Loading...
BCC Minutes 05/13/1997 RREGULAR MEETING OF HAY 13, 1997 OF THE BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY COHMISSIONERS LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9 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 Pamela S. Mac'kie Barbara B. Berry ALSO PRESENT: Hike HcNees, Interim County HAnager David Weigel, County Attorney Item #3 AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good morning. Going to call to order the Tuesday, May 13, 1997, meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. It's the pleasure this morning to have Dr. Jay Abernathy from the Unitarian Universalist Church with us to give the invocation. Dr. Abernathy, I'd like to ask you to give the invocation, we'll follow that with the Pledge of Allegiance by Mr. McNees DR. ABERNATHY: Will you join me in the spirit of prayer. Oh God of all lands, of all peoples, of all kinds and all places, worshipped by many names and in many forms, bring to us peace, that passes human knowledge and effort. Bring to us faith in democracy and in our citizens. Bring to us trust in our neighbors, our community, our nation. Bring to us love for all members of our great human family, regardless of many differences among us. And bring to this meeting and this commission, as they do the noble work of governing the free people, the honesty and integrity that are hallmarks of a democratic people. For these blessings for ourselves and for all people, we pray today. Amen. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Dr. Abernathy, on behalf of the Board, I thank you very much for being with us this morning. We appreciate it. Mr. McNees, good morning. MR. MCNEES: Good morning, Chairman, Commissioners. Just have a couple of changes to your agenda this morning. We have one item to add under County Commissioners, will become Item 10(B) a resolution for a one-stop career center system. That will be Chairman Hancock's item. We have one continuance, Item 12(A)(1) continued until May the 27th at staff's request. That's an ordinance related to the growth management plan. We have one agenda note. Under your consent agenda Items 16(A)(7) and 16(A)(8) for the record, under the recommendations should include the words approved for recording those -- that's in the title, but didn't get in the actual recommendation, so that's just for the record. Those would be the only changes staff has. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Mac'kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just one item under communications, about beach parking. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All right. Commissioner Norris. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry. COMHISSIONER BERRY: Nothing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to continue item number 12(C)(1) for two weeks. I've got some people pulling together some information that I think can help us out on that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I did have some questions as to whether or not all of the responses we received have been incorporated into it, so I -- so does anyone have any concern about continuing that item? COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: For how long? COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two weeks. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No problem. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So continued. Anything else, Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I do have, I'm happy to say, the county manager contract, the employment agreement with Mr. Fernandez. That will become, Mr. HcNees, which item? MR. HCNEES: 10(C). CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And you all received a copy of the contract this morning when you came in. It was here on the dais with some backup. We'll go through it piece by piece, so we don't have to start tearing it apart at this point. Mr. Weigel, was there anything on your part? MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. I'd like to check with staff one moment. The continuance on 12(C), the Streetscape Master Plan, for two weeks. I want to make sure we don't have a problem with the next cycle of the amendments to the Land Development Code, which I think are for Hay 21st 'til June 4th. MR. ARNOLD: Wayne Arnold, employment planning services director. Mr. Weigel is correct, those are the proposed dates for Land Development Code amendment cycles and the action today is simply to codify in an ordinance format what we've previously done in a resolution, so that the Streetscape Master Plan could be incorporated by reference into the Land Development Code, but in terms of the two week continuance, I don't think that places any jeopardy on the adoption hearing of the proposed Land Development Code Amendment. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you for that. Mr. Weigel. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: With no further changes -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we approve the agenda as amended. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #4 MINUTES OF APRIL 22, 1997 REGULAR MEETING AND APRIL 23, 1997 SPECIAL MEETING - APPROVED AS PRESENTED COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion that we approve the minutes of April 22nd regular meeting and April 23rd special meeting. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion, and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Seeing none, we are onto Item 5, proclamations and service awards. Item #5A1 PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING HAY 17-23, 1997 AS NATIONAL SAFE BOATING WEEK - ADOPTED This morning it's my pleasure to read a proclamation to be accepted by Lieutenant Commander Thomas Killen. If I could -- Mr. Killen, we've seen you in several capacities, but this morning we have you here as an Officer of the Naples Power Squadron. If I could ask you to come on up here and stand to my left, and face all your adoring fans out there in TV land. It's a pleasure this morning to read the following proclamation. Whereas, each year more Americans are choosing recreational boating as an ideal way to relax with their families and friends; however, what starts out as a pleasant cruise often ends in tragedy because boaters fail to teach their families to swim, fail to properly equip their craft with personal flotation devices and other protective equipment, or fail to instruct their passengers in the use of such devices prior to a boating cruise; and Whereas, every year hundreds of lives are lost in boating accidents. These fatalities can be reduced, and boating made more pleasurable, if those who engage in it will emphasize knowledge, care, and the courtesy necessary for safe boating; and Whereas, the Congress of the United States, having recognized the need for such emphasis has, by joint resolution of 4 June 1958, requested the President to annually proclaim one week as National Safe Boating Week. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of HAy 17th through 23, 1997, be designated as National Safe Boating Week. Done and ordered this 13th day of HAy, 1997. Signed Timothy L. Hancock, Chairman. I would like to move acceptance of this proclamation. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Thank you. (Audience applauds.) MR. KILLEN: Boating accidents are increasing rapidly in Florida in spite of all the efforts to reduce the problem, and Collier County ranks number nine in the state. When you buy a car, you must be trained and licensed in the operation of the vehicle and the rules of the road. However, when you buy or lease a boat, you are not required to know anything at all about the operation of a vessel or the rules or safety of the waterways. Over 80 percent of the people involved in waterway accidents have no training. A boat is as dangerous as an automobile, but there are few controls for its usage. There are 215,000 boats registered on the west coast of Florida alone and that number increases each year. The problem with water and boating safety is not going to be easy to control. The Naples Power Squadron is a small group of volunteers that have educated over 3,000 local boaters, since the beginning in 1967. We continue to teach public boating safety to over 250 people each year because we feel that proper boating safety and courtesy could only be learned through instruction. We appreciate all the community support we can get. Thank you for your continued support. And remember boating is fun, safe boating is more fun. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, very much. I individually encourage everyone who has been on the water, if you haven't taken a safe boating course approved by the US Coast Guard, such as the Power Squadron or the Auxiliary, please do it. It's vital. Item #5B EHPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED To service awards, we have Commissioner Berry. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Yes, sir. Could I have Gail Wilver come forward, please? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Have Ms. Wilver turn around and face her group in TV land. COHMISSIONER BERRY: This morning it's our pleasure to present Ms. Wilver with a service award certificate of 20 years of continuous service in parks and recreation. (Audience applauds). MS. WILVER: I have promised to wave to my husband. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hi, honey. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Were you saying that to her husband? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: For her. On her behalf. Thank you, Tim. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thought I would check on that. Okay. Congratulations, Ms. Wilver. Thank you, very much. Item #SB1 STAFF DIRECTED TO WORK WITH LEE COUNTY STAFF IN PREPARING AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT REFLECTING A 50/50 SPLIT IN COST FOR DEVELOPMENT AND LONG TERM MAINTENANCE FOR MEDIAN LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE BONTIA BEACH ROAD CORRIDOR ALONG THE LEE/COLLIER LINE, CIE PROJECT NO. 031 We're to Item 8(A)(1) under public works. This is the options for the construction and maintaining median landscaping improvements on Bonita Beach Road Corridor. Mr. Gonzalez, good morning. You're just gonna tell us we're gonna go 50/50 and we'll be done with this one, right? MR. GONZALEZ: Yep. Good morning, Commissioners. Adolfo Gonzalez, capital projects director. I would like you to ask -- would ask you to possibly postpone your decision until Commissioner Judah arrives. I understand he wanted to be present and give you some information as to what Lee County is doing. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Speaking of. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ray's wonderful timing once again surfaces. Commissioner Judah, welcome. MR. GONZALEZ: Let me give you a little bit of background. Construction is proceeding on schedule. We should be finished around December of this year. The current construction contract has in the bid the landscape work for the entire corridor. That was based on a 50 percent matching grant for the capital construction dollars between Lee and Collier Counties. The options we gave you today were several. One was not to do any of the landscaping improvements right now. The second was to indefinitely -- to indefinitely postpone the landscaping improvements. Another option was to have Lee County pay for the capital cost and I think the first year of maintenance and we would fund the ultimate perpetual maintenance of that corridor, and the option that we were recommending to you today was to postpone it indefinitely until such time that Lee County comes up with a funding program to help us share in the maintenance cost and that's what I understand Commissioner Judah will talk to you about. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Judah, if we could ask you to step up to the podium here. First of all, we appreciate you being here. Prior to your remarks, I think I would like to express to the rest of the board it would be my hope that we can arrive at a 50/50 cost sharing on the medium landscaping and maintenance, just as we have on the roadway, but I think that's the reason Commissioner Judah is here, is to help us know where Lee County may be on that and where you believe Lee County Commission is coming from on this issue. COMMISSIONER JUDAH: Yes, sir, and good morning. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Morning. COMMISSIONER JUDAH: Thank you Mr. Chairman. For the record, Ray Judah, Lee County Commissioner, and thank you for the opportunity to come before you today and for deferring the item from last week because I had a scheduling conflict. What I would like to -- first of all, is clarify, evidently originally our respective staffs had discussed the possibility of going 50/50 cost share on the actual construction cost of the road product that included the landscaping in terms of the installation of the landscape and the irrigation. What transpired after that discussion was the recognition that unfortunately our county commission had at the time decided no longer to pursue maintenance of any additional landscape roadside medians. And so we then looked at having Lee County pay for the actual installation, including irrigation of the landscape material in the roadside median for Bonita Beach Road and that Collier County would then consider paying for maintenance of that landscape. What I am pleased to tell you today is I will work with you, our board of county commissioners will work with you in a complete full partnership, and we can go either way now, because we are resurrecting maintenance or landscape as a core service level and I'm just heartened to pass that on to you. So that we can go either way. Mr. Chairman, we can 50/50 on the cost of the irrigation and the installation of the landscape material, as well as the maintenance or we can proceed with the installation and the cost of irrigation with Lee County taking care of all that cost with Collier County considering the maintenance cost. I will say this, I understand that Collier County has different levels of landscaping in their medians. You know, I've had a chance to look at the landscape plans. I know personally that if we could just install trees, which would substantially reduce the overall cost of the maintenance, with the flowery plants and ground cover, we can exclude that component of the landscape plan then if we could just install trees, which would substantially reduce the maintenance cost. I think -- I know Lee County would be very satisfied. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think, certainly by working together the design gets drawn into question and whatever works to the benefit of both counties, is, you know, something we can work on, so no question there. It would be my hope that we can work with Lee County on a 50/50 split, come up with a design that is amenable to both parties and proceed with 50/50 maintenance cost out into the out years. Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's essentially what I was going to suggest is just to have our staff work with your staff, and come up with a plan -- a construction plan for that, that would be amenable to both sides and then if it's acceptable to split it permanently 50/50, then that's fine. COMHISSIONER JUDAH: Okay. If I could just get an understanding, I apologize, with regards to the maintenance, I understand you were looking at a 50/50 split and we defer to your good judgment on the type of landscape material. You've, I think, demonstrated a model community with the landscaping that you provide here -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. COMHISSIONER JUDAH: -- on your road system. So we look forward to your good advice on that. The other thing I just want to make sure was with the construction, the actual irrigation and the installation. Were you talking about a 50/50 split on that also? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct. It would be my hope and I believe I see a consensus on the board, that every cost associated with the installation of landscaping, irrigation and long-term maintenance will be split 50/50. COMHISSIONER JUDAH: Very good. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And as to who performs the maintenance contract and who, in essence, just writes a check for their half of it, that's something our staffs can work out, but again we'd like to work with you on the materials, because we want to make sure that if you're gonna tie in -- if you're going to link into long term maintenance that you understand what that is and what that out year cost is. COMHISSIONER JUDAH: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So I think our staff can provide that with you -- or to you and again, hopefully, within a short period, we can see this back on a cost basis and go ahead and approve a final plan. COMHISSIONER JUDAH: Okay. Very good. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a thank you for bringing the good news. Thank you for being here personally, but for bringing that great news, because it had been troubling, you know, to think that we were gonna fall down after we done such a great job, but just thank you for you being here and telling us this good news. COMMISSIONER JUDAH: Well, you've always held up your end on the landscaping and we needed to hold up our end. I'm glad I was able to convey that news to you. Thank you very much. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Again, Commissioner Judah, thank you for being here. Do we want to just give staff direction on this item to pursue option number three? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So we have a consensus to pursue option number three? MR. GONZALEZ: With a provision of trying to minimize some of the landscaping components as Commissioner Judah requested. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If that's the desire of Lee County in some areas, let's work with their staff and determine if we can do that. Certainly we can do that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And we'll probably need some direction to the Lee County Staff from the Lee County Commission as to what level of landscape they want to provide over there, but it should be by mutual agreement. MR. GONZALEZ: Understood. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Gonzalez, and, again, Commissioner Judah, thank you. MR. WEIGEL: Could we do this in the form of a motion? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Pardon me? MR. WEIGEL: Could we do this in the form of a motion? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Certainly. Any member of the board wish to make a motion to -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion that we direct our staff to work with the Lee County staff to come up with an interlocal agreement that will allow us to jointly 50/50 participate in both the construction and long term maintenance of the median along Bonita Beach Road. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Seeing none. Again Commissioner Judah, thank you, for taking the time to be here. Item #8C1 STAFF DIRECTED TO PURSUE AVAILABLE OPTIONS ON PROPERTY KNOWN AS TRACT "K" ON MARCO ISLAND AS A POSSIBLE PARK SITE We are to item 8(C)(1), public services. Recommendation that the BCC consider the property known as Tract K on Marco Island as a possible park site. Mr. Olliff, good morning. MR. OLLIFF: Good morning. For the record, Tom Olliff, Public Services Administrator. The Board has heard discussion about Tract K previously, and this is simply an item to bring the item in front of the board and have you consider what options we've been able to develop in working with the school board, in terms of this property known as Tract K on Marco Island. Tract K is a little better than a 11 acres in size, it's 11.6 acres, and there are some maps attached to the executive summary to show you the location of the property. It's actually on Tigertail Court, approximately a half a mile from your Tigertail Beach on Marco Island. The property is one of the last large parcels of undeveloped property left on Marco Island and the item was originally brought to the county's attention as a result of some citizens' efforts on the Island to look at some green space initiatives there. The property is currently owned by the school board, was donated to the school board through the -- through Deltona. It was dedicated for use as either a school site or if the school board is ever going to sell the property, the funds raised from the property are dedicated to go towards the benefit of the students who live on the Marco Island area. The school board's most recent appraisal of the property was $1,550,000, and I think we tried to outline in the executive summary some of the options that you can consider for uses of the property. Unfortunately, because of the property size and the definitions that we have in our ordinance for community parks, it cannot be considered as a community park and therefore isn't eligible to be purchased using community park impact fees. That restricts then what funding sources are available and can be used and it boils down to two, basically, for your consideration, should you be interested in the property, and one is just a straight general fund supported 306 fund, which is the parks capital funds. We've tried to outline for you that should the property be purchased out of 306, we would probably recommend it be done under some sort of a long term or median term borrowing, if you would, and we tried to provide for you under the fiscal impact statement what the cost of borrowing funds of $1,550,000 are and you could purchase that property assuming an annual debt service payment of about $370,000. The other option and, frankly, I'll probably dismiss this one fairly quickly, is using the property as an auxiliary beach parking site or a tram facility for Tigertail. I believe that there are enough residents opposed to that idea on Marco Island, that they would probably rather the county didn't purchase it, if it was going to be purchased and used as strictly a beach parking lot. The only other option that we've included and this may be the one if you're looking for a recommendation from staff, this would probably be our recommended option and that is to pursue the idea of some sort of an idea of an HSTD, HSTU for purchase of the property. And we've had discussions with each of you about the idea of creating a policy for future neighborhood parks that would be funded out of HSTD's and I think this is a good example of that particular type of a policy. Some of the different options for use of the property amongst the citizens group had ranged from everything of an educational botanical garden in conjunction with the school system, to some sort of a civic type center that might accommodate theater, as well as local community meetings, and just from the uses of the park down on Marco Island, I will tell you that that is a very, very large demand item, as meeting space, a place for the groups of the Island to be able to meet and have social gatherings, and also have some type of a theater type function. If the board wanted to consider that type of an option, our suggestion would be to determine if there was interest on the part of the residents of Marco to pursue some sort of an HSTD, and I think perhaps the easiest way to do that is that there are two groups on the Island, HIDA and MICA, who have a fair representation of the Island residents and we might recommend that we go back and talk to those two groups, have them poll their members and determine whether or not there's any interest in pursuing this property under some sort of a special taxing district. With that, I'm available to answer any questions that you might have. