997 CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll be your agent for consulting fees. Item 8(C)(2), this was a recommendation for continuance of beach parking. Based on the council's decision yesterday that our staff's going to be working together on this, I don't really see any need for the board to take action on this matter at this time. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Agree. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My only -- the newspaper correctly -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: By the way, thank you for being there yesterday. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, sir. The newspaper correctly reported that they would like to have a solution before they go on their vacation which is early in June. They -- well, mid June and that gives us a pretty short time frame, so I'd like to ask Tom if he could have his staff working on it diligently and, and promptly with them and I did hear a great deal of interest in coming up with a solution from a majority of the council. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As usual, I mean the negative comments will, will get printed because they're, they're -- COHMISSIONER BERRY: Negative. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. They're inflammatory and so forth, but likewise, my individual discussions with members of the council have been very positive, so we'll just ask our staff to continue working on that and bring it back in in some form if there's any change necessary. If there's no change in beach parking there or no net effect on our residents, we have no reason to discuss the agreement. MR. OLLIFF: I think the issues are small enough. I don't see any reason why we couldn't have this on your agenda for Hay 20th before city council goes on vacation. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Do we need a motion to continue to Hay 20th? It is so moved. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: ALL COMMISSIONERS: CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Seeing none, that is continued to Hay 20th. Item #SD1 RESOLUTION 97-229, RE GROUP HEALTH PLAN - ADOPTED AND BUDGETARY PROPSAL AS RECOHMENDED BY STAFF APPROVED Item 8(D)(1), recommendation to approve a budgetary proposal for the Collier County group health plan. Morning, Mr. Ochs. MR. OCHS: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, Leo Ochs, Support Services Administrator. I find myself with -- in the enviable position this morning of reporting to the board that the, your protected self-funded medical benefit plan is in a very good financial position. In fact, it's in such good financial shape, that we find ourselves in the somewhat odd position of having excess reserves that we would like to return back to the board. We have a very brief slide presentation that will take you through the staff recommendations, if we might. The first slide is, is a slide that depicts the budget for medical claims payments for fiscal years '95, '96 and '97 versus the actual claims history and you can see from the slide that in fiscal year '95, actual medical claims expenses were approximately 1.2 million dollars less than budget, in fiscal year '96 approximately 1.7 million dollars less than budget, and for the current fiscal year, staff is projecting medical claims at approximately four million dollars which would represent about a nine hundred thousand dollar reduction against the budget for medical claims. I should explain briefly that the target or the budget for medical claims is set each year based on an actuarial evaluation of the medical plan that's required by state statute, so each year we use the actuarial evaluation to form the basis for our annual premium allocations out to the operating departments and to set our reserves and medical claims experience numbers. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I assume that includes an average element for catastrophic illness in a given year? MR. OCHS: It does. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Have we been above or below that? MR. OCHS: We've been quite a bit below that. In the next slide, we'll basically give you some of the primary reasons why our experience has been so favorable over the last twenty-four to thirty months. One of the reasons is that we've had very few catastrophic claims in that period of time and that helps considerably. The next contributing factor is the very positive effects of the managed care program that the board put in place, I believe, back in 1984, January of 1984. We have a managed care contract now with the NCH health care system and it's resulting in substantial reductions in our medical claims, and the third area, again, is an action that the board took approximately three years ago where we redesigned our medical benefit plan to provide three annual deductible options for employees to choose from and we're finding that a large number of our employees have chosen what we call the high deductible option and basically the result of that is that more claims are being paid by employees using that higher deductible instead of being paid against the plan expenses. I want to briefly go over the objectives of the plan and the staff recommendations today. The first one is to obviously operate the plan on a break even basis. The medical plan is funded as an internal service account, not a profit center and, therefore, we -- the objective is to operate the plan on a break even basis annually. The second objective that we have is to reduce our current reserves to a level that's sufficient to cover our plan costs each year and to provide for future liabilities, and then thirdly, the goal today is again, to return, as I said, unneeded surplus reserves back to the board and to our employees in recognition of their prudent use of the benefit plan, so we have a series of recommendations to get us to where we want to go. The first one of those is to not bill for the, for eight months of the current fiscal year our medical premiums out into our operating departments. That will help reduce our reserves. Secondly, we are proposing to declare an experience incentive bonus for employees, again, in recognition of their efforts and judicious use of the benefit plan, and then thirdly, a reduction in our fiscal year '98 budgeted rates to get the plan back on a break even basis and, again, just very briefly, the detail of each one of those recommendations. The eight premium holidays would obviously prevent further accumulation of additional reserves and those savings then would remain in the respective funds of the operating department budget, and if not spent this year, would obviously accrue in the next year's budget in the form of carry forward. In terms of the experience incentive bonus, what the staff is recommending is that we, that we utilize approximately two months' worth of premiums and split that as a -- between eighty percent would go back to the board and the remaining twenty percent, approximately a hundred and eighty-four thousand dollars, would go back to all of the planned participants in the form of a one time cash bonus which would be approximately a hundred and forty dollars per employee and, again, I need to remind the board that your plan not only covers employees of the board but also employees of the constitutional officers, with the exception of the sheriff. The third element, again, as we recommended, was a reduction in next year's premiums as depicted in the bar chart. We would recommend that the family rate be reduced from forty-nine hundred to four thousand dollars and the employ -- excuse me, and the single rate from two thousand three hundred fifty to nineteen hundred dollars. That, those are, on percentage terms, family rate reduction of approximately 18.5 percent and a single rate reduction of approximately 19.2 percent, and at those rates, we would be able to fund the plan on a break even basis annually. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Have you shown these numbers to the sheriff's office? MR. OCHS: No, sir, I have not. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. They may want to see them for inclusion in our plan. It'll save the taxpayer a lot of money. MR. OCHS: And finally, in terms of the fiscal impact, if the board were to implement the staff recommendations this morning, you would have a reduction of approximately nine hundred and twenty thousand dollars in next year's budget as a result of the recommended premium rate reduction. In addition, you would have potential for three million six hundred and eighty thousand dollars' worth of carry forward that would be in the form of unbilled premiums for the current fiscal year and, again, that just summarizes the, the three primary staff recommendations to get the plan reserves back to where they need to be on a break even basis. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Leo, let me ask you this. Where there was a split of money being returned to the employee and money going to the general fund -- MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- there are two types of premium paid. One is paid by the employer, by the county per se for the employee, and the other is paid by the employee themselves. How are we making sure that we're not collecting money from the employee that is then subsidizing the general fund? Is that how you arrived at eighty -- in other words, I don't want to collect premiums out of someone's paycheck -- MR. OCHS: Sure. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- and then put it in the general fund. That money, if it's refundable, should go back to them. However, the portion that the county paid as a part of benefits that came out of the, you know, out of basically tax dollars, that, we should recoup. I want to make sure that split's fair to the employee. MR. OCHS: Well, that's a great question and I need to clarify. What we're recommending is a bonus to all participants of the plan that's a reflection of their good work in, in their judicious use of the plan. It's not really a return on contributions made by individuals because as you pointed out, the single rate is paid a hundred percent by the board. The family rate is a combination of board payment and employee contribution. However, that is not to say that individuals, single people don't contribute to the savings just as much as family members have by judicious use of the plan, choosing higher deductible levels, taking advantage of the annual wellness benefit, so that's a great question and I wanted to emphasize the fact that this is an across the board flat bonus to all participants based on their good utilization, prudent utilization of the plan. It's not a refund of employee contributions per se. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But it does because I've, because I've talked to Leo about this before the meeting, too, but it does somehow proportionately reflect the concern that you have that we're not taking money out of, out of employees' pockets -- MR. OCHS: That's -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- and putting it into the tax. MR. OCHS: That's correct, Commissioner. In the family plan, about twenty-two percent of that overall rate is paid by the employee, the balance by the board, so we rounded that down to twenty percent and that was kind of the basis for the eighty/twenty split recommendation. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. That answers my question. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Are there any questions for Mr. Ochs? COHMISSIONER BERRY: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think congratulations are in order to you and to Mr. Walker for keeping tabs on this and assuming we don't have a catastrophic out-year that changes that opinion, job well done and thank you. MR. OCHS: You're welcome. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And also a thank you to the staff for, for the judicious use of the plan and I would like to move approval of all of the staff's recommendations so that we give that thank you with a check. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Will there be a notice in the check informing the employee of the purpose for the additional amount? MR. OCHS: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. OCHS: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? I'll call -- MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- the question? Mr. Weigel has further discussion. Yes, sir. MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. Our office has, has reviewed what's proposed and we want to assist staff and the commission with the mechanisms to make it legally occur and although there is a specific statute, Section 215.425 which has strong requirements, in fact, impediments to a bonus, there's also under our general powers and duties statute a provision that does provide for the board to be able to establish a bonus payment program. It appears to me based on the presentation, that under, again, Section 125.01, the board could hereby adopt a resolution establishing a one time lump sum bonus payment program incorporating the basic information that staff has provided you today, and in that resolution, the board would need to specifically find, make a finding that the employee's performance exceeds standards in defining employees appropriately to those that are to receive this bonus compensation. It is a bonus. It is not a, a return on premium and the facts seem to establish that and so the mechanism of the resolution with that finding specifically finding that these employees' performance exceed standards and that this is a one time lump sum bonus payment program are key words to have in the resolution. Another way to go would be to adopt an ordinance which would be probably a stronger legal mechanism, but it appears that both mechanisms are available and I would suggest that the board opt for one of the two. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me suggest that we have a motion on the floor to adopt the budgetary proposal. Let us complete that motion, take a second motion effecting a resolution with the verbiage you have indicated. Why don't we take the vote on the first motion which is to approve the budgetary proposal presented to us today. We do have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. ALL COMHISSIONERS: Aye. CHAI~ HANCOCK: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, do we have a motion on the resolution? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I move that we make a finding that -- why don't you read again, David, what we're making a finding of. MR. WEIGEL: Certainly. You'd be making a finding that the employees' service exceeds standards. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's easy to do. So moved. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that resolution incorporates the previous verbiage Mr. Weigel indicated as far as lump sum payment, et cetera. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. Any discussion? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: No. CHAI~ HANCOCK: All those in favor signify by saying aye. ALL COMHISSIONERS: Aye. CHAI~ HANCOCK: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, good catch on that, Mr. Weigel. Thank you very much. Again -- MR. OCHS: Thank you again, commissioners. CHAI~ HANCOCK: -- Mr. Walker, Mr. Ochs, thank you. MR. OCHS: Appreciate it. Item #8D2 BID #97-2662, "TIRES, TUBES, AND RELATED SERVICES" - AWARDED TO VARIOUS FIRMS LISTED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Next we're to a move from the consent agenda Item 16(D)(2) that moved to Item 8(D)(2). This is a bid number 97-2662, tires, tubes, and related services. Why was this pulled off? COHMISSIONER BERRY: I did it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, Commissioner Berry did. Okay. COHMISSIONER BERRY: There was a concern raised to me in regard to this particular bid and I had asked Mr. HcNees if he would get some information. The concerns raised had to do with the second paragraph in that particular, in the Executive Summary in terms of, oh, about one, two three, four, five, about six lines down where A-Expert Tire & Service, Incorporated was at a minimum seven fifty an hour cheaper than the other competitors and it was brought to my attention that this particular company is on Alico Road and there was some concern raised about that in terms of the cost, that the payment for these particular types of jobs, it's from portal to portal, though they may be seven fifty dollar -- seven dollars and fifty cents cheaper, that perhaps because of their location, it may not be cheaper in the long run. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER BERRY: So there were some concerns raised there, as well as with the tire prices, on the second sentence with the tire prices being equal, and mentioning the state contract had to do with the fact that this particular company that we're talking about is not a Goodyear dealer and apparently the state contract deals with Goodyear tires. At least that's the concern that was brought to me, so I asked for some clarification on that and so we may have some other information than the information I received. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. HcNees. MR. HCNEES: Mr. Croft is prepared to answer those questions. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. MR. CROFT: Good morning. I'm Dan Croft. I'm the county fleet manager. On the first concern about the, our vehicles being serviced from Alico Road, this particular contractor has a truck, a service truck that is permanently stationed in Naples at this time to service the Naples city contract. He assures me that if he gets this contract, he will have two service trucks here which matches any of the other competitors, I believe, in town. He also has two other service trucks and he assures me that if, in fact, two service trucks in the area do not satisfy our requirement, then he will put a third truck in the Naples area on permanent consignment. Now, this bid is, is a, it's a joint bid by the county and the school board, so he, he understands what the requirements are. Two to three trucks should satisfy the requirement for Naples, the school board and the county. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, Mr. Croft. Then the other question raised by Commissioner Berry was that the state contract apparently affects Goodyear products and A-Expert Tire & Service is not a Goodyear dealer. How do we reconcile that? MR. CROFT: That, that's correct. The plans with this, this contractor or this dealer has made arrangements with two different authorized Goodyear dealers to put tires on consignment for him for the county. As those tires are used, we will be billed directly by those authorized Goodyear dealers and they -- we will pay our bills directly to them. Our purchasing director has talked directly to the Goodyear headquarters in Florida and they said that is, is a legitimate arrangement. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Would there be any service charge added to the, to the, those tires above state contract amounts? MR. CROFT: There's no service charge and no taxes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I don't know. There may be some speakers on this. MR. HCNEES: You have one registered speaker. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let's go to the speaker. MR. HCNEES: Richard Rivera. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Rivera, if you will state your name and public speakers are allotted five minutes. MR. RIVERA: Okay. My name is Richard Rivera. I'm with Collier Retreading Company, also partner in All American Truck Tire Center. My biggest concern on this issue to the board is the misrepresentation in the answering of this bid process. The specifications three, the award of this bid will be made to the lowest, most qualified, and responsive bidder who is able to service all buyer wheeled vehicles and equipment. The county today, just the county, without excluding the sheriff's department, has twenty-eight hundred positions on the road. This man, this company, A-Expert Tire doesn't even have a warehouse to provide tires. We, the local dealers, have a complete stock for the school board, the county and the city. This has been in place for the past sixteen years. My concern is that A-Expert represented himself as a qualified agent to provide the necessary services for Collier County and he's not qualified. Secondly, he plans to utilize companies that do not participate in this bidding process to deliver the product. How can a person who did not participate in this bid process deliver to you? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The answer is it happens all the time. It's like a construction company. We don't know where they're getting fill, but the fill is a part of their bid. They bid it at a price and they provide it at that price regardless of where they get it, so the second one is a little bit easier. The first issue you raised sounds to me like fodder for a formal bid protest which would completely fall upon you to make. If you feel that the bidding process is inappropriate, I suggest you file a formal bid protest if the time has not lapsed. MR. CARNELL: It has lapsed. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And it has lapsed. Unfortunately, there is, there is a timing issue in which if you feel one of the bidders has not qualified, you, as another bidder, have the opportunity to file that protest. That time has passed. What is available to us is rather limited, quite frankly. MR. RIVERA: I have a question, if I may. The bid reads, tires, tubes, and related services, tires being the first and most important part of the bid, then tubes and related services. How can we exclude the tires? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Have you, have you addressed these questions to Mr. Carnell's department? He is the purchasing director. MR. RIVERA: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Camell, have we answered these? MR. CARNELL: Yes. For the record, Steve Camell, Purchasing Director. With regard to that, the protest question, the matter has already been discussed with my office, so the window for protest, the other parties have had an opportunity to file a protest and have not elected to do so. With regard to the question at hand, the specifications for this bid do not require the bidder to be an authorized Goodyear dealer. It does name Goodyear products, but it does not require the bidder to actually be an authorized Goodyear dealer. Now, Mr. Rivera brought this to my attention a couple of weeks ago with regard to A-Expert Tire's status and the other local bidders have since brought it to my attention as well and I had spoken to, as Mr. Croft mentioned, the Goodyear representative in Jacksonville for the State of Florida who faxed me a list of authorized Goodyear dealers. When I returned his call -- he called me then at the same time and I spoke to him about this and he advised me that -- in fact, he's the one who suggested what we're proposing to do here, the methodology. He had -- the Goodyear Tire Company has no problem whatsoever with what's being proposed here. The only point he wanted to make to me was, and he's correct, that if A-Expert Tire buys the tires from a Goodyear dealer, that is a private transaction between two private parties, so then when the tires are resold to Collier County, the sales tax would be a cost that would be passed on to us and we would no longer be legitimately exempt and so what we need to do is to implement here a legitimate sales tax avoidance procedure which we do all the time on construction projects through the office of Capital Projects Management. This is a routine process to open purchase orders directly to a particular supplier who is a supplier to a prime contractor and that is exactly what we're proposing to do here to avoid the sales tax legitimately. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What's the cost differential between the, the low bidder in this case and -- I know we have to throw three different elements into that to get to that number. What's the cost differential between that and a total service provider, that is, the closest bidder? What are we talking per year? What's the difference in those two? MR. CROFT: We're talking about the difference between the, the selected contractor and the nearest competitor, fourteen to sixteen thousand dollars a year. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Rivera, it's not appropriate for this board to hear a bid protest out of the context that our -- MR. RIVERA: I understand that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- Purchasing Department has identified. It sounds to me like at least your, your comments have been heard and worked on and, obviously, if things don't work out, this will go back out to bid and that will be identified. Is there anything further, any further comments you have? MR. RIVERA: Just basically I still don't understand how the Board of County Commissioners can go and actually buy the tires from a vendor out of the county that did not even participate in this process. The price is equal. You have two participants here in this whole who have businesses here in town, have the tires in stock and we're going to truck those tires out of Lee County and those vendors in Lee County did not even participate in this process. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that would be really no different than if we hired a contractor to build sidewalks around this complex. You wouldn't expect him to have cement trucks and a warehouse with, with cement products in it, now, would you? So, so really it -- MR. RIVERA: It doesn't apply. When you have an ambulance down, we have to go and service it. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I think that's a very appropriate analogy. These people can supply us with the goods even though they don't own the goods at the time perhaps, but that's not important, as long as we get the goods, the proper goods and in an appropriate amount of time. MR. RIVERA: I don't think you understand my question. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, I do. MR. RIVERA: You have two bidders -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You, you've stated your question very eloquently and I understood it perfectly, but I don't think you're understanding the, the analogy that I made, is that we're hiring a contractor to perform a service. Where he buys his products that he uses in supplying us with those goods and services is immaterial. MR. RIVERA: I understand. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'd, I'd suggest if it's at the same price, maybe you need to contact and be their local provider in this contract. That would probably make a lot of sense, but I understand -- we like, you know, we obviously like to deal with local bidders first and foremost, but we aren't always offered that opportunity and we're talking about a price difference here of fourteen to sixteen thousand, so if you can become a supplier for A-Expert Tire, more power to you, but we're not going to determine that supplier today here in this forum. MR. RIVERA: Okay. Very good. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Rivera. Okay. We need a motion on either to approve staff recommendation -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I make a motion. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have a motion to approve staff recommendation. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: ALL COMHISSIONERS: CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Seeing none, motion carries unanimously. We are to Item 8(D). Yes, we are to a break. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We need a break. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's take, let's take five minutes. (Break taken at 10:35 a.m.) Item #BE1 REQUEST FOR FUNDING A YOUTH INVITATIONAL SOCCER TOURNAMENT FOR $5,670.00, TOURIST DEVELOPMENT FUNDS, CATEGORY C - APPROVED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good morning. We're going to reconvene the Hay 6th Board of County Commissioners meeting. We're to Item 8(E)(1). COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve Item 8(E)(1). COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. ALL COHMISSIONERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Opposed? (No response.) Item #8E2 REQUEST FOR FUNDING A 20K RUNNING RACE FOR $3,00.00, TOURIST DEVELOPMENT FUNDS, CATEGORY C - APPROVED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, Item 8(E)(2). COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion we approve Item 8(E)(2). COHMISSIONER BERRY: Second it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. ALL COHMISSIONERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: By the way, anyone want to speak on those? (No response.) Item #8E3 REQUEST FOR FUNDING A SENIORS BOWLING TOURNAMENT FOR $49,969.99, TOURIST DEVELOPMENT FUNDS, CATEGORY C - APPROVED CHAI~ HANCOCK: Okay. Item 8(E)(3). COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion we approve Item 8(E)(3). COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. ALL COMMISSIONERS: Aye. Item #8E4 REQUEST FOR FUNDING $124,404.00 FOR SEA TURTLE MONITORING TOURIST DEVELOPMENT CATEGORY A FUNDS - APPROVED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And next Item 8(E)(4). The brakes have been hit. I do want to give the benefit of the TDC discussion on this one. We did the same thing, but this is the -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: How much money? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is, it's actually only one or two thousand dollars more than last year. This is the part that we are mandated by the state to have the turtle monitoring program and the cost this year is less than three percent higher than last year. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Our other option is to pay it out of GF. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Our other option is general fund or to take the state to court, neither of which is very inexpensive. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion we approve Item 8(E)(4). COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've got a question. Taking the state to court, what, what's the penalty if we fail to do this or if we left it to the private sector to do? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Turtles will die. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know turtles will die, eggs will crack. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The, the real -- the penalty, I don't know, but this is one of those wonderful unfunded mandates that the state tells us we have to do it and then if we don't want to, we can challenge them. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just wonder how much of it the Conservancy would fund if we didn't do it. Hi, Michael. MICHAEL: It's not that much. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, with that thought, I'll withdraw my motion. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Miss, Miss Gansel, is there any, other than what's in our package, any additional technical information that you think the board should have or that you have that would be helpful in this decision? MS. GANSEL: Dr. Lorenz is here and he'll be glad to address it. Also, this will only be included in the fiscal '98 budget, so you will be reviewing this again during the budget hearings during the summer. That's as technical as I get, but Dr. Lorenz can talk about the other items. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Bill, I think Commissioner Mac'Kie's question is what are our options here. We just kind of keep going through this every year and doing it. What are the options? What are other communities doing different from what we are? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: This would help toward that Medicaid payment. Yeah, I know, I know. MR. LORENZ: Yes. For the record, Bill Lorenz, Natural Resources Director. These are conditions that are imposed on the permit -- for the permits for beach nourishment, for tilling of the beaches and for even parts of past maintenance where we have to, we have, the county has to, as part of the permits for those, for those activities, must have a sea turtle monitoring program in place -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So the answer to Commissioner Mac'Kie's earlier question, though, what would happen if we didn't do this? We'd lose, likely lose those permits? MR. LORENZ: That's -- I do not, I'm not involved with the permitting, but that would be my answer. The state would not issue the permits if, if we don't do it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: One more question. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Do we have to do a hundred and twenty-six thousand dollars worth of monitoring to comply with the permits? MR. LORENZ: Yes. This is, this is the minimum requirement that we're, that we are doing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: How many volunteer hours -- and this is the one -- again, these are the questions that TDC asked. There's a tremendous amount of volunteer hours that actually go into this. We have people staying up nights watching these nests, if I'm not mistaken, that are not being paid. Is that correct? MR. LORENZ: Well, the, the -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The Conservancy does anyway. MR. LORENZ: The Conservancy is actually under contract. The Conservancy is getting ten thousand dollars for this and they have an intern program that they, that they manage. Our discussions with Dave Addison in the past has indicated that, that they're not interested in doing anymore than what they currently do. They basically do the city's beaches, so we provide them with the ATVs, with a lot of the -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The Naples city's beaches, you mean where the city residents park? MR. LORENZ: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Does that mean city turtles are worth more than county turtles? MR. LORENZ: No. That's just that they had been doing that in the past. They're familiar with, with that particular beach and so we've -- the county through the TDC monies funds the Conservancy. I think it's budgeted for ten thousand dollars, roughly ten thousand dollars for next year. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So we pay them ten thousand dollars and they have interns which are, is freebie labor? COHMISSIONER BERRY: Freebie. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm a -- that, we may need to examine -- that relationship has been closed with the budget. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, but may I? More specifically, even setting aside that ten thousand dollars, what's the other hundred and sixteen thousand dollars spent on? MR. LORENZ: Pardon? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What's the other hundred and sixteen thousand dollars spent on besides ten grand to the Conservancy? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are you saying, show me the money? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Show me the money. I don't understand a hundred and sixteen twenty-six thousand dollars to count turtle nests. MR. LORENZ: We have ninety-nine thousand dollars in personal services that funds two individuals. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So we have two full-time -- MR. LORENZ: Full-time. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- staff year round? MR. LORENZ: That's correct. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And what exactly do they do? In their typical eight hour day -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you, Tim. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- what do they do? They get up in the morning or at night perhaps and they go to work and what do they do? MR. LORENZ: They -- daily monitoring, seven days a week. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Donwt, donwt generalize. Tell me specifically. They get up on Monday, whatever time of work they go, go to work, whatever time of day they go to work -- COMMISSIONER MACwKIE: Do they show up at your office? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do they go to an office, do they go sit on the beach and look at eggs? What do they do? MR. LORENZ: During turtle nesting season, they get up, they get on the beach, they have an ATV that theywve -- wewve parked at various places. They run down the whole length of the beach that theywre assigned to. During -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: How much do they get paid for doing this? MR. LORENZ: During that, during that effort -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let him get through this first. MR. LORENZ: During that effort, they have to -- the state requires as permit condition that we monitor every mile of that beach, and when there is a nest, they have to post the nest, they have to record a whole lot of data associated with the nest. If itws a false crawl which is the turtle comes up on the beach and does not nest, they have to record the false crawl and the data associated with that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When I played four square as a kid, we used to call it false crawls sometimes. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Yeah. I know that one. MR. LORENZ: Thatls part of the daily reconnaissance. Then they come back, they have to take care of the ATVs and various equipment. Then we go through a data entry process where you have to enter all of that data onto the computer. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Then what happens to that data? MR. LORENZ: That data is part of an annual report that is 41 submitted to the state. Itls a permit requirement to submit that annual report. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: What about non-season, what do these two full-time employees do? MR. LORENZ: Non-season, thatls when theylre basically working on the report. Itls taking all that time -- a lot of the data entry does not occur during season because we donlt have time to put it in there, so that during non-season, theylre working on the turtle -- working on the report putting the data entry in. Theylre also, theylre also, during the non-season, theylre also taking care of refurbishing of equipment, new equipment procurement because this is out of the off season work. Not only do we do the turtle monitoring which is, which is that, but we also have to do beach compaction measurements. We have to go out to the beach, zone the beach. Therels a particular piece of equipment that they go and do and that has to be done prior, prior to a lot of the raking activities, so thatls another off season exercise. Again, that information has to be entered into the computer and developed for the state. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Further questions of Mr. Lorenz? Mr. Cautero, you have something to add? MR. CAUTERO: I just wanted to make a comment, Mr. Chairman. Vince Cautero for the record. That issue of full-time employment for those employees year round was discussed at the budget workshops last year. I just wanted to remind the board of that. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: I remember that. I just, I just know that welve been, welve been rich in these funds in the past and that is ending and it's causing me to look far more closely, frankly, at, I understand we have to comply with the permits, but does that cost a hundred and twenty-six thousand dollars or could we do it for twenty-six thousand dollars? MR. CAUTERO: And I -- and rightly so. That's a good question. Mr. Lorenz last year during his time researched that issue and he's continuing to research that and I've directed him to do so. We looked at other sources of funding. I believe the one twenty-six is, is the minimum needed for those two employees at this point in time and I believe the two employees are necessary to comply with the permit. If that, if that amount can go down, we will certainly recommend it to you and if we can find alternative sources of funding, we will certainly recommend it to you so that the tourist development funds don't have to be tapped every year for it. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I don't think that's the appropriate place to fund it from, though, because that's the beach renourishment fund and this is a beach renourishment permit condition. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So I think that's an appropriate funding source. The only question is does it really cost that much or could we do it cheaper, and that -- we've, we've gone through this discussion, though, several times and we always come back to this same point. We can look at it a little closer in this year's budget discussion, but I'11, I'll move approval. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we ever ask what are we paying the Conservancy to do that, that, you know -- I mean we have two full-time employees. Do they run all beaches in Collier County, city, whether they be adjacent to the city limits or county limits? MR. LORENZ: The -- we have two, two full-time employees and we also use seasonal recap employees as well, so that's a part of -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. But we don't differentiate between city and county. We do it, we do the whole thing, Marco Island, the whole ball of wax? MR. LORENZ: That's correct. We -- I mean, the whole, all of the county beaches are done on this daily monitoring. Kice Island has to be done twice a week for purposes of Caxambas Inlet Management Plan. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Then what are we paying the Conservancy to do within the city limits solely that isn't necessary outside of that? I don't understand. When I heard just in the -- I thought the Conservancy was just helping county wide. I didn't know it was just in the city. MR. LORENZ: Oh, no. They just, they just simply do the city beaches, the city beach. That's just, that's just their geographical territory that they've been assigned since they have been doing that in the past. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What do they do? MR. LORENZ: They do the, they basically just do the daily, the daily monitoring. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So we don't have to do it, then? MR. LORENZ: That's correct. We get their information and process their information for the purposes of the report. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: How about doing the county for twenty thousand? I mean if they're doing the city monitoring -- MR. LORENZ: Last year, well, last year, I -- we asked the Conservancy as to whether they'd be interested in doing anything more and looking at it as an economic analysis and they weren't because they can just simply deal with their student interns. In other words, at their capacity of dealing with student interns is my understanding is they've -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It sounds like a new Florida Gulf Coast University program. Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree with Commissioner Norris that any time you get into a detailed question on this, it's probably budget time and by the sounds of things, she'll be prepared to do that, but I want to know and if you don't have an answer now, perhaps you will at budget time, what happens to those reports, much like our water quality reports, that went to a shelf and sat there and were never, as far as we could tell, referred to. I realize the state may require these reports, but are we simply assembling information, sending it off and someone -- or are we sustaining a job in Tallahassee for someone, too? MR. LORENZ: No. This, this is, this is the report that goes to Tallahassee to satisfy the -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a hundred and twenty-six thousand dollars. MR. LORENZ: -- the requirement. I mean, obviously, we've got it as part of our, our, if you will, our environmental library of data and information that's important for the county. We use the information for purposes of developing the Growth Management Plan and reporting on information that we have to provide in the data analysis -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many pages is that report? MR. LORENZ: Sixty, sixty-five, seventy. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because that just -- if half the year is turtle nesting season and the other half is assembling the report, that means, you know, they do two and a half pages a week. MR. LORENZ: There's more than just the report. There is the beach compaction activities and there's a lot of effort that requires for mobilization and demobilization of the storage. We have four ATVs that we have to, have to deal with and storage sheds that we're working through the year. Plus, during the summertime, the staff is, staff is requiring a lot of camp time, so they're earning -- working more than a forty hour week, so during the, during the off season, that's when they're able to take that camp time off. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me, let me suggest this. We're getting into a lot of detail that's actually budget level detail. I think the stage has been set that once again this year we're going to go over these, these same costs dollar for dollar, so you may want to look at the tapes for last year. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One last comment. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Go ahead. I'm trying to move on. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know and my last comment is just for budget discussions. I'm going to be interested in seeing what we could do to privatize this, this permit compliance function and I bet we could privatize it for less than a hundred and twenty-six thousand dollars. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Or I liked the college intern idea you mentioned. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. COMMISSIONER BERRY: But I think one of the bottom lines, it sounds like the hundred and twenty-six thousand, does this, is this something that has to go to the state? Again, I'm looking at the state and saying why is this a requirement, you know, that we are, we are held hostage because, I mean we have to do this. I don't think this is any reflection on Mr. Lorenz as much as it is on, you know, further up the road and, again, passing an unfunded mandate, if you will, down to the county. I'm more perturbed on the reasoning behind all of this and I'll learn that, I'm sure, during the budget -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's a permit condition versus -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- a mandate, which the two are different. Mr. Gonzalez? MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, sir. Adolfo Gonzalez, Capital Projects Director. That's exactly it, Commissioner. The beaches that we have, the beach restoration project we did last year, the raking we do during the off, during the non-turtle nesting season all hinges on the compaction of the beach, on the suitability of the beach to allow turtles to nest and to hatch during their season. It's critical to the, not just the beach project we just finished but to the future maintenance of those beaches and those raking activities. That is in the beach renourishment permit conditions that the passes, Caxambas Pass, they're all typical conditions now for those permits. I understand your desire to privatize and hopefully save money. I can tell you that when it comes down to getting time extensions, for instance, Caxambas Pass, we're now into the turtle nesting season, we have been granted a two week time extension to finish that project and one of the key reasons why is the state relies heavily on one of Bill Lorenz's staff persons, Maura Kraus, to say, yes, it's not going to endanger or, yes it will, and we're going to work around it. She's got a lot of credibility with this state which really helps our cause. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It sounds like a day at the beach for a couple of people. In truth, these are biologists that are degreed and have to construct their report in such a manner that it meets all the state's, you know, i's being dotted and t's being crossed. We have a speaker. Let's go to that speaker and try and wrap this item up. MR. MCNEES: You have to. Dick Lydon. MR. LYDON: I came down here to talk about parking, but since I am chairman of the beach renourishment committee, I'd like to tell you that we had serious concerns about a hundred and twenty-six thousand dollars, too. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Name for the record? MR. LYDON: I'm Dick Lydon. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. LYDON: And we think there may be some ways and I think we have proven with our past performance of saving something over between a million and a half and two million dollars on the reconstruction of the beach, that we are not down there just flapping our gums. We're going to take a look at these things as they come before us. That recommendation comes from us to TDC to you all. We're not going to send it up here if we think there's a few bucks to be saved and that's all I have to say. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. McNEES: Michael Simonik and Judy Leinweber. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Simonik? MR. SIMONIK: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, Michael Simonik, Environmental Policy Coordinator for the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. I guess I just needed to jump up and defend the Conservancy and what we do. We do receive ten thousand dollars in money for the sea turtle monitoring project which is mandated by the permits. That ten thousand dollars only subsidizes what we do for this county in sea turtle monitoring. We have a full-time staff member, our senior biologist, David Addison, who works almost strictly just with the sea turtles throughout the year, as well as during six to nine months of sea turtle nesting. In the season when we're doing reports afterwards, we have four college interns who are paid at the minimum wage hourly rate as well as getting housing and that's worth about ten thousand dollars per intern. That's forty thousand dollars, and with the biologist's salary, it probably comes close to a hundred thousand dollars of benefit that we're doing in sea turtle monitoring and sea turtle projects in this county and we're doing it not just on the City of Naples beach but on Keewaydin and throughout the county as well, so we're giving a lot more than we're getting and if you want to talk about in the budget time of contracts and stuff, it's going to cost you a lot more than ten thousand dollars to do what we do if we really charged you for what we do, but we're doing it for the county and because our members like to give the money for us to do that, so I just wanted to kind of clarify that. We do spend a lot more than, than the ten thousand dollars. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do you think the Conservancy could do the entire county for less than a hundred and twenty-six grand? MR. SIMONIK: I can't answer that question, but we can talk about it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like for us to talk about it. I think it would make a lot of sense. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. LEINWEBER: I'm Judy Leinweber, and from the looks of it, I guess the county's going to be stuck with this price tag and like Michael said, it's for the good of the county. Well, if it's for the good of the county, instead of just monitoring the sea turtles in the city limits, make them do it county wide. That's all I have to say. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Okay. Do we have a direction or motion on Item 8(E)(4)? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. I move to approve it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We do have a motion for approval, okay. Do we have a second? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: After we -- do we have the opportunity to reduce this amount at budget time if we find a way to save money on it? MR. LORENZ: Sure. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. McNees is indicating yes. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I mean this amount of money could be reduced. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So we have a motion to approve up to one hundred and twenty-six thousand four hundred and four dollars for sea turtle monitoring. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: ALL COMMISSIONERS: CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: (No response.) And a second. Any discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Item #9A RECOHMENDATION TO ACCEPT A SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL IN WESTWIND CONTRACTING, INC., V. COLLIR COUNTY, CASE NO. 95-3939-CA-01-TB, COLLIER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT - APPROVED; STAFF DIRECTED TO PREPARE LIST OF CORRECTIVE ACTION TAKEN CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Lorenz. Item (9)(A), recommendation to accept a settlement proposal in Westwind Contracting. Again, I'd like to remind everyone that discussion of settlement proposals, we've all had individual presentations by the office of the county attorney on this. We do not want to try the particulars of the case here today in this forum. What I ask Mr. Pettit to do is make a brief presentation and then if the board has questions, proceed in that manner. Mr. Pettit? MR. PETTIT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, commissioners. Good morning. My name is Mike Pettit from the county attorney's office, assistant county attorney. I'm here on this item. Apropos of your introductory comments, I do see one of our adversary counsel here to observe the proceedings. I'll be brief. This matter arose back on March 31, 1994 when the county received a substantial claim from a road contractor demanding compensation of approximately 1.8 million dollars. There were efforts made to negotiate with that contractor. County staff and county attorney's office felt that the contractor's position was unreasonable at that time for purposes of negotiation and a suit was filed eventually by the contractor. The county then brought in third party defendants. At least one of those third party defendants brought in a fourth party defendant. Discovery went forward and eventually the contractor made a proposal to resolve all matters for eight hundred thousand dollars and our office has reviewed that proposal and believes that it's not unreasonable for the board to consider that settlement at this time. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll give the board the benefit of a comment I made to Mr. Pettit. We don't have a history of jumping at settlements as a board and I don't want my comments to be construed in any way as indicating that the county is at fault in this matter, but should the county approve this settlement proposal, Mr. Pettit and our counsel assured me that they could provide this board with a list of itemized areas in which they contributed to the reason we have a settlement proposal in front of us today. My problem is that so many times if we approve a settlement, it's as if the problem goes away and we're done with it and yet the conditions that may have existed either within our staff or in our contracting procedures that caused it to happen are not addressed, so I'll just ask the board that should any member of this board wish to approve this settlement proposal, that we require the county attorney's office to provide us and the county manager with a list of areas that contributed to the reasons for that and those areas should be addressed in writing back to the board to make sure they don't happen again. I think that type of corrective action is necessary if we approve a settlement agreement today. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll move approval based on that condition. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. ALL COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries unanimously. Mr. Pettit, thank you very much. MR. PETTIT: Thank you. Item #9B REPORT TO THE BOARD ON THE WILDERNESS ISSUE - DISCUSSED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And we'll look forward to, Mr. HcNees, your office receiving correspondence on this matter and we are going to want to see what corrective action will be taken in those areas of concern. Thank you. Item 9(B), report on the Wilderness issue. Mr. Wilderness, Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Uh-huh. Mr. Weigel. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: No alliteration intended, I'm sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and commissioners. In the two weeks since the board directed our office to review and report back on the Wilderness, we have had an opportunity to review anew some of the ordinance and statutory considerations of the Wilderness and annexation which is a part of the element of discussion with the city and even other parties. With you -- with us today is an attorney, Mr. Michael Witt of the firm of Becket & Poliakoff who wishes to address you on behalf of certain property owners within the Wilderness area which is subject to annexation and I might toss it up to the board that maybe some of your questions to me and my response may certainly occur after he speaks, but in any event, I'll tell you right now that, of course, the annexation procedure is a statutorily provided for procedure and a landowner may petition a municipality for annexation. Purportedly this is what has occurred. There are some questions of fact concerning the interest that petitioned the municipality, being City of Naples for, for annexation. The land at issue includes part of an entire PUD project known as the Wilderness which, of course, up to this point has been a Collier County approved development. With that background and it's probably self evident, perhaps already known by everyone, I wanted to at least make that statement for the record right here. The City of Naples has had, to my understanding, no direct contact or there's been no direction to me as county attorney to work with the City of Naples. However, you may find after some of the discussion, I believe, by Mr. Witt, that you may want to direct me or through some mechanism of personnel, start a more formal discussion with either staff or the council, the City of Naples, in this regard. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, I appreciate your comments, but procedurally, I have a difficulty with this. We asked your office to investigate whether or not the county had, I'll just use the term, an axe to grind in this issue. Do we have a real land value interest? Is there a material effect to the county in this proposed annexation that we need to be aware of? What I don't want is to bring in outside parties that represent other individuals other than Collier County to broaden this discussion to a question of annexation. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm a little concerned about that. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I guess I need to know, is it your opinion that we have an interest in this matter that needs to be represented in some form? MR. WEIGEL: I appreciate that question and obliquely I was attempting to set the framework for you to actually ask that question and, that is, the interest of the county may be twofold. One is does the county have a legal interest, is there a legal problem that the county attorney's looking into? Secondly, there is a question which is being raised and which I have been apprised of by correspondence and with a meeting that our office has had with Mr. Witt on behalf of the landowners within this Wilderness PUD area, that they are raising a question which may be more policy and clinical and that is that the residents of heretofore county property, county jurisdictional property would wish that the county assist them or take a position addressing what have been described as procedural issues that were created by the city's process itself. Now, the county neither statutorily and historically has never involved itself with municipal annexation processes that have occurred within the county and part of the question before us today is if in fact, with additional investigation, if directed by this board, the county attorney could in fact inform you, either informally or formally, that we believed or did not believe that there were procedural, ergo legal, deficiencies in the annexation process of the city, does that give rise to the county wishing to address that with the city, in either an informal or a formal basis, or the county, I think, itself through the board, maybe as a policy decision, would have to determine whether there is a citizen interest of those persons living within the PUD that we wish to attempt to address by involving ourselves in the procedural aspects of the city's annexation process. Beyond that, the county's PUD, of course, is in -- is a zoning document. It has requirements within that document. It's one of the oldest PUDs in the county, but within that document, does have requirements that for certain future developments of parcels, including the proposed annexed parcel, that it would have to interact with the county for certain approvals. The state law provides that upon annexation, the current zoning and jurisdictional requirements of the prior zoning, the current zoning still exists until the city -- until approximately six months and the city has adopted amendments to its comprehensive plan. There is another -- there is an issue that has been raised, not by the county but by the sources of information that have been brought to my attention in these last two weeks, that there are issues concerning the city's addressing its own comprehensive plan. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's really the crux of the question is the last part. The first two-thirds of that, I don't know that we need to get into being advocates for anyone in a dispute like this. The last part is the, is the only point I really want to try to get some answers on and that is if there's something violating or appearing to violate a county PUD or if there are questions about that, that's something we need to look at and if that's the case, sure, we need to get involved. The first two-thirds of what you just outlined is probably not appropriate for us to be involved in. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's cut to the chase on that question. The PUD doesn't allow for I believe it's a height limitation that a hotelier is looking for. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yet the city would if it's annexed and comp plan amended. That's my understanding, so I guess if it's annexed properly in accordance with, with state statutes, our authority is diminished by that annexation and the authority then switches to the City of Naples should they adopt their comp plan amendment within six months. Is that correct? MR. WEIGEL: That is correct, yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If that first step has occurred, according to state statutes, in other words, the process for annexation, then we no longer have jurisdiction or authority on the Wilderness PUD. That's my understanding and I don't know that it takes a lot of work to arrive at either that decision or one similar to it. Do we have these same issues in Bear's Paw because there was no change in land use being -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's the difference. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Bear's Paw, there was no change in land use being proposed? MR. WEIGEL: Correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Okay. It sounds to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that if the annexation occurs, according to state statute, that our ability to defend previous zoning or to champion previous zoning constraints is eliminated. MR. WEIGEL: I think that is essentially the case, yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I think I hear that a majority of the board is not interested in getting into the challenge process on whether or not the procedures that the, you know, city council followed were correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I mean we want to make sure that county residents aren't duped into annexation -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- in any way, shape or form. I think that would be of concern and that -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right, and the present question that you just asked is the crux to the whole thing. If the board loses its authority or loses what was initially done as part of the PUD, we don't need to be involved. If we still had some authority to enforce what the original PUD had, maybe that's something worth looking at. You just said we will, we will lose that authority, so I think that really is -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It sort of closes the discussion. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Case closed. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As far as I'm concerned, it does. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is there anything in the summary that we are discussing, Mr. Weigel, that you see factually incorrect? MR. WEIGEL: I don't think so. Miss Student was here. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: She's here. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: This is a single owner parcel in question, isn't it? MR. WEIGEL: Well, that's part of the question. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, we don't know that, either. MS. STUDENT: That is part of the question. I don't know that I really have anything -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Name? MS. STUDENT: -- to add except in the PUD documents -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Name? MS. STUDENT: Oh. Marjorie Student again, assistant county attorney, for the record. In the PUD document, again, it refers to tract nine and it's very general language. It doesn't really set up a land use. It says it'll come back to the board for whatever land use and references an old zoning procedure that staff nor I are quite sure exactly what it means to complete development plans, but it does require a public hearing on things like drainage and parking and the typical things that you look at will be reviewed. I think at times past, staff has opined that for purposes of the county's comp plan, a hotel use at a density of sixteen units an acre could go in there consistent with a comp plan that is not in the PUD document that would have to come back to you by amendment, so. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have a speaker? MR. MCNEES: You do have Michael Witt registered to speak. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. WITT: Morning, Mr. Chairman, commissioners. For the record, my name is Michael Witt. I'm an attorney with Becket & Poliakoff. We represent the Wilderness Country Club Association. The association recently, just to let you all know, through its board of directors had a meeting and authorized our firm to initiate legal action against the City of Naples relative to the annexation ordinance that was recently adopted as well as the resolution approving the development agreement. I had a meeting recently with Marjorie Student and have spoken with, with Mr. Weigel. I provided some initial information at least on what our concerns are relative to this project. I want to make clear for the board, we are not asking the board to fight our fight for us. We are not asking the board to take sides, so to speak, in this issue on behalf of the residents at Wilderness Country Club. My feeling is, after having become involved in this and reviewed the issues, is that the county does have a stake in the outcome of the litigation that is imminent and that's going to be filed very soon and that is because of the existing PUD on the property. If the annexation was not proper by the city and if there are procedural and substantive problems with the approval of the development agreement which we, we have allegations that that is wrong as well, this property would still be governed by the existing PUD. The reason that I mentioned to both Ms. Student and Mr. Weigel the concerns of the residents, I mean you do have county residents at the Wilderness Country Club that are being negatively impacted by this annexation by the city. You know, that's, that's only brought up, kind of stating the obvious for you all to know, that, to me, is another reason that you all may want to consider as far as why the county would want to commit the resources of the county attorney's office to get, to get involved. The county didn't cause the problem here. Wilderness Country Club didn't cause the problem. It's really the actions by the, by the City of Naples. I understand from reading the press and seeing the news reports, there are some other issues now between the county and city, particularly the beach parking, and I know that you all have to work sometimes in close relationships with one another and, like I said, we're not asking the county commission to put on black robes, so to speak, and make any judgment call as far as who they think is right or wrong. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What are you asking us to do? MR. WITT: What we are asking you to do is to become involved in the litigation that's going to be filed. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: To sue the city? MR. WITT: No, no, no, no. Simply as an interested party, almost what I have discussed with Mr. Weigel that happens a lot of times in appeals that are filed and you have to understand the nature of the action that's being filed is what is called a certiorari action which is almost like a quasi appeal, if you will, and what we're asking the county to do is almost file what's called an amicus curiae type brief or something almost like a friend of the Court where you have a stake in the outcome of this. If we are right, and we're not asking you to make any judgments or to get on our side and say one way or another, but if we are right, the county has some -- is impacted by the decision thatws going to be made by the Court in this case because what happens if we are right and you donwt have a proper annexation and you donwt have a proper development agreement? What happens if the developer is out there now that may be starting construction on this project, you know, during the interim that this litigation is pending? You know, there, there are variables that we just donwt know and wewre not asking the county to commit, you know, vast financial resources and get embroiled in whatws going to be a long protracted litigation, but I believe that the county commission needs to consult with the, with the county attorney on this issue and thatws, thatws all wewre asking. Youwre going to receive your advice from the county attorney. Nobody likes litigation, you know. My, my client doesnlt and I know that you donlt, but -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Witt, that purpose has been served by todayls hearing. We have consulted with our county attorney and the case in which you cite where the county has an interest, the what-ifls that you cite, our role becomes very, very clear if any of those what-ifls play out. If construction has begun on a piece of property that, in effect, the annexation is not appropriate and it falls back to the county, construction will have to halt until county inspectors investigate and make sure that they are in compliance, full compliance with the zoning and county regulations. If they are not, itill be up to them to tear it down, reconstruct it, change it, conform it however. What you are, in essence, asking this board to do is to become involved in what I call the cityls effort to cherry pick it. They go out, they look at areas that are advantageous to the city to annex, they annex them to their advantage, and I donlt like cherry picking. I mean their borders are by no means even. There are areas that have been avoided by the city in annexation that are not as attractive as some that they have reached out to, to draw in. Now, those are all done mutual by the city and the residents, so welre not going to stop that no matter how much it seems a little unfair, but thatls the only interest we have here is that they have decided that there is a site that they think should be a part of the city and they have pursued that and whether they do it correct or not is between the affected party and them. We are not the affected party here per se, so itls -- I donlt have the -- Iim not of the opinion to direct the county attorney to become anymore involved in this than we are. MR. WEIGEL: Me neither. CHAIRNLAN HANCOCK: However, should, should the annexation prove or should your case prove the annexation is not correct, we will take whatever is necessary under our authority to enforce the zoning regulations on the property that is in the best interest of our residents. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: I agree with that. My only -- I do just want to temper it a little bit by telling you that the City of Naples didnlt go out, look, and ask this property owner to annex into the city. CHAIRNLAN HANCOCK: Oh, I know. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: This was an application that was made by the property owner, so the cherry picking, I think the picking is done by the property owner, not by the City of Naples going out and pursuing valuable pieces of property. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: This is perry chicking. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: This is perry chicking. I like that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Either way, the appearance is quite obvious if you look at the boundaries of the city, so that difference of opinion there. Thank you. Mr. Weigel, is there anything further to add on this matter? MR. WEIGEL: I don't think so. Thank you. Item #10A RESOLUTION 97-230, APPOINTING BYRON J. HEADE, BRENDA C. FOGEL, STEVEN H. BIGELOW AND JAN H. STEVENS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY TECHNICAL ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We'll move on to number 10(A), appointment of members to the Environmental Policy Technical Advisory Board. I'd like to point out to the members of the board that the staff that informed this is not correct. Ms. Filson made a mistake. We all want to take note of that. It should say to appoint four members. Is that correct, Ms. Filson? MS. FILSON: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. This is your second mistake in three years. One more and you're out of here. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I have to disagree with the committee recommendation where they select one of those and tell us to readvertise. I think that's unfair to the people willing to offer their time and I'll make a suggestion we appoint all four of the applicants. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have anyone registered on this? MR. HCNEES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: ALL COMMISSIONERS: CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: 10(B), discussion -- COMHISSIONER BERRY: CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Seeing none, motion carries unanimously. Wait a minute. -- regarding membership on the Juvenile Item Justice Council. Sorry, Hs. Filson, you had something? MS. FILSON: Normally when we appoint members for six months or under, we appoint them for that time plus full term. We do like to appoint because two of the experts' dates are September 30, 1997. Would you like them to serve the five months and then come back before the board? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Did the motion make or anticipate our normal policy of appointing for the remainder of the expired term plus an additional term? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: If it's only for five months, I think, sure, with just -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes, I did. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, you were the motion maker. I'm sorry. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I was the second maker, but that's what I anticipated. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So it's clarified then that, yes, that's -- we'll follow that same policy. MS. FILSON: Thank you. Item #10B DISCUSSION RE HEHBERSHIP ON THE JUVENILE JUSTICE COUNCIL - COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE TO SERVE AS BCC MEMBER CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Next is something I added, discussion regarding membership on the Juvenile Justice Council. It's been requested that a member of this board or an appointed member --or an appointee serve on the Juvenile Justice Council. The reason I put it on the agenda is that I've got a very full plate. I wanted to ask if there are any members of the commission that would, would feel -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I'd be happy to serve. I'll tell you that I've also recently agreed to serve on the Domestic Violence Council and I do that because I'm happy to serve on both of them, but you guys already know that I'm big supporters of both of those issues and I wonder if it might be better for somebody who's not as involved in those two issues to serve and get a little more educated about it and perhaps learn more about it and be more informed. I'm happy to serve on both of those but -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Or offer information that may have benefit to the council. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Could go the other way. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could go the -- absolutely. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My gosh. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So I'd be preaching to the choir if I were there. Perhaps one of you guys will want to, you know -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Be devil's advocate? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Does any other member wish to serve on the Juvenile Justice Council? COHMISSIONER BERRY: board, I served for -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: COHMISSIONER BERRY: CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: COHMISSIONER BERRY: CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I've served. When I was on the school Commissioner Berry -- In fact -- -- has no interest. -- I'm an honorary director. Honorary director. Commissioner Norris or Constantine, do you have a desire to serve on it or -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, thank you. Appreciate it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Mac'Kie, congratulations. Appointment by default. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Happy to do it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Actually, we -- let the record reflect that all members supported Commissioner Mac'Kie in her appointment to the council. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We sure did. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Her willingness. Item #10D ERROR OF TRANSMITTAL REGARDING THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN - STAFF DIRECTED TO TRANSMIT ORIGINALLY INTENDED PLAN CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Item 10(C) has already been discussed. Item 10(D), Commissioner Constantine, an add-on regarding the error in transmittal on our Growth Management Plan amendments. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure. I think we're all aware there was an error in transmittal. From what I read in our daily newspaper -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's a reliable source. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Very reliable source. The suggestion was that, oh, we'll have an opportunity to change that in October anyway. I would, I'm asking you is there some reason why we can't correct our error now before it gets anywhere along in the process and send a letter to all the places that GMP goes and say, gosh, we made a mistake, please correct it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, there's also, if I can just add in there, there's a memo from Vince to us adding this onto next, excuse me, next week's agenda offering us the option of sending out faxes. I just wonder if we couldn't just do that today instead of waiting for next week's agenda. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Actually, I think Mr. Weigel will tell us that it should be on a regularly advertised agenda since it is correcting something that we discussed at length. Would that be correct, Mr. Weigel, it'd be advisable to have it on an agenda next week as opposed to making a decision today on an unadvertised position? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before we let any staff member speak, I have a question along those lines. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Could we all just ask questions -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And any answers. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- and you have to write them down? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we need to, that's fine. I'm not sure why. If the board set a specific direction and it was simply a staff error that didn't set it off that way and/or a misunderstanding, then I'm not sure why we need to have an advertised public hearing -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- to make sure it's -- MR. MCNEES: I'll, I'll take the blame for that one. It was my thinking, in talking to Vince, that given the sensitivity of this issue and given the appearance that we were trying to somehow sneak through a change to what you had formally by motion apparently adopted to the Growth Management Plan -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Now, who created that appearance? MR. MCNEES: -- that we would, that we would put it on a regular agenda so it would be open and clear where we were headed. If y'all feel like it's appropriate, from our point of view, to direct that today -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just think the sooner the better. MR. MCNEES: -- we'd be happy to. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Weigel, is there a need, a need to have it on next week's agenda or can we give that direction to staff today to make that clarification? MR. WEIGEL: I think the direction you're attempting, in fact, and indeed are giving is to do what you've intended to be done in the first place and so I don't think that you'll have that absolute requirement to bring it to -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Lawyers love this term, scrivener's error. We have a scrivener's error. Let's correct it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So does the board then wish to give direction to Mr. Cautero and his staff to transmit to the state --COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So moved. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- what was originally intended? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Motion and second. of doing what we said we're going to do, say aye. ALL COMHISSIONERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Cautero. Fine presentation. are now to public comment. Do I have any speakers registered, Mr. McNees? MR. MCNEES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Glory be. We are on to public hearings. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let the record reflect glory be. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: A1 didn't show up. COMHISSIONER BERRY: It's a very sacred time. All those in favor We Item #13A1 RESOLUTION 97-231, RE PETITION CU-97-5, MILES SCOFIELD, REPRESENTING CRAIG & KARLA SIEBERT REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE OF THE RSF-3 DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR A BOAT HOUSE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 291 SEABREEZE AVENUE IN CONNORS VANDERBILT BEACH SUBDIVISION - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just kidding. We love to hear from all of you, just not several times a day. Item 13(A)(1), advertised public hearings, Petition CU-97-5, Mr. -- or Dr. Badamtchian. I've had a little problem with my elbow. Can you help me with that or -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. Wrong kind of doctor. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Just checking. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've got the sniffles. I need a prescription. Never mind. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just teasing. We kid you 'cause we like you. What do we have this morning? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good morning, Chairman. I'm Chahran from Planning Services Staff. This is a boathouse request to be located on Seabreeze Avenue in Connots Vanderbilt Beach subdivision. The boathouse will be eleven feet tall, will protrude twenty feet into the waterway and will be thirty feet wide. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Badamtchian, I know you've waited all morning to make this fine presentation, but this boatdock would -- or this boathouse would extend out into an open body of water, not a canal? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes, sir. It is an open body of water, CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are there any letters or complaints -- DR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, there are not. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- from any adjacent property owners? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Absolutely none? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: The planning commission heard this and unanimously granted approval. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Are you sure about that? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: Because at the -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I need to see the map. That does not show -- DR. BADAMTCHIAN: It's at the mouth of the canal, actually. It's not at -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's, it's on the lagoon side or the canal side? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: DR. BADAMTCHIAN: CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: DR. BADAMTCHIAN: CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's on the canal side. Oh, it is on the canal side? Yes. Okay. What's the width of that canal? It's over one hundred feet wide. Okay. Let me ask, just to expedite things, Mr. Scofield, do you have -- I believe the property owner right next to this one has a boatdock of the exact same proportion? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: They have a boatdock, yes. They don't have a boathouse. There are several boathouses within the vicinity of this proposed boathouse, though. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought this was out extending into the open body of water. I didn't realize it was on a canal. We have new criteria that are coming forward on boathouses; is that correct? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct. I reviewed this and this fully complies with our criteria, our proposed criteria for the boathouses, for the proposed boathouse requirements. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Scofield, do you have anything to add on this petition? MR. SCOFIELD: Miles Scofield for the record. No, I don't. If you have any questions, I'll be glad to answer them. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Questions from members of the board? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just make sure I understand the facts. So there's no objection, the planning board recommends it, it meets the upcoming criteria, and the next door neighbor has a boatdock that extends out, too? MR. SCOFIELD: The next neighbor, yeah, does not have a boathouse -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But a boatdock. MR. SCOFIELD: -- but a boatdock. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But a dock that extends? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion approved. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: ALL COMMISSIONERS: CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Scofield. We are to -- Motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Thank you, Mr. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A question. When we get these new boathouse criteria, are we still going to have to approve these on a case by case basis? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I'll give you the example. The physical appearance of some of them, there's one that was built in Vanderbilt Beach that has a wooden deck on it on the top, so it's like having a second floor that they have barbecues on and stuff. It's a little, you know -- I mean some of them can get kind of crazy. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It just seems like we could -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great idea. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's a great idea. MR. SCOFIELD: They said that's going to be taken out of here to the planning commission. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Good. MR. ARNOLD: Wayne Arnold, Planning Services Director. If I might, staff had brought forward some proposed changes to the way we look at boathouses. They don't fit very nicely into the criteria for conditional uses. We had proposed some separate criteria for review for those. After review by the planning commission, planning commission had directed us to go back and look at those proposed modifications and they have endorsed a procedure that would essentially mirror that used in the boatdock extension process with some other criteria, but they would not come to the Board of County Commissioners under their proposal that we're bringing to you. We will, as we always do, bring forward staff's initial recommendation as well as what the planning commission asked, asked to forward as well. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Are you saying, Mr. Arnold, then, that the same process for appeal would apply -- MR. ARNOLD: Yes, it would COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- so that if there were some disgruntled adjoining property owners, they could bring it in on appeal within thirty days? MR. ARNOLD: Correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good. MR. ARNOLD: You'll see that at the end of the month. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. Item #14A FIRST ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION OF MIDNIGHT BASKETBALL PROGRAM CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We are at BCC communications. Commissioner Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Nothing today. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry? COHMISSIONER BERRY: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two items, one, I need to brag. Last night my team won its second consecutive parks and recreation three-on-three basketball championship and, second, also -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The crowd goes wild. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- basketball related, this weekend is the first anniversary celebration of the midnight basketball program which has proven to be very successful. Mr. Dunnuck was in a couple of weeks ago. We had Ford Motor Company give six thousand again this year, as you know. Cool Cruisers raised a couple of thousand, so a wonderful program that is not hitting up the taxpayer. I want to invite each of you to play. We're going to have a little -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Could you say that again? A wonderful program that's what? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not hitting up the taxpayer. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Thank you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not hitting up the taxpayer. We're going to have a celebrity versus the kids game this weekend and we want to invite each of you to suit up and play if you want, but I have to acknowledge Commissioner Hancock was the first draft, first draft choice out of all of you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Otherwise known as the kids beating up on the celebrity game. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Mr. HcNees will be playing with us and a few others and we hope to give them a run for their money. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So we got three point shooter, low post. Basically, we need a working forward then? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Rough and tumble, that's you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How are you, how are you staffed on cheerleaders? COHMISSIONER BERRY: That's what I was going to ask you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So regardless of whether you suit up, we hope you'll come out. Great program and it should be a fun night Saturday. They got a lot going on. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. I'm going to, I'm going to try and make it. It sounds like a lot of fun, good event. Thank you for your information and your bragging. We appreciate them both. Item #14B UPDATE ON COUNTY MANAGER CONTRACT One thing I want to bring everyone up to speed on is the status of the county manager contract. I provided Mr. Weigel yesterday with, with information for the formation of an initial draft. He will have that draft completed, my guess is tomorrow or Thursday. Mr. Weigel, am I speaking out of school there? MR. WEIGEL: Just slightly. We'll have it today or tomorrow morning at the latest, I think. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. At which point it'll be sent to Mr. Fernandez for his review and comment and I may still revise what I see from the county attorney before sending it to Mr. Fernandez. To date, I had a discussion with him. He came to town this past weekend with his family. I met with him Friday morning. We talked about elements of the contract that he is looking for. I laid down some of the ideas that I had. I'll say that, that there are, neither one of us is probably going to get everything we're looking for in an agreed upon contract. That's usually the case. What will happen here, as everyone knows, is regardless of what Mr. Fernandez agrees to, it takes this entire board to approve that contract and that will occur, it is my hope, as soon as one week from today, no later than two weeks from today. It depends on the time Mr. Fernandez needs to review the contract and how much actual negotiation goes on between us. One thing he and I agreed upon is we will not negotiate this contract through the media. I will not go to the paper and say these are the sticking points. He will not do the same. They are obviously privy to all information and correspondence COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- maintain accuracy. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. I don't, I don't want a position being taken by me on this until the negotiations are complete and at which point I'll have all the comment in the world. I've told the representatives of the paper that, but again, all the information is theirs for their perusal, but I will not be commenting on those negotiations until they are complete. That's just a position I've taken. That's something Mr. Fernandez and I felt was most conducive to a positive agreement. Is there any other comment or question on that? COHMISSIONER BERRY: No, but I do have another comment. I failed to mention this. All of us received a big bag of vegetables today. I received some information about those yesterday. Those were sent over by Mrs. O'Quinn from Immokalee by way of Denise Blanton, so that's where the things came from. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you to Mrs. O'Quinn. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I just want to mention that's on behalf of the farming agri business group out in the Immokalee area. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Super. Mr. Weigel, anything additional? MR. WEIGEL: No, thank you. Item #15A INTRODUCTION OF EDGAR D. ISCHLER, PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATOR CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. HcNees? MR. HCNEES: I have one item. If Mr. Ilschner would come to the microphone, I'd like to introduce to you your new public works administrator who didn't get to address you today. Edgar D. Ilschner, Junior, comes to us from the great state of Texas and we are ecstatic to have him on board. He's hit the ground running and I wanted to take a moment to introduce him to you this morning. MR. ILSCHNER: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, let me first state that I am just overjoyed to be in the great state of Florida, but most particularly in the beautiful county of Collier, Collier County. I look forward to working with you, this board, in achieving the programs that you establish to meet the needs of the citizens of Collier County, working with the county manager's office and our staff to accomplish those and I stand ready to assist each of you in any way that I can. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Ilschner, thank you and welcome and we happen to think our side of the Gulf is a little prettier, but the area you come from is fantastic. We hope you'll grow to love this area as much, if not more, and we appreciate having you on board. MR. ILSCHNER: Thank you very much. Look forward to working with you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. McNees, anything else? MR. MCNEES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We are adjourned. Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner Berry and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted: Item #16A1 AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN AND CERTIFY TO THE CORRECTNESS OF THE COMPUTER-GENERATED CENSUS MAPS AND SIGN THE BOUNDARY AND ANNEXATION SURVEY Item #16A2 RESOLUTION 97-225 APPROVING LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND NORTH NAPLES FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT FOR UTILIZATION OF AN OFFICE AT THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BUILDING Item #16B1 - Deleted Item #1682 SPEED LIHIT CHANGE TO CREECH ROAD IN CONFORHANCE WITH BOARD ACTION ON 8/6/96 AND RESOLUTION 96-340 ALLOWING RESIDENTIAL ROADWAY SPEED LIMIT REDUCTIONS TO TWENTY FIVE MILES PER HOUR (25 HPH) Item #1683 ACCESS EASEHENT APPURTENANT TO HR. AND HRS. DEAN WEBB GRANTING ACCESS TO A LOT LOCATED IN SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, A/K/A THE C-4 CANAL, PRICE STREET OUTFASLL, OWNED BY COLLIER COUNTY ON BEHALF OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT Item #1684 ACCEPTANCE OF DRAINAGE EASEMENT FROM THREE (3) PROPERY OWNERS LOCATED IN GUILFORD ACRES, A SUBDIVISION, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 59 Item #1685 CHANGES TO THE 1997 WASTE TIRE GRANT BUDGET AND APPROPRIATE BUDGET AMENDMENTS Item #1686 AUTHORIZATION TO ACQUIRE A PARCEL OF RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR NAPLES BOULEVARD (F/K/A EDGEWOOD DRIVE); APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENT TO FUND THE RIGHT-OF-WAY PURCHASE; AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECORDING SAME IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS Item #1687 PETITION TH-96-020 FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM TO CALM TRAFFIC ON POMPEl LANE LOCATED BETWEEN GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD AND CASTELLO DRIVE Item #1688 RESOLUTION 97-226 DESIGNATING THE PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATOR AS AUTHORIZED OWNER SIGNEE FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT, THE MARCO WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT AND THE GOODLAND WATER DISTRICT FOR EXECUTION OF ROUTINE DOCUMENTS RELATED TO PUBLIC WORKS MATTERS Item #16B9 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR REPAIR AND REHABILITATION OF THE HALDEHAN CREEK A_MIL GATES, IN ACCORDANCE WITH BID NO. 97-2660 - AWARDED TO MASTERS GROUP, INC. OF CLEWISTON FLORIDA; AND BID OF DOUGLAS N. HIGGINS, INC. TO BE WITHDRAWN Item #16B10 BUDGET AMENDMENT TO SEGREGATE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY (SCRWWTF) THAT ARE ELIGIBLE FOR FUNDING THROUGH THE STATE REVOLVING FUND (SRF) LOW-INTEREST LOAN PROGRAM Item #16Bll CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO WORK ORDER NO. JEI-FT-96-6, WITH JOHNSON ENGINEERING UNDER THE TERMS OF THE ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT CONTRACT #95-2422 FOR THE LIVINGSTON ROAD PROJECT - IN THE A_MOUNT OF $7,800.00 Item #16B12- Deleted Item #16B13 STIPULATED FINAL JUDGHENT FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY PARCEL NO. l17A FOR THE VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD FOUR LANING PROJECT (CIE NO. 023) - STAFF TO DEPOSIT $6,666.00 INTO THE COURT REGISTRY WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE FINAL JUDGMENT AND STAFF TO SUBMIT A FOLLOW UP RESOLUTION TO THE BOARD FOR TRUCK WEIGHT LIMIT SIGNS ALONG PELICAN RIDGE BOULEVARD Item #16B14 SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 5 TO THE CONSULTING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HC GEE & ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR THE IHMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION H.S.T.U - IN THE A_MOUNT OF $20,000.00 Item #16B15 INITIATION OF DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT (DRI) PROJECT FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER (CCGC) AND WORK ORDER #ABB-07 WITH AGNOLI, BARBER AND BRUNDAGE, INC. FOR SURVEYING AND HAPPING SERVICES Item #16B16 BUDGET AMENDMENT TO FUND CONSTRUCTION OF AN 8" BY-PASS WATER LINE AROUND THE QUAIL CREEK WATER PLANT SITE Item #16B17 AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE AN ESCROW AGREEMENT FOR PAYMENT OF FUNDS PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED ON FEBRUARY 25, 1997 FOR ORANGE BLOSSOM DRIVE IMPROVEMENTS Item #16C1 CONTRACT FOR MARCO ISLAND LIBRARY LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE - AWARDED TO HANNULA LANDSCAPING COMPANY IN THE A_MOUNT OF $141,013.00 Item #16C2 BUDGET A_MENDHENT TRANSFERRING FUNDS FROH REGIONAL PARK IHPACT FEES RESERVES TO GOLDEN GATE COHMUNITY PARK COMPETITIVE POOL PROJECT FOR IMPROVEMENTS AT THE GOLDEN GATE AQUATIC FACILITY Item #16D1 LEASE AGREEHENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND EAST NAPLES FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT FOR SHARED USE OF STATION #23 LOCATED AT 7227 ISLE OF CAPRI BOULEVARD Item #16D2 - Moved to Item #8D2 Item #16D3 GRANT AGREEMENT #97CP-07-09-21-01-104 BETWEEN THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COHMUNITY AFFAIRS AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF A RADIO TRANSMITTER AND BACK-UP POWER SUPPLY TO BROADCAST WEATHER INFORMATION FROM THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE OFFICE-HIAMI Item #16D4 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH WORKFORCE COUNCIL OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA FOR A SUHMER YOUTH PROGRAM Item #16El AUTHORIZATION FOR THE ADVERTISEMENT FOR THREE SUCCESSIVE WEEKS OF A NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION FOR THE APPLICATION BY MARCO ISLAND CABLE, INC. FOR A CATV FRANCHISE FOR A TIME CERTAIN PUBLIC HEARING ON JUNE 17, 1997 AT 1:00 P.M. Item #16G1 CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE 1995 Real Property No. Dated 269, 272 03/07 & 4/16/97 1995 Tangible Personal Property No. Dated 81 04/30/97 1996 Real Property No. Dated 98 111-113 118-121 124-134 No. 70 & 72 Item #1662 1996 Tangible Personal Property 01/29/97 02/26/97 03/07/97 04/04 - 04/30/97 Dated 04/11 & 04/30/97 SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER Item #1663 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 RESOLUTION 97-227 BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS AND SPRINT UNITED TELEPHONE PROVIDING FOR THE IMPOSITION AND COLLECTION OF A LOCAL OPTION FEE FOR PROVISION OF ENHANCED EMERGENCY "911" TELEPHONE SERVICE AND EQUIPMENT Item #16H2 TO INFORM THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS OF THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT'S SETTLEMENT ARRANGEMENT IN THE MATTER OF DWIGHT E. BROCK AS CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COLLIER COUNTY V. SECURITIES AMERICA, INC., A/K/A UNITED SECURITIES AMERICA, INC., AND TO REQUEST THE BOARD TO AUTHORIZE A GENERAL RELEASE FROM CLAIMS AGAINST SECURITIES AMERICA REGARDING THIS MATTER Item #1611 AUTHORIZATION FOR RECORDING THE RELEASE AGREEHENT, IHPELHENTING A PORTION OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR HIDEAWAY BEACH, PER PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN IN AGENDA ITEM 9A, SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 There being no further business for the good of the county, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:50 a.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 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 SERVICE BY: ANGELA F. POTEET, RPR