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Board members, you may remember that we discussed this once before and the idea was to have Mr. Olliff talk to the school board to see if they could arrange a swap with some of our surplus properties somewhere. Apparently, those discussions didn't result in the school board finding any piece of property that they would like to have that we own, that we could swap for this property. So that has left us in the position where we are today. The last suggestion that Mr. Olliff had brought forward there, I think is one that we ought to examine before the school board just sells it to construct more single-family houses. That, plus give the residents of Marco a chance to see if they want to -- if they do have any interest in buying that and making their own little community center down there, or whatever they would like to put in there. That -- I think we should allow them to take a look at that and see if that's what they want to do. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't have a problem with that. I don't know what our role then becomes, other than we would possibly continue this item for a set period of time to get a response back to determine whether or not we want to go through an MSTD process. Only upon successful completion of that process would the county have any action regarding this property. Is that what you're anticipating? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's correct. That's true. We wouldn't do it today. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, Commissioner Mac'kie. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tom, I understand that it's unpopular, among Marco Island residents, but what -- was this a piece of property that had ever been anticipated -- let me see how to ask this question. If you separate out the unpopularity on Marco Island of using this piece of property for a tram site, for beach parking. What is the viability of it for that purpose? Is it a useful site for that purpose? Is it something you had your eye on for that purpose? MR. OLLIFF: It can be used -- I think we're at the point in the county where our ability to be able to find beachfront properties that can be used for beach property parking are extremely limited and extremely expensive, and I think in your direction to us to look at Blue Bill off-site properties, as well as some others in the Vanderbilt area, I think more and more we're having to look to off-beach sites and this one is fairly close. It wasn't one that staff was pursuing heavily, but it is one that would work. It is a half a mile away from your most popular beach park, which, frankly, during the season gets filled up by 10 o'clock everyday, so it is certainly high demand at that facility and -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess -- I'm sorry but I guess I hate to close off an investigation of it for that purpose. I would like to see us pursue both avenues at the same time. Of course, Marco Island MSTU is a wonderful idea for a neighborhood park and if they decide they want to tax themselves to purchase it, that's an extremely viable option. At the same time, I think that we can't dismiss the idea of beach parking there, simply because it's unpopular among the islanders. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If I may, Commissioner, the one problem I have with that, is that one of the main reasons we're spending -- I'm spending so much time on Blue Bill is because we already own it, because grants are available that we might be able to get for the development of it. If we're gonna start making decisions, million dollar decisions on beach parking, I want it to be a comprehensive review and not -- not hold out on this parcel for beach parking, so I think that million dollars could be spent better elsewhere, closer to the beach, or maybe with more access to the broader population or the population center of the county than on Tigertail. I know Tigertail is an extremely popular place, but it's extremely popular for a lot of Miami residents, you know, quite frankly. I mean we see a lot of Dade County tags in that parking lot. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Understood. I guess -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And so, I don't disagree with you. I'm just saying that we may not want to hold it for that purpose. If we want to start a million dollar approach to beach parking, I'm all for it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I guess what my point then is, is that this piece of property, along with all other viable options, should be looked at. That we should look -- we should ask our staff to look at, and this is something I was going to bring up under communications, but it comes up here, is we should ask our staff to do exactly what you just described and that is a county-wide look on what's available for potential beach parking, because we're late in looking at this point. So, without targeting this particular piece of property, I'd like to use the opportunity to ask staff to look at that. You know, do that global review that you were just describing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, the problem with this particular piece of property and, in fact, what distinguishes it from the Blue Bill property is that if you look at your map this is very deep into a single-family residential neighborhood with very small, very narrow old streets and it's just simply not appropriate to be running heavy traffic of trams and so forth. Now, with the Blue Bill property, of course, you're right on a collector road. So it's quite a difference. This simply is not appropriate for that purpose. So, I think probably for today our best course of action on this particular property is to go ahead and look at the HSTU angle and see if there's any interest from the citizens of Marco to buy this and if not, then the school board can sell it for single family lots if that's what they want to do. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Speakers, Mr. HcNees? MR. HCNEES: You have one, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Fay Biles. MS. BILES: Good morning, Commissioners. Fay Biles, for the record, president of Marco Island Taxpayers' Association, and also representing MICA, the Marco Island Civic Association, through a phone call from Lynn Burdine, who is the new president of MICA and happens to be in New Jersey on business at this time. As you know, Marco Island is only halfway built out. We're about at the 50 percent point. Right now there is absolutely no way to hold meetings on Marco Island. Just last month, a few months ago, Marco Island had to host the regional AAUW meeting, which is the American Association University of Women. We could not find a meeting place on Marco Island. We finally settled to go to a church. When we got there that morning, they had failed to tell us that they were renovating and the whole back end of the building was torn out. It has become embarrassing for anybody to come to Marco Island, for any groups that have any kind of a meeting. We need a civic type association -- facility there, that could double, as I said school board, educational cultural, civic. It could be a park, if we can. I agree with everything Tom Olliff has said and he certainly has worked with us. We have talked with the school board and they have been very cooperative in looking at every possibility. In talking with Dr. Hunz yesterday, he thought this whole thing had been settled through a land swap and when I informed him, I said "No, I don't think so. I think we better talk about that at the County Commissioners meeting tomorrow morning," and so he would like too to continue this and see if anything else can be done. Jim Simras has come in, in the meantime, and I don't think he and Dr. Munz have yet really collaborated on this particular project. So I would like to ask too to have it continued. It is part of our master plan, the Marco Island Master Plan. We have it there. It's also -- the calls have been coming in hot and heavy from the residents over on Tigertail because they've heard the rumor that the county may want to turn that into a parking lot for Tigertail. I want to remind everybody, Tigertail is the largest park in the county, and we already have a lot of people coming on the island. Twenty-nine thousand cars cross that bridge every morning. Not all going to the beach, of course, but because of the workers and so forth. So the traffic already on Marco is close to Sanibel, almost bumper to bumper. And, so, I think we really need to see if the two organizations can lead a movement, maybe on Marco, to see if we would support through an MSTU, to see if we can't get that piece of property. It's really the last piece of property on Marco that could be used for this particular purpose. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. I know maybe the school board would like some property out by the landfill for an environmentally implied curriculum. Lots of acreage out there. Either way, I guess I'm hearing that, you know, why don't we ask staff to, you know, pursue the option Mr. Olliff has outlined and continue this in a working mode, until we either arrive at the idea that the interest is not substantial enough to pursue, and if it's not, we'll drop it and if it is, then we'll have a new rule. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could we also give direction to the staff to work on a comprehensive overview of beach parking opportunities in the county? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Quiet frankly, I would prefer that come through in a more specific fashion, than just giving a direction today as an adjunct to another item, because we can give all the direction in the world, if we don't set a budget, it's not gonna do a darn bit of good. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. What I'm asking -- maybe I should be more specific. I'd like to know what potential properties are out there. I'd just like for somebody to look at a map, and see what property might be suitable. Then we could know what kind of budget we might be needing. I, right now, have no idea if there's one or twenty pieces of property that have potential. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Because I've gone through that with Mr. Olliff. Before giving formal direction, would you meet with him and then if you want to bring it back on the agenda, as formal direction, do that, because I think he's got a lot of that information for you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. You're uncomfortable having him make that presentation to the board as a whole? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. I just think it's done, and it's not a question of whether or not we can do it. It's a question of whether or not we're willing to fund it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. I'll probably ask for it to be added on as an agenda item, so the whole board can have that presentation, instead of a one-on-one meeting. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. That's fine. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Also, Mr. Chairman, in light of Dr. Biles' comment about -- perhaps Dr. Munz was under the impression that we were going to make the land swap. Perhaps we should ask Mr. Olliff to re-contact Dr. Munz and check that out. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is there some land he knows about that we don't or -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: I would ask -- Mr. Chairman, I would ask that you contact Jim Sims. MR. OLLIFF: I spoke to Jim Simms at six o'clock last evening, as a matter of fact, and then that was our most recent conversation and Dr. Munz may have been thinking about the 60 acre park site that the county owns across the street from Orangetree, but I think his staff had done investigation about what it would cost to bring utilities to that site, as opposed to the Orange Tree property that they're looking at that already has utilities available on it, I think it may have been an unviable site, but we will certainly look at some other property options. We originally looked at maintenance facilities swaps. They also took the time to look through all of our county owned inventory to see if there was something available. I do need to point out the school board has been very good about working with us and their staff and they have -- we indicated to them that this was an option and they said they would be willing to wait and give us to the time to research the MSTU, to see if there was interest before they made any decisions on the property, as well. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We will move ahead on that item then. Item #BE1 AMENDMENTS TO THE 1997 AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE NAPLES AREA ACCOMMODATIONS ASSOCIATION, INC. TO INCLUDE UNSPENT FUNDS PREVIOUSLY ALLOCATED TO THE NAPLES AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND OTHER MINOR LINE ITEM CHANGES - TDC RECOMMENDATION APPROVED WITH TERMINATION CLAUSE We are now to item 8 (E)(1). Approved amendments to the 1997 agreement between Collier County and the Naples Area Accommodations Association, including unspent funds previously allocated. Ms. Gansel, good morning. MS. GANSEL: Good morning, Commissioners. Jean Gansel from the budget office. TDC had received a request from the Naples Area Chamber of Commerce and the Naples Area Accommodations Association to amend the 1997 contract for category B funds for the northern part of the county. They would like to include in the 1997 contract funds that have been unspent from their 1996 contract and to have all of those funds with one organization, so they can maximize their advertising efforts. This request was reviewed by TDC and was unanimously voted on to recommend approval to you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Do we have any questions of staff? Any registered speakers? MR. HCNEES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none. Is there a motion? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve staff's recommendation or TDC's recommendation. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion? All in favor -- MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: One comment or question and that is with the board's action, staff recommendation, to in essence transfer unspent funds to another entity, I would request that if there is a contract in-line with the entity who is not spending the funds, that we either have an amendment or a termination with them contractually, so we don't have a contract that's out there without any direction to it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ask the motion be amended to include the termination of the existing contract prior to the allocation of funds. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So included. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that sufficient, Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: That's just fine. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Motion and a second amends. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #8E2 FUNDING FOR $50,000.00 FOR A FISHING TOURNAMENT FROH TOURIST DEVELOPMENT FUNDS, CATEGORY C - APPROVED Seeing none, we're to item 8(E)(2), request for approved funding for a tarpon fishing tournament, through tourist development funds, category C. Ms. Gansel. MS. GANSEL: This item was also reviewed by the Tourist Development Council. There was a request from Gulf Bay Marine Management for $50,000 from the special events category to advertise a fishing tournament in Hay of 1998. The Tourist Development Council unanimously recommended its approval. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I thought this was going to have a lot of discussion and debate and after a few questions, it went through unanimous on the TDC. It's kind of a world class looking tournament, with potential corporate sponsors. This was proposed as seed money for this year. With the sponsorships taking shape it may not be necessary in the out years and it kind of brings a whole new focus to a part of Collier County, that even people who live here who may not know, is some of the best tarpon fishing in the world. So I thought it was kind of a neat idea, but that's -- the TDC did approve it unanimously and I was very, very supportive of the concept. Any questions of staff? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have one question. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: This money is to be used for advertising and promotion? MS. GANSEL: That's correct, just exclusively. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Very good. Nothing else. We changed the rules for that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is -- complies with the revised guidelines. This is one of the first ones to come through exceeding 25,000, it complies with those guidelines, so, yes. Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. If the board should approve this, we would appreciate for ease of contract administration that the budget document that appears on page 13 of the informational agenda item, that the budget that should be included with the agreement itself, be for eligible items because the budget document on 13 actually included some ineligible expense items also. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Do we have speakers, Mr. HcNees? MR. HCNEES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Do we have a motion on this item? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The motion to incorporate Mr. Weigel's direction. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion. Is there a second? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Seeing none, motion carries. MS. GANSEL: Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And we go to a fantastic tarpon tournament, as I understand. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That sounds great. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do any board members tarpon fish? COHMISSIONER BERRY: Yes. Item #10A COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISORS TO BE TERMINATED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We're to item 10(A), discussion of possible action regarding Council of Economic Advisors. This was an added -- or put on the agenda by Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, Mr. Loskill, had written me a letter in which he states that the counsel has fulfilled it's original mission and, frankly, in a phone conversation he said that they were really having a little trouble finding things to do at this point. So his suggestion was since they had fulfilled their original mission and done so quite well, as a matter of fact, that the council just be terminated at this point. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I did meet with Mr. Loskill and, actually, he provided substantial backup as to what was identified as the mission of CEA and what course of action they had taken to complete that. One of my concerns about continuing the CEA beyond what was originally intended is that we now have an agreement, and it is a public/private partnership of the EDC, I think it's very important that we have a single point of contact for fulfilling those obligations. So even though there are members of the CEA currently that would like to see it continue, there is really no agenda that is set by this board for them, and I think that agenda would be taken by the EDC in our public/private partnership. So too many times we've let these committees stay out there and they develop a life of their own or -- and become more cumbersome to administrate -- or to administer than the benefit they provide. So I am supportive of doing a few things. If we are going to terminate this, and I am supportive of that, is to issue a proclamation thanking the members of the Council of Economic Advisors for their fantastic work on behalf of the citizens of this community and to go ahead and set a specific date of which that contract will or that committee will sunset. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I make a motion to that effect. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What's the date? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What -- what date will this terminate? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How about effective today? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. We will follow up with special recognitions -- recognition of a proclamation in the coming weeks for those members. Any further discussion? I assume no speakers, Mr. McNees? MR. MCNEES: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Carries unanimously. Thank you very much. Item #10B RESOLUTION 97-234 FOR ONE-STOP CAREER CENTER SYSTEH - ADOPTED Add on item 10(B) a resolution for a one-stop career center system. My apologies for not putting this on in a more timely fashion. Some of you that -- as you may know, I chair the Southwest Florida Workforce Development Board and I chair the side of the elected officials from the counties it serves. Any of you that have ever been involved in the JTPA programs, or those things, they were state and federal programs out there that were just layer after layer and in the face of budget cuts they consolidated and created the Workforce Development Board and that consolidation, the whole idea is to create a one-stop center for all of these services. They're requesting the -- that I sign as the Chairman of the Southwest Job Training Consortium, and representing Collier County, a request for a $500,000 grant to create seven one-stop centers throughout the five county area for the purposes of the Workforce Development Board. I didn't feel that I could do that without the approval of this board and that's the reason I put it on the agenda to ask for your approval, and my signature authorizing the $500,000 grant application. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am. COHMISSIONER BERRY: You mentioned a JTPA. Is this -- does this involve them? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: They have been somewhat drawn into this and you're actually seeing the lines of the different organizations blur. I can tell you, I'm not a big fan of JTPA and its previous forum. It was a good idea started by Dan Quail, but in the end the bureaucracy took over. What you got is, you know, you're plugging in paperwork to show how much money you spend. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I think it started way before Dan Quail. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, JTPA was, but the form it took was reinfused by Quail when he was vice president, but that's neither here nor there. I think the consolidation is more efficient. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I guess my concern was, thinking about -- because I know that the JTPA, there have been offices and centers around and I'm wondering are you opening -- is your consideration for opening different centers or assuming those centers where they are? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, JTPA was only one facet of the groups that came together to create the Workforce Development Board. COHMISSIONER BERRY: So you're going to dissolve what was and create this new one-stop career center. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I will honestly say they plan to dissolve most of what was and transfer that into -- not all of it will be dissolved entirely, but most of it will. JTPA may still exist in some form in different areas. We're talking about a five county area here. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The truth is there are so many facets to this. You could probably find issue with one or more of them, if you dig deep enough, but in the end, I do know that this is at least operating more efficiently in its current form then it was previously. So the federal and state governments are gonna allocate those dollars, anyway, I think this allows for efficient expenditure of them and that's why I'm supporting it, not because I'm a big fan of every single facet of what's involved, but that it is at least more efficient. COHMISSIONER BERRY: So you're saying that Collier County's share is $500,000? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. The $500,000 would be to set up seven one-stop career centers. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As it is, you know, you have job service in Florida and JTPA and one does training dollars and one does placement. What they're saying is put those functions in one building, in seven locations, throughout a five county area. I am not saying they're dissolving the organization of JTPA, but it's gonna be put into at least one physical location, so all those services can be provided. COHMISSIONER BERRY: One location. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well -- COHMISSIONER BERRY: Seven locations. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Seven locations -- COHMISSIONER BERRY: CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: COHMISSIONER BERRY: numbers of dollars -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: COHMISSIONER BERRY: Within the five county area. Correct. And so each county is going to contribute X No. -- or you don't think that's going to work that way or there's not going to be that kind of a contribution? I just -- if they're going to come back and ask us. That's the reason why -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No, no, no, and thank you, no. The Collier County taxpayers through property taxes that we administer are not contributing to this. We're contributing already to the state and federal government. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The question is can we do it more efficiently and I think these one-stop centers would accomplish that. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. I understand. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One last '- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just the usual grant question. When we're applying for a grant, is it -- how many years is a grant and when the grant ends, where are they gonna go for money after that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's a single grant to set up the centers. The centers will then run on the existing budgets that have been aggregated from the individual operations. So it's basically start up money to get these offices located and going. If we don't go this route, what we end up with is the same fragmented system we have now and I think a less efficient way of spending those dollars. I think we can help -- we can at least place more people efficiently this way than we could previously. That's the only reason I'm supporting it. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Would you like a motion or just general Consensus? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think I need a motion to authorize the chairman to sign representing Collier County to request a grant. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So moved. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. Is there any further discussion? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The alternative would be for them just to continue to flounder in their current state? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: What a concept. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That would pretty much be it, yes. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Considering that, I'll support the motion. Many of these programs are pretty marginal, as far as I'm concerned. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We, as a board, are not going to sit and either stop or materially affect these individual programs, but if we can act in such a way that they operate a little bit more efficiently, then I think we helped everyone out. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Nowhere to go but up. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Seeing none, I will sign that resolution and send it up today, due on Friday. Item #10C DISCUSSION REGARDING THE PROPOSED COUNTY MANAGER CONTRACT - COUNTY ATTORNEY TO INCORPORATE CHANGES; CONTRACT TO BE FORWARDED TO MR. FERNANDEZ FOR ACCEPTANCE Next. The item of the day, the county manager contract. Item 10(C). COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Quick question as you're looking for that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is it your intention that we'll vote on this today or is this informational today? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, it is my -- Ms. Filson, I don't have a copy here. What happened to mine? MS. FILSON: It's on you desk. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's on my desk. In that case, I didn't bring my copy, Ms. Filson. What I have presented to you today is a contract that Mr. Fernandez has indicated to me he is more than happy to sign and will begin work June 1st, based on this contract. Thank you. The board's role -- my job as I saw it was to put a contract together that didn't give the farm away, but at least at a minimum ensured Mr. Fernandez would be willing to come and work for the county based on the elements of that contract. That's not to say if it's changed in any way, he won't come, but I can just honestly tell you that many of the elements in here were negotiated. And what I'd like to do is give you the benefit of how we arrived at the elements within the contract. I'd like to go through that step by step. If I can ask you to make your comments in writing until we get to the end and then we'll come back and revisit whatever sections individual members have difficulty with. You may have read in the paper last week that -- that certain elements of the contract were made known. I had a cover letter with that that said, "This is a draft agreement that has not been either finalized or approved by the board and it's subject to change, and printing it would be irresponsible and in all likelihood could affect -- adversely affect the negotiation process." You see the effect that had, but the point being that information is out there now, which the contract has changed from that information. So any inconsistencies -- well, we all know who to thank for that. The employment agreement under duties, and that wording is the same as Mr. Dorrill's contract was, in that it cites the statutes and the local ordinance for the county manager to operate under. Nothing fancy there. Section 2, term. Mr. Fernandez and I discussed that it made sense that the term should expire -- the term of this contract should expire not in an election year. It's all too popular to make these contracts follow elections, so that left our choices at two and four years. I originally proposed a two year contract with a two year option with full renegotiation allowable after the total of four years. After discussing it with him, we restructured the contract as a four year contract with a mutual consideration for renegotiation during the contract, but the board has full authority to renegotiate the contract at the end of four years. I think I had a concern from Commissioner Constantine on the previous contracts that a renegotiation clause was not evident, so I wanted to make sure that was not in there. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So, theoretically, at the end of four years, everybody could walk away. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Everybody could walk away. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There would be no responsibility as long as he gets the three months' notice? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. This one does read that the severance -- a four month severance shall apply either at the termination -- at a point of termination or an expiration of the contract. Again, you might want to make notes on that, but the contract wouldn't just expire. You may -- again -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So there really is no term? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, there is a term. This contract is over in four years. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Four years and four months, 'cause you have to pay the four months. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right, but the contract ends at the end of those four years. You can bring somebody on board the very next day -- somebody else on board or you can allow it to expire -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll write my notes down. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- with the 90 days' notice. Item (C) just states nothing shall limit or otherwise interfere with the right of the board to terminate services with provisions of Section 4, which is a severance provision. We'll discuss that in just a second. Employee, again, may resign at any time with provision set forth in Section 5. Section 5 is the resignation section. Section 3, suspension. All this states is that the board may suspend the employee with a majority vote with full pay and benefits. This is something that is in the standard ICMA contract. I think it was -- it was not in Mr. Dotrill's, but if there were, let's say for example the county manager's arrested for something and it's a little shakier -- then we may wish to suspend them for the time frame without terminating him pending the conclusion of that. That's the only reason it's in there is if by some act we wish to utilize it, but is not binding upon the board to have to do at any point during the contract, prior to termination. Section 4, termination and severance pay. Interestingly, I was surprised, I reviewed eight different contracts throughout the State of Florida and found the severance pay to extend from a minimum of three months to twelve months. Two counties of the eight had 12 month severance packages in them. That was, I thought, a little gracious. I started at three and we arrived at four with Mr. Fernandez. I believe that's what his contract in Alachua was, four months' severance, and he felt comfortable with that. I did it in lump sum cash payment as opposed to the payroll pay out. The one big difference between this contract and the one Mr. Dotrill had, is that Mr. Fernandez will accrue vacation and sick benefits at the same rate as all county employees. There's no special provision for accumulation of vacation time or sick time. Those two policies, vacation time indicates that county employees may accrue up to 240 hours and with authorization by the county manager may go to 360. His contract indicates that the only authorization to exceed 240 rest with the Board of County Commissioners. Not just the chairman, but with the full board. COHMISSIONER BERRY: So each year he can accrue 240? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No, he's capped at 240. He can accrue a total 240 hours maximum throughout his career. Throughout his career. Everything -- COHMISSIONER BERRY: So it boils down to almost some of it's a use it or lose it kind of thing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Once you get 240, it becomes use it or lose it. You cannot accrue beyond 240 hours. I explained to Mr. Fernandez that I felt it was the board's direction that he should take full use of his vacation on an annual basis. It's not given for purpose of accrual, and -- but that we would afford him the same rights and opportunities all other county employees had for accrual, but not to exceed it. Mr. Dorrill's was 360 hours accumulated sick time. The second thing Mr. Dorrill's contract had that we discussed at length was an accrual for sick time based on the policy in place at that time. As you know, the county's new policy, new employees cannot accrue sick time for the purpose of pay out at separation. We -- you-all remember we had to freeze that liability on the books and change the policy, because we don't budget for things like that. I believe at Mr. Dorrill's separation and, again, these comments aren't aimed at Neil, it was a contract, so, but that contract did allow for accrual sick time and pay out and that was a fairly significant chunk when he left. So in this contract there is no sick leave pay out. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman, is there anything statutorily -- I didn't read the statute on this but, is there anything statutorily that they are entitled to on that? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: To my knowledge, no. That's assuming our human resources policies are consistent with state statute. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I just -- I'm asking the question because I know on a previous board that I served, there are state statutes that govern that and that's the reason -- I didn't know if there was a difference. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's my understanding as a contract completed by the board, we can even provide him less benefits than an employee of the county manager's agency if he agrees to them. So -- COHMISSIONER BERRY: Well, I know in certain segments even statutorily, it's for each chief executive officer, it's very clearly spelled out what they are entitled to. If you go above and beyond that, certainly you can do that, but statutorily they are entitled to and that's what the expectation is. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: David, speak up. I mean, is there anything? MR. WEIGEL: I'm not aware of anything that affects it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think it's worth looking at, but I -- COHMISSIONER BERRY: Just wanted to make sure. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Sure. Okay. COHMISSIONER BERRY: That's all. So there's no surprises, that, oops, we find a statute that says he should be getting something -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, I'm sure if at any point, even if the board were to approve this contract or a similar form today, and if we're shown not to be consistent with state statutes, at any point, we would be required to amend the contract. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We'll count on Mr. Weigel to let us know that before we sign anything. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The one thing that Mr. Fernandez expressed to me that became difficult, was not just upon separation, was not just the separation, but the loss of benefits, health insurance benefits. Since there was no sick time accrual allowed in this contract, we negotiated a six month period in which individual and dependent health, dental, and life insurance would be continued. So upon separation, it will be six months' worth of insurance coverage. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Where is that in the contract? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Top of page three. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That is Section 4, top of page three. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Is that consistent with Cobra? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't know if that's consistent with Cobra, to be honest with you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's 12 months. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Is it 127 Well -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They have the option of buying it themselves for 12 months, is what Cobra -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Can we -- I'd like to kind of get through it, then we can come back and piece it apart. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Upon termination or expiration of the agreement, that is the section Commissioner Constantine was referring, that there's four months' aggregate salary and deferred compensation paid in lump sum, at either expiration of the agreement or termination. The next clause is in the event the employee is terminated for cause or conviction of illegal acts, we'll have no obligation for aggregate severance or post-termination insurance benefits. Section 5, resignation. In the event the employee voluntarily resigns, then the employee shall give employer three months notice in advance, unless the parties agree otherwise. Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Yes, thank you. Just one note and that is to note that this paragraph five resignation is separate and distinct from the paragraph four before that, which talks about termination and severance pay. Although not specifically stated in Section 5, if the county manager were to resign of his own volition while he's in good standing, there is no provision in this agreement that states he would get the four months' severance pay and we could, in fact, include an additional sentence there if we wanted to be expressly clear about it, but even as the contract stands right now, there is no provision upon voluntary resignation of the county manager in good standing to receive four months' severance pay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that was my intent, and if clarification is highlighted there it certainly wouldn't hurt. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How would the three month notice be enforceable? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The notice section is later in the contract on who is to be noticed and how they're to be noticed under Section 22, so we'll get to that. Section 6, disability. Dealing with permanent disability, otherwise unable to perform duties due to sickness, accident or injury, for a period of four successive weeks beyond accrued sick leave, again, sick leave must be utilized before this kicks in, employer shall have the option to terminate this agreement. So, in other words, if Mr. Fernandez goes and becomes ill, uses his sick leave and a period of four weeks beyond that, we may terminate the agreement, subject to severance in Section 4. Section 7, salary. The base salary for this contract is $120,000. Mr. Dotrill left at $121,000, I believe was the actual amount. So, it's comparable to Mr. Dorrill's base salary at his time of separation. In addition, the employer agrees to increase base salary and/or benefits of employee in such amount and to such extent as we may determine as desirable to do, on the basis of annual salary review and what said employee made prior to the anniversary date of the agreement. An annual salary increase under this shall be more than four percent. Let me provide a small amount of explanation here. The next paragraph states that on the date cost-of-living raises are granted, to -- generally to Collier County employees, then the county manager base salary shall be modified to reflect that. In other words, he gets what all other county employees get should we determine in a given that's the case. If everyone gets 2.7 percent, the county manager gets 2.7 percent. What paragraph (B) states is that in addition to that 2.7 percent, the board has the ability, but not a responsibility, based on performance review, to give a percent or two percent or three percent, maximum four percent of performance bonus on performance increase in salary -- excuse me -- for his job performance during that year. What I'm trying to do is if you look at Mr. Dorrill's contract from the time he began as county manager, every time a new contract came up, a salary was negotiated upward and it was a one time hit that was more dramatic because the contracts were for several years at a time. By allowing for cost-of-living, plus up to four additional percent each year for performance, that allows for an annual adjustment if we base it on performance that would not cause us to get a contract hit every four years of a seven, eight, or $10,000 adjustment. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Actually, the problem with Mr. Dorrill's initial contract was it had no period to it, it was open ended. So there were reviews given each year, prior to when any of us were on the board, where he would get $7,000 raises and fairly high percentage raises and that was at a time when I think he started out at -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: $62,000. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I think at fairly low, so they were 10, 11 percent raises. It wasn't until 1993 when we fewrote the contract that it was tied specifically to what the other employees were getting and because prior to that time, I think, again, it was when we weren't on the board, but I believe he was taking not only the -- what they were giving him, but also what was being given to all employees, so you actually had two raises. I'm not sure if the board at the time was aware of that, but that's why we specifically broke that down into -- similar to what you've done here. You get the same as everybody else. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I felt it was important to cap any performance evaluation salary increases at four percent, for the reason that it's an aggregate, if you just assume cost-of-living around three, of a maximum seven percent and let's face it the maximum is rarely attainable, but I felt if we have an employee doing a gangbusters job, then we want to bump their salary on an annual basis, we should be allowed that opportunity, but it is not a requirement. We're required to review it annually, but not to adjust his salary annually. That is an option for the board. Section 8, performance evaluation. One of the problems I've had in performance evaluation is each chairman performed -- puts their own little package together and they've been on different scales. I think Commissioner Matthews put something together that I couldn't even read, that I had no idea what my final rating meant. What I tried to do here is lock in at least a scale and minimum areas of review on an annual basis. The county manager each year, no less than three months prior to the anniversary date of the agreement shall be reviewed in budget management, supervision, personnel management, leadership, execution of policy, departmental performance, relations with the board and community relations. Each category shall be done on a scale of five, with a five indicating superior performance. Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me a minute. I think the North Naples fire people are here for their item and we've continued it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. I don't think we have continued it, have we? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No, that's item 12 (B)(1). COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, I'm sorry. What did -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We continued 12 (A)(1). COHMISSIONER NORRIS: 12(A)(1), okay. Sorry. 12(A)(1) is Hr. Botner's (phonetic) item, isn't it? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. 12 (A)(1) is growth management planning. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: His is 12(C). CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Botner, did you know your item has been continued? Okay, so he's just here for fun. All I'm doing here is identifying at a minimum of eight years of review with a scale of one to five of each, so that we have a year to year comparison throughout this contract that's constant. Section 9, hours of work. The purpose of this section was simply to avoid the comp time fiascos and that kind of garbage. The bottom line is, he's a professional, this section says set your hours appropriately. Period. Not much more than that. It does say the employee shall be on-call 24 hours a day and shall assume full responsibility for his duties. Let me see if there's anything else in there I need to point out. Okay. Not particularly. It was discussed, Mr. Fernandez was surprised by the comp time fiasco we went through, so he had no problem with that at all. Section 10, outside activities. This is something that's new to a contract, that Neil did not have. This says that Mr. Fernandez is under the employ of Collier County, and if he wishes to do outside occasional teaching, writing, speaking or consulting, it must be done on his personal time off. Mr. Fernandez indicated to me that if he wished to do any of that, he would take vacation time in order to do it. He said the only reason that -- he had never used that until he terminated from Alachua and then got into some consulting. Some of those consulting jobs may have a residual effect on him, but he will take personal time off in order to accomplish those and it states here they shall have no conflict with Collier County or conflict of interest with Collier County. If overnight travel is required, the board will be notified in advance. Section 11, moving and relocation expenses. It says basically, he must get three competitive bids. It does not say he has to use the lowest of the three because, you know, Rufus and Dufus Moving may show up and he may have no interest in using their -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Where are they located at? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: They are in Ochopee. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Not in Collier County. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But moving and relocation expenses shall be paid for by Collier County. This is again something we didn't deal with with Mr. Dotrill, since he was within the county. Section 12, housing allowance. This was something I thought was important to get him on the job sooner than later, is looking at the local marketing, a three bedroom unit, you should be able to get that for around $1,000 or $1,100 a month. A six month housing allowance of $1,100 a month shall be paid to the employee on the first week of each of the first six months of this agreement. On relocation, there's a lot of things you deal with, particularly if they own a home outside of the county. I didn't want to get into the real estate game with home ownership. I felt a straightforward six month housing allowance would allow him to get on the job quicker and keep us out of the real estate business. I thought that was the cleanest way to handle that. Section 13, automobile. This basically says county manager will be allowed the use of a county pool car for exclusive and unrestricted use. Again, avoiding the Jeep scenario. Personal use shall be restricted to Collier County and fuel for personal use shall be the responsibility of the county manager. The one problem we have on this is that if I remember correctly, and Mr. Weigel informed that the clerk will find that the county manager, if using a county car, must have a county tag on it. Although I don't have a problem with that, Mr. Fernandez did bring up the point that you stop to get a loaf of bread on the way home and all of sudden, there are phone calls about somebody using a county car for personal use. He had some experience with that and was able in Alachua to put his own tags on a lease car from the county. I understand unless Mr. Brock has changed his position, the clerk is not in agreement that that's acceptable policy. So what I have provided everyone is, the packet I gave you, if you go to the fourth page you'll see, basically, what it costs Collier County to provide a fleet car, a Chevy Lumina, four-door. What it costs us to rotate that car on a three year basis. What I would like to offer here is that if we cannot resolve the tag issue on that, that -- then an allowance, an annual allowance reflecting the cost that you have on that page, be written into the contract. So we'll need to discuss that as we come to some -- hopefully some level of agreement on this contract. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to have a lot of comments on the auto section, anyway. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But for somebody to -- for us to be looking at inconveniencing the county, and a few extra dollars because somebody might make a phone call on a tag, is a pretty weak argument to me. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, I got a lot of comments, anyway, so '- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, when we get there, we'll be glad to listen to them. Section 14, vacation and sick leave. The reason this is in there is we've already stated he receives accrual benefits the same as all other employees. However, we are starting him at 15 days per year. That's the reason there's a section on vacation and sick leave because the employee does not start at that level, typically. Understanding the county manager's position, I think it's reasonable to start with three weeks' vacation. The accrual with 240 hours is stated here specifically and, again, shall receive prior approval from the board to accrue anything in excess of 240 or will lose it. That's that use it or lose it policy we discussed a little bit earlier. And I explained to him that don't -- I wouldn't expect this board, anyway, to approve anything over 240 hours, because we want him to use his vacation and he seemed comfortable with that. Section 15, disability, health, and life insurance. Employer puts in force and requires -- and will make payments for the employee for life, accident, disability income benefits, major medical, and dependent's coverage group insurance, covering employee and his dependents. Life insurance will be provided at three times the employee's annual base salary. The comparison for that, again, is in your packet. Disability insurance income benefits. In other words, disability coverage is at 50 percent of employee's base salary and the county manager has the option of participating in the County Leave Bank. Section 16, retirement. The deferred compensation retirement plan that Mr. Fernandez has enjoyed since being the manager at Manatee and again at Alachua was five percent annual. I originally had reduced that to four in the contract, but discussing that with him we came back to five percent. The average is -- actually, I don't have an average. The range is two to two and a half up to seven percent on deferred compensation in the ICMA program. Five percent is moderately in the middle. Dues and subscriptions simply states, as you know during the budget, any dues and subscriptions that go through the county manager's office show up as a line item, but we indicated that -- I indicated that the organizations he's involved in, ICMA, Leadership Florida, and Florida City and County Management, that those dues are allowable. Beyond that, you know, those have to be justified on an annual basis. If the amount is greater than any of those, then budget time is the time we'll review that. Professional development. This talks about travel. An employer will pay for travel and subsistence expenses of employee for professional and official travel, meetings and occasions adequate to continue the professional development of employee and to adequately pursue necessary official functions for employer. This is really no different than Mr. Dotrill. It does state that the ICMA annual conference, Leadership Florida annual dues and believe me we talked about that one. The Florida City and County Management Association and the Florida Retirement Commission. I would like to point out that the Florida Retirement Commission is a gubernatorial appointment and the travel costs are covered by the State of Florida, but I did want to put it in there so the activity was not a surprise to anyone on the board. If you should hear these, I think he's going to those meetings. I think they're twice a year. (B), employer agrees to budget for and pay for travel and subsistence expenses for employee short courses, institutes and seminars deemed necessary. All out-of-state travel not specifically provided for herein shall be pre-approved. In other words, the travel expenses we're talking about and the budget we approved is for in-state travel. Out-of-state travel must be approved by the Board of Commissioners, and that is subject to Florida Statutes for reimbursement purposes for out of county travel. Section 19, indemnification is fairly straightforward. That's the legal wrangling and Mr. Weigel has reviewed that. Section 20, bonding, basically saying if we're required to bond him by law we will. Section 21 other terms and conditions, basically says we may affix them relating to the performance of the employee provided such terms and conditions are not being inconsistent with the provisions of this agreement or any other law. Section 22, notices. You referred to earlier, Commissioner Constantine, states that notices shall be in writing, transmitted by personal service or by deposit in the custody of the postal service, postage prepaid, address as follows. Both employer -- Mr. Fernandez's addressed will have to be submitted once he has one. We'll have to insert that. Notices shall be deemed effective upon delivery or receipt. General provisions. These are all pretty much boilerplate language. The agreement period shows up in (D). Again, in discussing it with him, the agreement would become effective, there are two dates to think of. The agreement date in which this is signed by all parties and then he has a start date of employment, which we discussed as June 1st, assuming all contract elements can be worked out in an agreeable fashion. And page nine of nine just wraps up the boilerplate language. Those are all the contents of the contract, and Commissioner Constantine. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know we'll go through these item by item, but I just want to give my overall thought as I looked here. Neil worked for the county for 18 years, was county manager for 10 years, and by most accounts did a very good job, established a track record and was rewarded with contracts and escalating salaries each year. I guess I'm a little concerned because an awful lot of these have -- the majority -- of this contract is greater than what someone with a 10 year track record as our county manager had, and I like some of the substance, I just -- the level on some of these seems kind of high. And I know Neil had a final salary increase a couple weeks before he left, but effectively the last year he was here, he had a $116,000 salary. This is a higher -- the cost of living and the review we talked about, I'm okay with that, as long as there -- it's an optional thing for us to participate in, but the housing allowance, I'm unsure on. That's something new, that's something additional. The auto and the fuel, that's something that -- one of the reasons Neil's salary was when we took the auto away there was a one time adjustment, a one year adjustment to offset that. He went from 102 to 108 or something. So the auto and fuel I think was already in the old contract, was already in the existing salaries and if you're making a good piece of change here, we don't need anymore controversy. I'm just not sure I'm comfortable adding that back in. Disability, we had three times, you have three times disability suggested in here, three times salary. If I'm not mistaken I think Neil's was $100,000 additional, it was roughly two times. I had a question and I'll hit this specifically when we get to it but on insurances, it appears we're covering all insurances for family, including disability, and not simply their medical, as life and disability and everything. The way that's worded that maybe -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Not the intent. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. The deferred compensation. Again, Neil, who was our county manager for 10 years, we gave him two percent, I think. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Two and a half. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And this is five. I'm a little uncomfortable, and as long as we can keep a handle on, and you mentioned with the extra organizations that all those would be approved in the budget process and if we can spell that out in here a little clearer, I'm okay with that. There are certainly organizations that they benefit from, but we went through a fiasco with that in '93, as well with some of the organizations. Neil was -- we were paying for Neil's membership at the YHCA and some other things and that's clearly not the intent of what were trying to do and that was -- we -- that was changed in the contract. But my overall concern is that it appears we're giving a package of roughly $150,000, when I just did some quick math, which is considerably higher than what we were giving someone who had done a great job and had a track record here. I just want to be careful to keep that in perspective. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The only -- the balance I offer to that, and one of my considerations was and, again, you know, I felt it was my job to bring a contract that was acceptable to the employee, not necessary to act definitively on behalf of the board throughout the entire negotiation, but -- which was brief. I think it consisted of two meetings. But one of the other things is, one of the biggest complaints we got was the perceived golden parachute as someone leaves office and I think you will find with the non-accrual of sick time and the limiting of 120 hours less of vacation that that nut amount, when compared to a lot of the other elements, you're talking about, such as, particularly, disability. If two times or three times, the difference is a couple hundred dollars a year, because it's an insurance policy, it's not a payment amount. So a lot of those things, we're talking about, you know, a thousand, $1,500 a year. Where if we make a reduction it's $800 to $1200 a year. And when I compared those, I actually came up with a lesser amount of potential exposure than what Neil's contract contained because of some of the benefits. So, I agree with some of those comparisons, but I did want to throw that overall picture in because I thought that was something that we were -- I mean, let's face it, we were criticized for the check you write when somebody leaves and I was very cognizant of that in his discussion. Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for acting on behalf of the board and negotiating this contract. I think we could probably as a board sit here and nitpick around on it all day long, changing this in a minor fashion or that in a minor fashion. Overall, I'm not completely comfortable with this contract, and I'm not uncomfortable with it and I think that's probably where we should be. So, I don't really have any objection to going forward with the contract as it is here if we have the support of the board to do so. I know we can probably change this or change that, but I'm not sure that there's a lot -- that any material change would be accomplished by sitting here for hours going through it a piece at a time, so -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to because we were specifically asked to jot notes down and talk about them. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If I could -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My question is back to the original one that I had, and that is do we -- is there some reason why we can't look at this, give some general comments today and next week have definite comments. I wouldn't -- I'm not going to try to lawyer this agreement, but I certainly would give more than 15 minutes' attention to it as an attorney and God knows, so I can bill them for more, but I feel a serious need to give a lot more -- for example, one that I'd like to give a lot more attention to is the criteria for performance evaluation. Those are good, but I have some questions about whether -- you know, that's gonna be how we measure this going forward for four years if this term stays in. So I would have some point by point comments. My first one is you absolutely did -- took care of the thing I was most concerned about and that was the parachute. I'm happy with the way you've dealt with that. I dreaded seeing that because I think, you know, state-wide county managers get a lot better deal than that and I had really hoped to avoid it, so I appreciate that big time. But my most fundamental issue is could we -- can we look at this for a week and decide next week on the final terms of the contract, instead of, you know, "Here it is, read it." We wouldn't do that with a public petition. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And again, it's whatever the board wishes to do. As far as the legal side with due deference to your professional expertise, that is Mr. Weigel's job. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, I'm not gonna even think of being the lawyer on this subject. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I misunderstood your comment. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. But, I just have a lot of -- I would like to give it more of a review than just these few minutes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What I have tried to do is to structure it in such a way that such as, Section 8, performance evaluation, area of evaluation shall include at a minimum. Nothing in this contract keeps us from exceeding the base level, whether it be review or otherwise, except those areas that are specifically capped. My concern there was to address the issue of scaling of evaluation. You know, make sure the scale was the same year to year. So, you know, if it's the board's desire to sit on this for a week and then talk about it and so forth. What concerns me, and this happened when the fiasco came up about Neil that Commissioner Matthews initiated. 'Til that time I never really understood why there were parachutes for county managers, anyway. I mean, you get fired, you go get another job, what's the big deal. What I realized in that process is just how politically volatile that position is. A commissioner or two commissioners get a burr under their saddle and begin putting a package together quietly and spring a 70 page manual on somebody that morning in an attempt to get them fired. That's not how you deal with employees in the real world and it sure as heck shouldn't be the way it's done here, but the fact is it happens, and that opened my eyes a little bit to what a lot of people talk about in the form of golden parachutes. That county manager is not elected, but by God, they are subject to elected forces. You know somebody's constituents are just railing them about the county manager and, you know, their tendency is to react to that, and in a moment of weakness someone may do that in an irresponsible fashion and that -- that can happen. That whole situation showed me the reason why there's a severance clause in a county manager's contract. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I make just a suggestion? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Sure. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think we're going with this -- we don't want -- there's going to be disagreement, we're never gonna agree on all of these. We don't need to have that in the paper for a week and anywhere else, and I agree with that. I wondered if perhaps today, we can go through -- see what items, if there are items on disagreement, great, we can try to work on those for a week, but I don't mind if we spend an hour going through these and making sure. We're not going to be happy with 100 percent of it, but we should be happy with most of it, and the board as a whole should be pretty happy. So I think if we go through these, we will probably answer many of our own questions and then if there are only two or three left or maybe none left, but if there's only two or three left, we can carry those over. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I can do that, and I certainly want to do that today. I just don't know what's the harm in -- tell me what is the thing -- what are you worried about that if we delay this for a week, what might happen? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All I'm suggesting is we should go through it before we delay, go through -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sure. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- to see what it is we do agree on, what it is we don't agree on, and that way if there are a couple of items that the majority of the board cannot agree on we know specifically what those are. Rather than leaving it open to speculation and everything in the contract is still up for grabs. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, yeah. No, we should do that and I introduced my comments by asking that question, but just to hit for you some of the high points for me -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Would you rather me go through section by section, determine where someone has -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Section 1, duties. Comments? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No problem. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Section 2, terms. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Problem. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Two plus two. I understand the no election year issue and if I were coming in, I'd require that, but a four year term for an unknown is very troublesome. I think two plus two. COHHISSIONER BERRY: Why don't you go for a three year term? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Puts it into an election year. In trying to avoid that, I was trying to meet Mr. Fernandez's requirements. The reason I didn't go to -- the reason I switched from two plus two to four, because it's the exact same thing. Two plus two, the exact same severance, the exact same termination, the exact same. Everything exists whether it's two plus two or whether it's a four year term. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But that's my next issue is about the severance. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm gonna have that question too, because you're right. I mean, regardless of what the term is, if the term expires and they still get their severance then it doesn't matter what the term is whether it's two years, three years, four years. It's the same package, so -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If the severance stays the same. If the severance changes my concern is you're asking someone with two high school kids to move to a new community with a two year contract in a politically volatile position. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And, frankly, I don't think the four months is unfair. That's what we had actually scaled Neil back from I think eight months to six months, eventually to four months. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: He might have been three, actually. I'm not sure, but yes -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And he may have been, but I don't think four months is unfair. I just think if we get to the end of a contract, an agreed upon term, and that may be four years, but if we get to the end of an agreed upon term and say okay, we're gonna part ways, there doesn't necessarily need to be a severance package. He knows he's employed for four years. If something happens in the meantime, he knows he gets a severance package. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: To me it's either/or. If you're gonna drop the severance of the termination of the agreement, then it needs to be a four year contract. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would agree with that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd compromise there, but that was important to me at least one or the other. It's a better choice. Frankly, I'd rather go with the four year term and lose that four months at the end of the term, 'cause that parachute's too big. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If the contract is allowed to expire without termination he'll receive those. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Exactly. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is everybody agreeable on that? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine. COHMISSIONER BERRY: What are you going to do, Mr. Chairman? You're going to let -- if the contract expires -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have to give 90 days' notice of intent to allow the contract to expire. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Or intent to renegotiate. Now, there's part of the concern. If we give 90 days' notice on intent to renegotiate and can't arrive at something. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would put a line in, if we cross that time line, if it gets to be four years and a day, and we're negotiating in good faith that the existing contract should stay in -- we should have the option of extending the portions of the existing contract. In other words, after 90 days, we haven't signed yet and we're a week away or two weeks away, he's not working for free. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's like in a lease. I mean, I would suggest something like a lease. You got an actual term on a lease, but you have a hold over tenant, then you go to a month to month term or a week to week term. Something similar to that I'm sure Mr. Weigel could draft for us. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Hake it very clear, because all of us may not be sitting on the board at the time this happens, so there needs to be no question about what the intent was. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But in the term paragraph we're getting to -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry, Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just have an idea that what we ought to do is have -- and it may be worded this way, no less than 90 days before, so that way we can start at six months if we know we're gonna or whoever the board is at the time. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me see if I can put that together, because if we make a decision no less than 90 days prior to the expiration of the agreement, that we will not renew it, the severance does not apply and any situation where that notification is less than 90 days, the severance clause should apply. That's -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You see what I'm saying? If we say 90 days or more out, that we're going to allow the agreement just to expire, there will be no severance provision. However, if it's 89 days or we say let's renegotiate this, and then three weeks later say, well, we've come to an impasse, we're not going to renew, then the severance should apply because we're again -- that window is similar. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The employee certainly deserves the courtesy of knowing within three months whether they can expect to be employed or not. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, what we're actually changing is the severance provision in such a way that reads that if the contract is allowed to expire with a minimum 90 day notice, the severance shall not apply. That's the only situation in which it wouldn't, other than those specifically set out, such as a release for cause or illegal acts. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's great. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'kie. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I'm trying to understand, because my question was about the three months' notice. I'm just trying to remember as we went through annually, we would go through this business with Neil's contract and when is the magic date by which we have to raise our hand, if we want to be able to talk about whether or not, you know. So this one is clearer than Neil's because it doesn't have all those multi-layered notices. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The problem with Neil's was we had three months ahead, or whatever the time frame was to extend it for a year, but he already had another year on there. You're right, there was like a third layer on his, you're right. This one's crystal clear. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What this does, 90 days we say it's gonna expire, we're gonna allow it to expire without renegotiation or we begin renegotiating and the severance would apply if renegotiation met with an impasse. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I guess, let me just -- I'm sorry, one last thing though. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: These things are important, so feel -- we need to take time on this. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. Ninety days before expiration -- before expiration of the contract, we say Mr. Fernandez we aren't sure we're gonna want to continue your contract unless we can change the vacation policy or we can change, you know, and then -- so we tell him we think that we may want to terminate or let it expire unless we can work out a new deal. Now, 90 days goes by and we have not worked out a new deal. Does he get the four month severance? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In that scenario, under what I proposed, yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: See I -- I think with that -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, what should happen then? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I think that what should happen is that 90 days -- if the contract terminates on its own, we're always going to be negotiating, unless we hate each other at the end. But at the end of their -- at the end of the fourth year, the contract would either be renewed or it would expire. If it expires period, there's no severance if it expires. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The only problem I have there is if you say we're gonna renegotiate and all of a sudden you get to that 90 days and the contract expires, the man has been given no notice that -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And, frankly, that's the reason I said there's nothing to limit us from starting any amount greater than 90 days. I think a responsible board of commissioners is gonna say, six months ahead of time, as opposed to three months ahead of time, yes, we like this person, we want to keep him, let's start negotiating now, instead of on day 90 thinking, oh my God, we've got to get to work here. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So, somehow his, and Commissioner Berry is trying to get in here and I can see her and you can't, somehow the annual evaluation date, ought to be tied so that it comes six months -- three months before the three month notice period. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Left? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Or more. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You see what I'm saying? So that these things don't fall on top of each other and we lose the opportunity to avoid the severance packet. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think it says that in here, doesn't it? It says something about 90 days -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The evaluation is 90 days prior to the term -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The anniversary. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Anniversary. So those two dates are the same in that fourth year. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So it ought to back up. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You know, what we're kind of doing, we're saying look we're not responsible, someone's going to have to tell us to be responsible. If -- because if you are -- if it's your intent to renegotiate a contract and you want to keep somebody on board, you're going to start that process in such a time frame that you minimize the exposure in the contract. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We five being so brilliant and perfect and responsible would, but we five may not be here in four years and I'd like to make it something that happens automatically. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I really have faith that the county will survive without me, though. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You don't think the end of time will occur upon your departure? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just don't know what the problem would be with making the evaluation period -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, you know, if you want to change the evaluation period to a six month -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Then it would solve my issue. You know then I know -- then the notice would happen. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I think the three month period is drop dead. Okay. That is the minimum that you should be letting him know that things aren't going to work out. Six months makes a lot more sense than three months. I mean, if you're unhappy then there should be discussion at this table six months out that you're unhappy and that you intend to be doing something else and there ought to be discussion about it, and three months is the absolute drop dead time. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, quite frankly, that could work very well, if he gets his first review six months from now, that's not necessarily a bad thing, and then every year thereafter, that sets us up perfectly for your suggestion. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So to meet your concern we can do two things. We have the clarification, Mr. Weigel, that the 90 day notice of intent to allow the contract to expire does not trigger severance and Commissioner Constant -- or Commissioner Hac'kie, under performance evaluation shall read employed no less than 6 months prior to the anniversary date. Is that how you want to accomplish that? Okay. Does anyone have any argument with that? Okay. So in Section 8, Mr. Weigel -- MR. WEIGEL: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- the period of three months shall read six months. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. No less than six months, as opposed to no less than three months. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So we'll begin his evaluation about four and a half months after June 1st. MR. WEIGEL: And you understand you're putting a higher burden upon yourselves than you currently have? You have the flexibility even now to do this evaluation six months prior to. This just has a fail-safe time requirement of no less three months. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm comfortable with flexibility, but I hear Commissioner Mac'kie saying let's lock it in. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is she the only one saying that? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. No, I don't think so. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think there's any harm in that. Frankly, I think it's good practice to have once a year to have a specific time frame they can count on to review. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And where that was 90 days, we're just saying six months. So it's almost a mid-year evaluation. The first year, then mid-year, every year of the contract thereafter. I don't see a problem with that. Okay. So, Section 2 term we leave the term four years. (B) on Section 2, any questions, problems with (B)? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Section (C)? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Section (D), I'm sorry, paragraph (D), Section COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just one second. Just a question on (D) and I'm sure I could figure this out if I had more time to look at it, but let me just ask it. If he resigns at any time then we go to Section 5 and does he get severance pay? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. Mr. Weigel clarified that in our initial discussion that there's no reference in areas which termination is referenced, it will say subject to Section 4, which is termination and severance pay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I'd just like to suggest 'cause I do find that I made that note in paragraph five that it would be a good idea to be as clear as possible. No severance pay on resignation. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So it will indicate upon resignation, Section 4 will not apply. MR. WEIGEL: Yes, and that would be a sentence added to Section 5, resignation. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That would be perfect. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Everybody comfortable with that? Okay. Section 3, suspension. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One question· CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What about the option of suspension without pay, Mr. Weigel? Do we have that option unless we put it in the contract? MR. WEIGEL: We don't have that option right now. That's a tool and, again, I think that's maybe what that suspension with pay is, is a tool. Here in Florida it has not been contractually available, it's there now. Of course, if you want to expand on it, at this point you could, but there is nothing providing for suspension without pay. I would suggest, however, that if there is a suspension without pay, the county would want to have its ducks in order with cause because -- and perhaps a framework of how long that could endure because that creates an immediate hardship with the employee. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I went down that path, Commissioner Mac'kie, and just as Mr. Weigel stated, if we're going to suspend without pay there has to be cause. Well, if there's cause, we've triggered a termination proceeding that does not effect severance. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think the question would be, what if, heaven forbid this ever happened, but what if our county manager was charged with a felony, eventually acquitted of the felony? COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's the problem. In the meantime, you've put him in jeopardy imposing what you're suggesting. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Unfortunately, I think in the previous contract -- Mr. Dorrill's contract, you had no option there. Now, would being charged with a felony qualify as cause, Mr. Weigel, or does that matter have to be resolved in a court before cause can be triggered? MR. WEIGEL: Well, again, I think you're maintaining maximum flexibility right now, where under Section 4 of the agreement, it's for cause or for conviction of illegal acts. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that's termination. MR. WEIGEL: You want to talk about suspension? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh. MR. WEIGEL: With pay? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not going to dwell too long here, but I'm just thinking of the way our court system works, and you darn attorneys tie it up. I mean, you could have someone if they were charged with a felony in for a couple of years and do you suspend them and pay them for two years? Do you terminate them, they're acquitted two years later and you end up paying again? COMMISSIONER BERRY: They're going to come back, if they're judged not guilty they're going to come back and come after you for back pay, so I think we better be real careful. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me suggest the remedy to that is if you've got serious doubts about a county manager, you just initiate the termination clause. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I asked the question on suspension. I don't have -- my question was about suspension without pay because this paragraph says that we can suspend the employee with full pay and benefits at any time, but only if we have a public hearing and the majority of the board finds that we have cause. So if we go through -- we have a public hearing, we've determined there is just cause. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There's an "or" after number one. It's not "and." COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The majority of the board and the employee agree. So we may suspend somebody without a public hearing? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, but the employee has to agree. Okay. So in all likelihood, paragraph two, if they don't agree would be the one that would be triggered, which is, yes, a public hearing, a majority of the board votes to suspend for just cause. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: For what cause? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, just cause is different than cause; am I correct, Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: What I'd say is that when you've got a distinction in words, I think that argument can be made. It's not clear. As you know, we're working from the ICMA document here and we'd have to check its judicial history, I'm afraid. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just wondered why we would ever suspend somebody with pay if we have just cause to suspend them. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, why don't we eliminate for "just cause." After a public hearing, a majority of the board votes to suspend employee, provided, however, that employee shall have been given written warning. We'll eliminate for just cause. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I was more -- well -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: For any reason? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Instead of for just cause. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. COMHISSIONER BERRY: I don't think you can suspend somebody without pay. It's a pretty difficult situation. I sure wouldn't -- unless there is -- MR. WEIGEL: How about for just reason? And then that's in the -- that's your reason. It's not -- it doesn't run into any conflict interpretation of the word "cause." CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm comfortable with that. I'm not comfortable with suspension without pay, because I'd just start termination. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I agree. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I mean, if I'm solid enough to not pay him, why would I want him around afterwards? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I agree. I doubt we'll ever use this section, anyway. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Tell you what, we've got through Section 3, let's take a 10 minute recess and return and we'll pick up with Section 4. We'll go to recess. (Whereupon, a recess was had and the following proceedings were had.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Going to call back to order the May 13th meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. The issue we're here on is on the County Manager Employee Agreement, Section 4. If I could the have individual discussions come to a stop, that would be helpful. Thank you. Section 4, termination and severance pay. We are apparently in agreement for changes through Section 3. Commissioner Constantine, you've mentioned some situations on Section 4. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a question on the -- I need for you to explain to me again the rationale on the county pays for six months of insurance afterwards and Commissioner Berry, I think, brought up the point Cobra allows for a year afterwards, but, of course, that would be of their own response. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I don't think it covers -- Cobra doesn't cover dependents, does it? COMHISSIONER BERRY: I don't think so. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. The reason for that is the meeting with Mr Fernandez, he had never had this in previous contracts, but after going through the termination proceedings in Alachua, which I think was right after there was a shift in the board, he said that, you know, the four month severance was just barely enough to get by, assuming that we arrive at an agreement. He said, that the real concern was the health benefits for his family, that Cobra only covered him and not his family. So that's why -- the six months was a little bit of a trade-off. When I started reading all the contracts and there were 12 month severances out there, it was a little bit of a trade-off. I got to four months severance with six months of this and that was what we agreed on. That was -- COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, considering the insurance world today, I'm okay with that. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask a question on that. Does that anticipate that he still makes his employee contribution to that or does -- it's a minor point -- the county picks up the full thing or whether he continues for six months to make his employee contribution? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This contract does not envision an employee contribution. The contract covers -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine. I just wanted to clarify. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- individual advancement. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll raise that question in Section 15. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Any other -- Section 4. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, the next paragraph I just had a quick question and that is lump sum cash, four months' aggregate salary and the deferred compensation? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct. That was standard both -- as is Mr. Dorrill's also. Deferred compensation also is lump sum. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But this would -- well, this is gonna to be modified -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- because it -- to the extent it talks about expiration of the agreement. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. It no longer applies to the expiration of the agreement. Only to termination. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And just so that I understand. What he would get then the aggregate salary -- his four months' aggregate salary and deferred compensation, that just means up to 240 approximately vacation hours. Is there anything else? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The deferred compensation is four months' worth of -- of the five percent of his salary. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, I'm sorry, that's his retirement pay? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's a separate retirement. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So what he would actually get is four months pay, plus four months of retirement pay, plus -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Five percent of his salary prorated over four months for -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that, again, that's deferred compensation into a retirement plan. It's not paid cash to him. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I understand. Plus four months -- six months of insurance for him and his family, plus up to 240 vacation hours. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is that the total package? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As I understand it, yes. No sick time accrual. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So I'm going to ask you, Mr. Weigel, to tell me if that's the total package under the contract, or if there's opportunity for more, because that's a real important question for me. MR. WEIGEL: Could you repeat that question again, please? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. Under conditions in which the employee gets a parachute, which would be anything other than the expiration of the contract, right, or resignation, he gets four months' pay, four months of deferred comp into the retirement plan, six months of insurance for himself and his family and up to 240 vacation hours. Might he get anything else or is that the entire parachute? MR. WEIGEL: I think that's it. I think that's the entirety. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And, again, my understanding is, I've gone through the contract, that would be the total package. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Question on Section 5. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are we done with Section 4 now? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let me just -- yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Section 5. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It says he's required to give three months notice if he's leaving. How is that enforceable? In other words, if he says "Gee, I've got to go in 30 days." CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, he is then in violation of contract. Would we then be able to effect the -- well. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does that trigger that he loses some vacation time? I mean, is there any penalty? MR. WEIGEL: Conceivably, you could terminate for cause at that point. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, why don't we build in a penalty? Because we can basically -- we can contract however we'd like to. So my suggestion was gonna be that if he doesn't give us his three months -- if he resigns he's already not getting his severance pay, four months. He's already not getting the five percent four months' deferred comp. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: He gets nothing. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: He gets no insurance. But he should -- I don't know if it's possible to have him waive his vacation accrual package if he fails to give us the three months' notice, but it seems it should be. Mr. Weigel, would that be legal? Because we're being so considerate of his, you know, need to have notice. We, likewise, need to have notice. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I am gonna ask that you at least temper that a little bit. This is not the luxury contract that I read from several counties. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, no, no, no. I mean we appropriately are being considerate of that need to have notice. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Believe me, I'm concerned about being known as the guy who wrote the contract. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, because -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What was the school board member's name who wrote the Richie contract? COMHISSIONER BERRY: Well, I know it well. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: We'll all share the credit and blame. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And blame. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But 240 hours of vacation time has a value of what for him? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Four weeks, $10,000 bucks. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just $10,000 bucks? Somebody nod. Is there a human resources person? So that would be good -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Six weeks, it's actually $15,000. Thank you. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So that would be good motivation for him to give us the three months' notice. I'd like to add that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, is there a legal difficulty in that resignation shall not provide, you know, resignation with less than 90 days' notice, shall not or shall disqualify accrual? Can we do it? MR. WEIGEL: I'm not aware that there's a problem in doing that. So I think we would write it, let them respond if there is an issue there. Legal issue, not just a personal issue. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll go along with that idea. MR. WEIGEL: You want 90 days, rather than three months as the time factor in there. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ninety days. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: 90 days, and less than that will constitute forfeiture of accrued benefits, period. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yep. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Anything else on Section 57 Seeing none, Section 6, disability. Any questions on that? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just the operation of it is that if the employee should become so ill that he can't do his work, first he takes all his sick days -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- and then for four weeks beyond his sick leave, he would get his disability benefits, but not his pay? I mean, does he get paid during those four weeks? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, his disability benefits would kick in per the disability plan. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I mean I just want to be sure that this doesn't give him something in addition to that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. I believe and, Mr. Weigel, let's run this one by and make sure that my assumption is correct. Once all accrued sick leave is used, the only thing he has left remaining, is if he participates in the sick leave or the sick leave bank. MR. WEIGEL: Correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: He's allowed to do that. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I believe that could cover him for those four weeks, but the point is if someone has a catastrophic illness that is long term, this gives us the ability to terminate the contract after four weeks upon sick leave. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that part I understand. My question is during the four weeks beyond leave, is his remuneration just his disability pay or is it something in addition to that? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My understanding is there's no wages paid unless it's from the sick leave bank. In other words, we're not paying his commission -- his contract wages in those four weeks. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So let's just be sure of that, cause I wouldn't -- is that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's how I read it. Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Would you repeat how you read that again? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. The way I read Section 6, the way in which it would apply, is that assuming Mr. Fernandez were to become disabled. Well, let's say assume the county manager were to become disabled. MR. WEIGEL: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: He or she would first utilize all their available sick time, and that is paid. Once that is completed if the individual is -- is continues sick, accident, injury whatever, for four successive weeks beyond that, they would not receive salary compensation during those four weeks. That was the purpose of using the sick leave, as I understood it. So there would be no wage compensation, however, disability may apply. MR. WEIGEL: Yeah, I think that's the intent. It's not specifically stated there. I think that is the understanding that we were looking at. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's add then that it would be without pay or bene -- you know, without pay. Because -- MR. WEIGEL: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, because I know you hate my nitpicking, Mr. Norris, but if we go -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I've heard him say he loves your nitpicking. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, I've never heard him say that. If -- how does the four months tie into this too if we terminate it? Does the four months tag on at the end of these four weeks? MR. WEIGEL: I think that it would because this is, you know, sickness, injury, is not a penalty for malfeasance or omission in office, to give I think the reasonable play to that and one thing is, though, you know, the disability paragraph that's here talks about the trigger of termination and are you telling us in your discussion that there's a possibility that you wouldn't want to terminate him, but you would want him to be the county manager without pay for a while. It seems like that's where we leading here. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. No. I think the clarification you were seeking is, are we, one, paying any wages during those four weeks. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. Actually, I want to be sure that we're not paying wages during the four weeks of his disability, beyond his sick leave. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Then -- then -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Let's take a for instance, and I think then understand it better. What if, God forbid, that he was in some kind of a terrible car accident out on county time doing something, and he's not able to be in here in the office and perhaps it's a head injury and he's totally zeroed out. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Wasn't this on General Hospital? COHMISSIONER BERRY: Yes, I just saw it. I don't know. Who watches that stuff? Anyway, but take that kind of a scenario and then go ahead and figure what you would want to do in that particular situation. He is an employee, and he was, you know, functioning in a county capacity. All right. Now, what's he entitled to? And some point in time, if this is a -- let's assume it is a brain injury for some time and he's going to be incapacitated for God only knows how long, then what are you going to do with this individual? And certainly termination at some point in time is gonna happen. I mean, if he's not capable, or whoever, that person is not capable of carrying on their duties. So now think about what you want to do in a contract to look at that kind of a situation. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that's what I was doing and what I think is that we should give him his full sick leave benefits and then, frankly, I didn't know why there would be another four weeks beyond sick leave. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I think you have to go the disability, Pam. I think you have to do that for a period of time. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. COMHISSIONER BERRY: I mean, let's assume the guy's in a coma, you know you can come out of those things, but then there is a point in time where that's gonna have to end, where that termination is gonna have to come in. Where the employment's gonna have to be terminated, but I think -- and, again, the disability insurance, will that not dictate what it is? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's -- all I want to be sure of is that during those four weeks his compensation is his disability pay, not his wages. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I think we all agree to that and, Mr. Weigel, we are just asking that Section 6 be clarified to reflect that wages not be paid in those four successive weeks beyond accrued sick leave use, because then other sections of the contract will kick in. The only one I'm aware that would kick in would be the disability insurance. COMHISSIONER BERRY: Well, sometimes the disability insurance ends up -- it can stipulate a portion of your salary. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: COMMISSIONER BERRY: CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: COMHISSIONER BERRY: so -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Fifty percent is what -- Okay. Is it 50? Yes. Fifty percent is what we've indicated here, But then we could initiate -- this, again, the focus of this is not so much providing for him, but providing for us the opportunity to terminate upon, you know, some catastrophic eventuality. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It sounds as though we're in agreement, we're just asking Mr. Weigel to clarify that -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Draft that for us. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- for a final draft. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. And so what you're telling us is to add something to the effect that the wages will not be paid to employee during the four week period after all sick leave use. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Bingo. Okay. Section 7, salary. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How did we arrive at $120,0007 CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, we started with 110. The first contract -- I looked at Mr. Dorrill's and felt that -- I think that you had said some of these things, that, you know, he is a little bit of an unknown to us. Although it's been a comprehensive search, I felt a 110 was less than Neil left with and it was a good starting point, quite frankly. I also looked at, you'll see a summary of executive compensation that was provided in the package to you. One thing we have to remember is as much as we all love Collier County, I think that our -- the salary for our county manager needs to be competitive, that means not at the high end and not at the bottom. I think we are competitive with, Sarasota County has a salary of 115,000, but their compensation package is greater. Seminole County I think was one of those that had long -- had the big golden parachute on them and they were at 117,000. So when I looked at what our benefits package was and 110,000, I knew we were low comparatively to benefits and salary in the majority of the contracts I had read. When Mr. Fernandez came in and we discussed salary, the reason that I felt comfortable going to 120 is the last page of the packet you have that starts with the summary of executive compensation. It's titled comparison of county manager salaries as compared to housing cost. Mr. Fernandez has a concern that he doesn't want to go backwards in housing for his family. We talked at length about what type of housing that his salary of 100,000 in Alachua, he was able to provide his family. When comparing, I think he lives on something like an acre and a half, the type of condition he lives in, we really don't have a lot of here, you know, it's someone like the estates. But what he did on his own, to justify his salary request was to look at the housing cost for several counties, Alachua, Lee, Sarasota, Charlotte, Palm Beach, and Collier, and look at the salary, the compensation provided those county managers and develop a ratio of salary to housing cost. What I was -- I put together at 110 with a housing cost of, it says 108,000 here, but I think we would all find that to be rather conservative. The ratio was 1.01. The average ratio for salary to housing cost in the counties cited was about 1.2. That ratio would equate to $130,000 salary. So, you know, he said, that he didn't think that a 130,000 was doable or acceptable to the board. We discussed it and came up to $120,000. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Leave it to somebody in government to come up with a new ratio. I looked at -- I look -- I appreciate the information you provided here because I look at the summary on the front page, and there are -- you said we don't want to be low, we don't want to be high, which I agree. The high is 122, that's our neighbor to the north, Lee. Of course, they've got twice as many people but, those that have fairly -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. These are actually higher. Those are a little -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Those that have fairly high numbers, also have -- Sarasota got to that number after nine and a half years there. Seminole got there -- been there almost six years, and those that are on the lower end, those who have not been in the employ as long are at 91 and 92. And so I know -- I mean, we can tinker with ratios and all, but I guess I go back to what's in the best interest of Collier and if we had someone who was a very known entity that served as our county manager for 10 years and was making, as of the end of last calendar year, anyway, 116. Is it appropriate to start the new kid at 120 plus a lot of the extras that didn't exist under the old contract? I understand your ratio here and I certainly don't blame him for trying. If I was in the same scenario, I would ask for and try to get as good as deal as I could and shows he's a smart guy, but -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, as you know and I think everyone understands, it's never popular to pay a contract employee what's considered a high salary. I mean, you know, you'll get raked -- we'll get raked over the coals for 110, but one thing I looked at is your longevity argument makes sense, but if you look at it from the housing side. Neil was here for a long period of time, and had built, you know, bought a house and so forth on 62 or 63,000, and then as he made more and more money, his housing situation was not affected. We have someone coming from the outside into this area, the cost of housing is much more relevant than someone who has been here for ten years, or for 8 years and then moves into the position of county manager. So I think that relevance is an offsetting factor and that's why I felt that 120 was -- when I started this whole process, 120 was the high end of what I thought would be in a comfort zone. So, you know, I can't argue that I think it's a great deal for the county, but I don't think it is out of line when compared to the total benefits package that are offered other county managers in comparison to salary. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I may be in the minority. So, I won't spend a lot of time on it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You made my argument, Commissioner Hancock, and that I was so rudely interrupting you, stuttering along here to try to make, was just because of the point in time for the entry into the real estate market. I think that that housing -- if I were deciding whether or not to take this job, that would be a critical point for me. Based on that I'm gonna to be supportive of the 120 and hopeful that he'll work with us on some of the other things. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I think that's the next point to discuss, is what mitigates and offsets. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just on the next point, we talked a little bit about this before and that (B) is merely an option. It allows the board the option, that if you have someone outstanding you can reward them for that over and above the regular increase. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct. That is the intent. I believe the wording does reflect that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a comment on that paragraph. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Please. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Two thoughts, one is I heard your argument about why put a cap on there so that there's no big shock -- sticker shock with a big hit, but that troubles me because it sort of breeds mediocrity. You know, if you know you're not going to make, you know, the most raise you can get is gonna be four percent, why do -- why, you know, do a great job? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Actually the most he could get is four percent, plus cost of living and my base line is that in corporate America, a five percent raise is a darn good job. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But it's not contracted for. You know, you're in the private sector, you're not told the most you could possibly get this year is four percent. I'd like to take that out and let merit be merit. I also wish that we could -- if you remember when we were talking about Neil Dorrill's contract, one of the things that we sort of put him on notice about was that going forward, instead of salary increases, he could expect to see some kind of a percentage or a bonus of savings, some kind of a bonus opportunity for -- if you save the county a million bucks, you know, we might give you a bonus this year of whatever's appropriate. I'd like to see something built -- my biggest comment about the contract on an overall basis, the one element that I'd like to see added, is some sort of a merit bonus, incentive bonus program, similar to what you'd see in the private sector. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The only reason I would argue against removing a cap is I think it breeds distrust. If you leave it open ended, that there is no maximum percentage, I think you could go to most companies, with the exception of promotions internal to the company, there are caps on how much they provide. I mean, you know, unless you -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: In practicality. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In practicality, it's not -- but you're not a contract employee for IBM, you're an employee. There is no contract specifying the elements, so -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree with Mr. Hancock. I think it needs to be in there. I mean if you look at -- your standard goal is gonna be roughly three percent. On 120,000, is almost 4,000 bucks and you add another four percent on that, I mean you're looking at 7, 8, $9,000 raise. I'm not sure that's a bad thing, when you say you want incentive there, that's pretty strong incentive. It would be for me, anyway. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just don't -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Now, the rule of 72 will tell you that salary at the maximum increase would double in 10 years. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, and I will tell you what Mr. Fernandez said he said and quote, I had it at three percent and he said he was talking about five, and he said, "well, why don't we do it at four with the understanding it is probably never going to go there." So he was comfortable in that zone. So, I thought, you know, he's the employee and he's comfortable. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going to defer to the majority. My comment is just that I wish that we would leave it open, so that we could have more of an incentive based, more like a private contract, but the bigger point that I care about in this one, is whether or not we want to give some kind of an incentive based bonus or some opportunity like the private sector for incentive compensation. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me suggest how that can be done. This contract can be modified by mutual agreement at any point. So if you wish to give a point to award a bonus to the county manager, you can, and I'm sure he wouldn't mind, and a mutual agreement could occur in the contract. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess -- okay, and I'll accept that at this point, but what I wish we would do is outline the criteria by which incentive bonuses might be granted like in the private sector. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just simply wasn't a consideration for me in doing the contract and it's something that I didn't see in any other contract so it didn't occur to me. That may be something that over time we can work in mutual renegotiation if you feel that strongly about it. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I feel about that so I will be bringing that back up, and let the record be clear that we aren't -- that if Mr. Fernandez on his first, his annual review gets five out of five stars on everything, that doesn't guarantee him a four percent raise. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just want that to be clear. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. That's -- I did not tie it to a performance evaluation directly for that purpose. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Anything else on (B)? On (C) next, Section 7, paragraph (C)? Okay. Section 8, performance evaluation. MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. Mr. Salmon of the Human Resources Department mentions to me that what we have typically referred to, even today, as the cost-of-living raise that the employees get generally, technically, it's not a cost-of-living. It's not tied to an index. It has been an across the board raise that has acted as a cost-of-living type of mechanism. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I suggest Mr. Weigel alters the wording as he sees fit, as long as the content stays the same. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So in paragraph (C) the board agrees we change the wording to be consistent with our HR policies. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Good. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Section 8, performance evaluation. Again, the goal here, at least eight areas of minimum review on a scale of one to five. That's it. That was the whole reason of that section. These sections are actually pulled from the International County Management Association criteria. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Will those all be multiplied by two and a half and divided by pi to get our -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You had to have seen the old form to get that joke. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, man, that was awful. Again, just trying to be very basic, but to say at a minimum these are areas that the board values, and that we should have a scale of one to five to evaluate the county manager, so you can look one year to the next and compare them. That's all. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's a good idea. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Anything else on Section 87 Seeing none. How about Section 97 COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Actually, I have one question about Section 8. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Provide an adequate opportunity for the employee to discuss his evaluation with the Board of County Commissioners. Does that mean the board and the employee will in a public hearing have a discussion or does that anticipate one or ones or '- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's at the discretion of both the board and the employee, and I intentionally left that open ended. The chairman will provide the employee with a summary of written statements, which means, obviously, it goes to everyone, you make your comments. It's the chairman's job to sit down with the employee and discuss those. If the board wishes to do that in a public forum, we can do that. If he wishes to take issue with elements of that review in a public forum, he also is provided that opportunity. I didn't want to mandate the vehicle, other than just requiring the communication. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And as you know, those reviews are all public record, anyway, so -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Section 9, hours of work. Any questions, concerns? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Section 10, outside activities. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I just have a question. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am. COHHISSIONER BERRY: Where you mention speaking, I'm assuming -- what about local speaking engagements, say at lunchtime, you know, the usual rotary club type of thing? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Those are, and I don't know if it's addressed specifically here, but that's part of the job as county manager. If he's being asked to speak as the county manager -- COHMISSIONER BERRY: That's what I think. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And he gets compensated for it, I think we have an ethics problem there, which kicks in the word cause. No, so I -- no, that's -- I don't think that's anticipated by Mr. Fernandez or by me in the construction of this contract. You don't get paid to speak as the county manager to the rotary. If you are, your time here is numbered. COHMISSIONER BERRY: My question was, maybe this wasn't the paragraph, but it mentions something about that he would have to take time. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Vacation time. COMHISSIONER BERRY: Vacation time, and that's -- that was my point. That, I mean, I believe -- I personally believe as you do, Mr. Chairman, that this is part of his job, that from time to time he will be addressing different groups, that's part of the job. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Community relations. COMHISSIONER BERRY: Pardon me? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Community relations. COMMISSIONER BERRY: have to do it and -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: clarification. COMHISSIONER BERRY: CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Absolutely. It's part of the job and you Let me read that to you to offer Okay. It says the term "employed, however, shall not be construed to include occasional teaching, writing, speaking or consulting performed on personal time off." In other words, if he takes personal time off to do those things, that's not an element of his employment. I don't expect him to take personal time off for lunch to speak to a -- you see how the two really -- the process is very different. What this is identifying, is that he must take personal time off if he wishes to do any teaching or, you know -- COHMISSIONER BERRY: Right. If he's called in to some particular big group meeting and he's the featured speaker, then that's a different situation. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. He's -- and at that point he may well be compensated or may not be compensated for that if it's a managers' meeting, a state meeting, or something, and he's called on to speak, at that point, how do you address that? I mean -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, I think you address it with professional discretion. We're not going to be able to identify every eventuality for speaking. COHMISSIONER BERRY: All right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I think you do have to -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Hold on. I think it's really simple, if it's part of his county manager duties, fine. If it's not -- if it's something that he's doing something personal on the side, then outside activity Section 10 -- is the book -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think we're all in agreement on how that applies. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Question on that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The last sentence, I don't understand why I want to know ahead of time if he's gonna go out of town. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If he's going out of town on this type of business, where he is typically -- would be typically compensated, I think what that says, is that, you know -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If he's going to take a vacation day and go to Alachua County to consult for a private person, I don't need to know. Why do we need to know that ahead of time? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think that it's good practice for a number of reasons. Neil always did that with whomever the chair was, would just let him know he was headed out for the simple reason if there is an emergency of some sort in the county, you don't know to spend a couple hours trying to track Neil down if he's in Sarasota or -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But that would be courtesy, if he's on vacation, if he's visiting his mom, whatever it is, but this seems kind of odd in the event overnight travel is required for non-employer related business, the board shall be notified in advance. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, I think what you're saying there is much with conferences, it's what I call, first right of refusal. If he says, "I'm gonna be out of business on -- out of town on private business on Thursday and Friday," yet I know there's something going on that week that he needs to be here for, I sure as heck don't want him on his time, doing consulting work, when he should be here for an event. I think it's kind of a first right of refusal. The same way Neil did it and for his personal time off, he always notified the chairman. The county manager should always notify the chairman of when they're taking vacation. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just wish it would say that. That they would always notify, you know -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let's take a poll, so we can move on. I like it the way -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm fine with this language. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm okay. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I'm all right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Section 11, moving and relocation expenses. Any questions, concerns? Okay. Section 12, housing allowance. Commissioner Constantine. Pretty good memory there, huh? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Well, according to the salary comments we were talking about a few minutes ago, certainly considering housing and I just don't understand why we're giving what is, in essence, a $6,600 signing bonus to come down. When you take a job there are certain parts where you know are going to happen, there are certain changes when you move. We're paying for the move. We're paying an exorbitant salary. Sorry, I had to throw that in. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So far my -- my -- the contract I put together has a signing bonus and an exorbitant salary. I'm sensing something. COHMISSIONER BERRY: And that's what you'll read tomorrow, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, I can thank you for that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. Part of the reason, all joking aside, part of the reason for the high salary is, as explained is the housing costs, which are high in Collier. I'm not sure I follow the rationale of $6,600 housing allowance. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me give you what my concerns were. He has two kids in high school that are going to need to complete their year. I think all of us, you know, if you have kids or have had kids in high school, that's kind of a bad time to move them. So there is a little bit of a conflict of the house in Alachua being sold. The second thing is that whether we're talking about the county manager, whether we're talking about the real world out there, all of my friends and colleagues that have gone from one company to another, it's not uncommon for the company to even take ownership of homes and assume the real estate responsibilities. What I was trying to do is avoid the tar pit of what is the standard out there by a straightforward sum that says, you have six months to sell your house, after that you're on your own. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd just like to again, like Commissioner Norris just said, I think this makes perfect sense and I support leaving it in. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll support this. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I support this. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm clearly in the minority and will allow us to move on. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Section 13, automobile. Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I got a big problem with this -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- for a number of reasons, but that was one of the reasons why there was a one time adjustment to a higher level for Mr. Dotrill. Why he'd get to as high as he did, I just -- I don't know that it's necessary. One of the things we talked about when you had suggested negotiating a salary, you said we to want try to keep this as straight salaried as possible and keep all the extras out, or not have a lot of extras, and this is one of those where I see we get into extras, and we get into trying to track fuel. Okay, what fuel was business related, what wasn't. And just -- he's making 120,000 bucks. He's got a wonderful job. He's got his housing allowance and let him buy his own car. Let him bring his own car. And I know you included in here, and I appreciate that, you've done a good job on back up on information, but there were some places that do and some places that don't. I don't know where that is. I highlighted -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Again, I think most do. Wasn't it the front page or second page? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The front page says they all do. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think they all do. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, they do not all do. There's one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight that don't and one that give $135 a month. So, I say that's gas money, not car money. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are any of those comparables to us? I don't recall them. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see yes's straight across on auto. What are you looking at? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I do too. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, you're looking at the first two. Look at the third page. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Anyway, and, frankly, I don't know that we need to get into that there are eight there that don't but, I don't know that we need to get into, well, everybody else is doing it, so we should too. The fact is part of the reason the salary is that high is the auto allowance, the one time adjustment to Neil's salary bumped him up and I don't know -- that we went through a situation with a car before and I don't know that we need to get back into that. I'm not sure why we want to get back into that. Maybe you can help me out. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me ask this to get to a point of agreement, hopefully, on this. Is that I've written here the use of a county pool car is available. Do you have a problem with that? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I would prefer that he take responsibility for his car. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So you want to remove Section 13 altogether? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let me ask the balance of the board what the feeling is. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I just ask for what the rationale was when this went back into the contract? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Because we as commissioners get reimbursed for mileage, if we submit it. Now, I've never submitted mileage, but then again I don't have to go to Everglades City. I mean there are some outreaching areas in Commissioner Berry's district that can, you know, mount up to a sum -- can amount to a sum and I think in that district, it's probably more acceptable. But, frankly, the county manager does have a lot of duties that require them to travel throughout the county, and so I thought the use of a county pool car -- when I come to work in the morning, if I have to drive to Marco, I can request a county vehicle and do it. So I just thought providing a vehicle for their, you know, the county manager's use for work purposes is something he gets anyway. He can have a county pool car sitting down there for his use, anyway. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The distinction, Mr. Chairman, is that we do have a number of county employees that use, obviously, county vehicles. That's why we have the vehicles. The distinction here would be that incremental benefit to the county manager is that he can use his for personal use, as well. it's not -- it's not exactly we're giving him a car, the hundred percent of the car, because he's -- he's entitled to the use of it in business purposes, which hopefully will consume most of his time, anyway. So really the only incremental benefit is the personal use. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I look at it just as a convenience. He has use of it, because I think what Mr. Norris just said, he has use of it, and a use that is well good. They've got use of it, it's a case of instead of driving down here, picking up the car, and then perhaps having to drive to Everglades City or drive to Immokalee from where he might live, it's -- I think it's a convenience thing and I personally don't see anything wrong with the way you have it stated here. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And the use is restricted to Collier County. I think, Commissioner Constantine, where the concern comes in is when I was talking about the fact of county tags. If, you know, he's gonna drive a county car, then I guess he's going to have to have a county tag on it. Period. So the idea of an allowance is certainly something that I don't think is going to fly today in place of that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would hope we would just put the tag issue, at the very least to rest because if -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Understood. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You see a yellow tag, it's a yellow tag, but then there's no inconvenience to anybody other than a phone call, and we know who was buying their loaf of bread where. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I would like to see that unofficial determination on why he can't use a regular tag because I know in other counties they do that, and either they're breaking the law or our -- the determination that we've received is incorrect. One of the two. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think we visited that issue, but, yeah, I'd like to do it again. Let me ask on Section 13, Commissioner Constantine, your desire is to remove it all together? Is there other directions from the board? COHMISSIONER BERRY: No, but I do have a question where it says in county only, what if he has to go visit for one reason or another the manager in Lee County? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Personal use. Personal use shall be restricted to Collier County. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Oh, personal use in Collier County. Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In other words, you can't take the family vacation. The fact that it's making a county pool car available and the only incremental use, as Commissioner Norris stated, is for personal use. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: In county. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In county. I'm comfortable leaving it in. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm comfortable and, frankly, don't give a hoot about the tag. If he's got -- if he's uncomfortable with the yellow tag, let him go have that discussion with the clerk. I couldn't care less about the tag, let him worry about his own car tag. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Tell us how you really feel. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't give a hoot about the tag. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris, what's your desire? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Leave it in. I'm comfortable with it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I'd leave it in, but I will tell you that with that yellow tag on the car, you will be hearing about where that car is. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't care. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Not an all bad thing, I guess. COHMISSIONER BERRY: It is. Oh, you have no idea. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, like I said, we can mutually amend this down the road, but we do -- we did, I think we're avoiding the Jeep issue with this, anyway. And I have specified, by the way, he has seen a copy of what has come as a typical pool car. So there's no surprises there. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I just ask that one thing then, if we somehow work that so it's clear, because that was how they got into the Jeep fiasco in the first place, it was ambiguous as to what was a pool car and Neil's interpretation of that was any car that they bought was then part of the county pool and that was appropriate. And, perhaps, we can put some descriptive word in there to make it clear. I think your Lumina is an excellent suggestion, but some descriptive to make it clear that it falls within some mid-range category or -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What we're looking at is a county pool car and I guess the wording should be something to the effect of that is subject to existing purchase contracts for Collier County, because we don't have a purchase -- well, actually we do get Jeeps, we get the white -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, just pick a size, like a mid-size or a full-size sedan. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Wait a minute. If he wants to drive out in my district, which is out, you know, in less then -- in some of the areas, the roads are less than desirable and we have a lot of water out there and he's going to be driving around, I certainly don't want him taking a Chevy Lumina out there. I don't think it's an appropriate vehicle to be driving in that kind of roadway. I would hope we have use of a Jeep. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's just put a dollar cap. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In those rare occasions, I suspect we could use one of the county Jeeps that already exists. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Are you going to write that in there? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Wait, wait, wait guys -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just put a dollar cap. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I just try with a common sense standpoint here? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. I'm afraid that's not allowed. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There is nothing that prohibits our county manager from using anything in the fleet, as necessary, to do his job. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Then why don't you just put it in there then? I mean, otherwise you're limiting -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But that doesn't require him to use a Jeep every day. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, God, let's not -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: What's the big difference, Tim? I mean, come on '- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: About 8,000 bucks. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This board spends a lot of time talking about Jeeps so let me suggest language -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: He's got a fixation on Jeeps. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me suggest language that he will be allowed the use of the county pool car, limited to a base model with electric package, which we -- okay, for exclusive and unrestricted use. It's a base model with an electric package, we order those all the time and it doesn't say allow all the frills and bells and whistles. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Does it have air conditioning? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm not gonna -- I mean, this is silly. COMMISSIONER BERRY: It is silly. Yes, it is. It's ridiculous, Mr. Chairman. I agree with you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We leave it -- I'll tell you what, if we're gonna poll the board, I'm for leaving it just like it is as written. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So am I. To me the use of the county pool car means one that exists and we have enough on the record that that's what the contract intention is. COHHISSIONER BERRY: Absolutely. Move along. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. There's three. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think he'll understand that they'll be coal raking if a Grand Cherokee is bought. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed. We even talked about that, by the way. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So he's aware of it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, and I did show him a copy of what we were envisioning, or what I was envisioning with those, like the Lumina example. Section 14, vacation and sick leave. Questions, changes? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: None. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Section 15, disability, health and life insurance. Commissioner Constantine had mentioned that a two times cap was consistent with what Mr. Dotrill had. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, with Neil I think it was an additional 100,000, which is roughly two times and this says three times. I don't know what the difference in insurance cost there is, but -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Probably for term-life at his age isn't much. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's nominal in the overall scope and, again, that's something that he arrived at. It's -- it should have been -- I don't see it. I had a sheet for Mr. Walker. He put those numbers together for me. I have long-term disability from him. That's what we're talking about. Okay. At -- no, that's long-term disability based on -- Term-life. I did have a sheet on it. It was just over $1,000 for a year, for three times. Mr. Walker, can you give us some input on that? MR. WALKER: Jeff Walker, Risk Management Director. I think the rate was about $1,900 a year for 360,000. I would say if you cut it to two times, you're talking about, probably around a 600 or 700 reduction in that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm fine as is. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: If that's what's been agreed to for 600 bucks. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. MR. WALKER: While I'm here I would make a suggestion that you may want to clarify that portion of the contract to determine whether its term or whole-life. Just so that that's clear. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What was your quote based on? MR. WALKER: My quote was term. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We'll just insert term-life insurance for employee shall be provided at. MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, Jeff has also provided a couple other very good notes here, and he is asking is it the board's intention to waive the waiting period for health insurance that employees would have generally? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think because it's a contract situation, I think that's appropriate. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, the intent is to do that. MR. WEIGEL: And another question, or potential phrase to add would be whether the board reserves the right to purchase life and insurance benefits through its group program as an outside vendor. He notes that there may be a portability problem with life insurance, if the six months' separation provision is used. You may want to respond to that a little further, Jeff. MR. WALKER: I think it might be appropriate to put a phrase similar to that in there where the board reserves for itself the right to purchase this coverage through an outside vendor, an outside carrier, other than its group carrier. Because you've got a provision in here where you continue coverage for six months after termination. Our term-life program is not portable as term. It has to be converted to whole-life, which means if you follow through under our group program that policy is going to cost you three or four times the 1,900. So I think by reserving that right, if separation occurred, that six month cost would be a lot less to you if you purchased from an outside vendor. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, what would the annual cost difference be? MR. WALKER: I don't know. We would have to get quotes. I was just more concerned about that, you know, the separation issue. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed. Assuming there's a substantial difference in cost, I don't see -- I don't have a problem with that. MR. WALKER: I was just concerned that you get yourself locked into having to convert something to a whole-life policy at separation. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't want to do that. I don't want to go to a whole-life policy at termination. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have a question about -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- the county manager also has the option of participating in the County Leave Bank. Do we want to put a little more there, Mr. Weigel, about, you know, in the same manner as others or refer to some -- is the County Leave Bank a defined term, blah, blah, blah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It is an HR policy and there is a minimum requirement to the Leave Bank to participate. So he has to accrue it before he can participate. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just mean was it adequately legally drafted so that it refers to the appropriate -- MR. WEIGEL: You mean identification? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. MR. WEIGEL: Leave Bank, you mean use the words Sick Leave Bank or just Leave Bank for that -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We don't have to talk about that one much, just be sure that it is. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. This also -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That it references the appropriate HR policies. MR. WEIGEL: This last sentence here about the Leave Bank, of course, refers to -- references back in essence to paragraph six on disability, where you had a previous discussion about the utilization of a person's sick leave, accrued sick leave, and to the extent that the county manager may be participating in the Sick Leave Bank, may have some additional days that tack on, and again if you attempt to read this agreement, different provisions of the agreement together, that's what I think the agreement is intending. Mike mentions that the Leave Bank is administered by the EAC, the Employees' Administrative Committee, I think it is. And it's voluntary, but also subject to the approval of the employee committee that runs it, for the individuals that wish to participate. MR. HCNEES: Pointing out that it's -- that the time is dispensed at the discretion of the employees themselves that are representatives and that you're putting him in -- that's maybe an awkward position. I know it may not be of concern. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I explained to him that he's included in the -- with the same provisions all other county employees in that. Sick Leave Bank can explain the total bank to him, and it allowed us to drop something else out of the contract that had a cost associated with it, and he was content with that. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Fine. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Section 16, retirement. Again, Mr. Dotrill was at two and a half percent when he left. I -- you know, this is the one area of the contract I feel like I need to say something about because, you know that I'm not really happy with, because one of the reasons for deferred compensation retirement or the ICHA-RC retirement plan is the portability. Because many times you're in a municipality two or three years, or another place six or seven years, you may never become vested. Mr. Fernandez is, in fact, vested in the State Retirement System. So the contribution on that side based on his salary, he's already -- he's contributing to a system he's vested in. So I felt the five percent was not necessary in deferred compensation. It's what he has had in other places, what he requested and, again, on an annual basis, the difference of a percent or two and a half percent is not dramatic, but I had it at four percent originally and I just -- I guess, the fact that he's already vested in the State Retirement System leads me to believe that could be a lesser amount, but that -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to see us keep it consistent with the same thing we've done for at least ten years. I mean, that's 3,000 bucks a year that we'll save that way and I think it's still fair to him. We put a good piece of change away for him, but I don't think we should be bound by a number that the Alachua County Commissioners decided on because that's the one he's used to. I think we should stay consistent with what Collier boards have done in the past. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How does it compare to what -- I don't know anything about our -- and this is not particularly relevant, but, about our retirement. If you're on this board for eight years you get some portion of your salary put away for the State Retirement Program. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, the portion we pay is around 17 percent of base salary and we are required to do that. We don't have a choice and that requirement is accrued at a rate of three percent a year, ten years to become vested, unless you're an elected official. I think it's only seven for elected officials. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Eight. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Eight. Is it eight? COHMISSIONER BERRY: Two terms. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So you retire at a rate of three percent per year of service, once vested, and that retirement occurs at age 65; am I correct on that, Mr. Salmon? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just wondering if, you know -- obviously -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We're on the same system basically. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. I guess I think we're under compensated for this job and that our retirement benefit might be -- I don't know how that comparison should be made. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Why don't I make a suggestion that we write this as four percent. That gives everybody -- makes everybody compromise a bit. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's smack in the middle of what he wanted and what we had for Neil, more or less. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just ask why we're -- why the increase? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You mean from the two and a half percent? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Is there a reason why we want to increase? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Other than to, you know, get a satisfactory contract to both parties. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I suspect if it comes back with a car and $120,000 and everything else at two and a half percent, he'll still accept the contract. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have a suggestion of four percent. I agree with four percent. We have a suggestion at two and a half. What's the balance of the board's desire? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just looking for the rationale of increasing and I haven't heard anything. Maybe you can convince me, but -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm not bothering to answer that, so I can't tell you. You know, it's something that he and I talked about and he felt very strongly about. So I looked at overall impact and, again, I wasn't going to be a deal breaker in forming a contract to bring to this board. That wasn't my job. So, you know, that's something that he specifically requested. We discussed. I tried to argue it at four percent and he felt very strongly about it. So that's why it's in here. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess my concern on this isn't directed at you, just kind of in general is everything we've said today is in reference to what he would like, what he would like, what he's asked for and there are two sides to negotiation and we've got to be representatives for the county here, and I know you've already done a lot of the bargaining, back and forth, but I don't know, at some point it seems like we ought to show some consistency with what we have done in the past, rather than simply say, he would like this, so okay, we'll give an increase. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, I'm sorry, I didn't make a list of things I didn't give him or things that I told him -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I realize you've been through the process and the four of us haven't. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. There were deal points that he asked for that I said there's no way it will fly and those went out the window. So some of that has happened. Again, let's just come to an amount here. We're somewhere between two and a half and four percent. Where's it gonna rest, folks? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I understand that his -- that retirement, frankly, is a very big factor for him and this decision, and I'm comfortable with the four percent. I trust that we've negotiated ourselves to that position. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have three at four percent. COMMISSIONER BERRY: CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: would be $4,800. COMMISSIONER BERRY: As opposed to otherwise half of that is $2,400. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A difference of about $2,000 between the and a half and four percent. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: COMMISSIONER BERRY: to -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: COMMISSIONER BERRY: splitting hairs here. What is it, $4800? It's four percent of base salary, so, yeah, it two CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have three members at four percent, four members. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, we do. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Dues and subscriptions. Questions, comments on that section? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: None. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman, was there any discussion with Mr. Fernandez in regard to compensation, say if he is required to -- some people come into town and he's required to take them to lunch. Was there any discussion about what transpires in that particular situation? Because in the past, I remember, I think, reading about some things, that there was some concern. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, the only thing I can remember about luncheons and concern was being taken to lunch and addressing it as comp time. I don't know of any instances in which our county manager has had a need to take anyone to lunch. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think a lot of that is addressed in the county manager ordinance; isn't it, Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Well, some of it is, and we also have a separate ordinance, 87-5, which although a little deficient and probably needing to be added to, does provide for some of those kinds of things. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That may be the place in which we can -- because this does reference that ordinance, so if there needs to be a change in that operation, that may be the way to address it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can you give us a copy of that; 87-5? MR. WEIGEL: 87-5 is not the county manager. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No, 93 -- MR. WEIGEL: Yeah, it's the payment for extra duties and compensation and volunteers and stuff like that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to see that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Section 18, professional development. Questions, comments? Okay. Section 19, indemnification? Section 20, bonding? Section 21, other terms and conditions? Section 22, notices? Section 23, general provisions? And we are to the end of the contract. There have been, as we've gone through this and, Commissioner Mac'kie, you may still feel the need to take a week and look at this. I personally don't. I think we've gone through on an itemized basis to the point that we are either ready to approve what's before us in revised form or not. Or 6,000, if you leave it as it as. Yeah, but I think we're getting down to 3,000 or 4,800. I think that's -- I think we're getting down COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: We'll see the contract back on the agenda, won't we, with the changes incorporated? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me make a suggestion. Why don't we approve it in concept today, and that way everything can be done. We make an offer -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, certainly. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- get him rolling and then we'll see the final printed format in case there's something, either Mr. Weigel has mistakenly written wrong, or whatever we catch, but at least we'll have the ball rolling. COHMISSIONER BERRY: And he may have some concerns. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Pardon me? COHMISSIONER BERRY: And he may have some concerns. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Maybe, but my feeling is, we approve a contract in form and offer it. Either he accepts it or doesn't. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think we've done -- you know, I've tried to do all the negotiation I can to bring the deal points out and this board has said what it's comfortable with. I don't feel like coming back and jockeying with the contract again. I think we offer it in form and go from there. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, are you clear on all the changes that we agreed to this morning? MR. WEIGEL: I believe that I am, and I can check the record rather quickly, I think, also. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm sure we have some public speakers, but I'd like to make a motion. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Why don't we go to public speakers, Mr. HcNees. MR. HCNEES: You have one registered speaker. Ty Agoston. MR. AGOSTON: Morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Ty Agoston. I live in Golden Gates Estates, and I'm essentially speaking for myself. I really don't want to second guess you because that's a tough business, to negotiate a contract, but it seems that the basis of comparison here, is you're comparing a new unknown, performing manager to a known and proved to be excellent previous manager. Mr. Dotrill has achieved a distinction of being invited into the private sector, which normally and routinely pays higher than the public sector, as well they should. I don't believe that your new manager should be earning the type of a job -- the type of money your previous manager who left through the private sector, primarily because, either what you're saying here is that you were either stealing from Mr. Dotrill for the past few years by underpaying him or you're -- or trying to invite a new person in here and from the news accounts I received, this gentleman was essentially fired from his previous position and he made $100,000. So you're giving him a 20 percent plus increase from a non-existent current job, but again all this is essentially not important. Hy basic objection here is that you're comparing a known excellence to a relatively unknown factor. Thanks very much. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we direct Mr. Weigel to incorporate the changes that we've discussed here today on each of those items and forward that contract to Mr. Fernandez for his acceptance. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have a motion on the floor. Is there a second on the motion? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to second it and I'm going to say this, there are three points in the contract that I've made clear that the compensation is too high, but that is not to reflect in any way on the job I think our candidate can do. I think he's an excellent candidate and I will defer to the majority of the board as far as those individual items, and I want to second the motion because I'd like to get him in here and put him to work. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine, you've done exactly as I hoped we would do today. I knew there were gonna be individual points that a member may be uncomfortable on, but in the overall scheme of things, I think it's important that this individual start this position with the full support of the board and full agreement on the contract in general, maybe not so much in specifics. So I appreciate your comments in that regard. Is there discussion? Seeing none -- there's discussion by Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: Yes. Just one more point and that is under Section 23, at the end of the agreement which provides for an effective commencing date, as well as a termination date, which will be four years to the date thereafter. If you can provide me that date, I will write that into the agreement we draft. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: June 1st as per my discussions with Mr. Fernandez. He'll be ready to start the job on June 1st and that's another thing about that allowance is it -- it gets him here quicker than it would have otherwise, but not to try to make a point. I'm sorry, inappropriate. I'm sorry, I thought I was providing further explanation, don't need to sell it, he seconded the motion. Any further discussion on the contract? All those in favor will signify by saying aye. Opposed? Seeing none, motion carries unanimously, and Mr. Fernandez should receive a revised via facsimile today, later today, or early tomorrow with a hard copy being overnighted to him, Mr. Weigel, if we would do that, please. MR. WEIGEL: If you could give me an address, that would be fine. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have that -- Ms. Edwards has that in her office, so we will do that. To my colleagues, thank you for both your trust and hard work on this. I hope that what I've done will bear positive fruit and I won't be remembered as the guy who wrote the contract. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Unless it's just accoladed and adopted as a form state wide. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Then I'll never be remembered that way so, no, I doubt that'll happen, so. Okay. Next. Let's see. We are to public comments on general topics. Mr. HcNees. PUBLIC COHMENT - TY AGOSTIN REGARDING PREVIOUS OPPOSITION TO A PROCLAMATION HR. HCNEES: You have two speakers. The first is Gilbert Erlichman and Ty Agoston. MR. AGOSTON: Sorry about a back to back response, but on April the 22nd, I protested a FoCuS Proclamation. At that time, the discussion ended by Mr. Chairman telling me that I was wrong. I thought about that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, qualify that, I said, in my opinion. MR. AGOSTON: You didn't, but it's immaterial. I took it as such anyway. You -- one of you also, Mr. Constantine, have compared FoCuS as TAG, and that is the comparison that I most strenuously want to respond to. I consider TAG unlike any other organization in a county and I'm going to read you, ladies and gentlemen, the mission statement of TAG. It says we will strive to improve the operation of government at all levels; local, state, and federal, by making it more cost effective. Our emphasis will be on fairness of taxation, containment of taxing and spending, plus the elimination of waste. We will attempt to do this by investigating particular items and practices, by educating our membership and the general public and our elected officials in order to bring about needed change. Now, this is the most important thing that I consider in this mission statement. We are not a special interest group seeking to bring pressure to utilize taxpayers' funds for specific purposes. We are not here to induce you to spend money. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ty, I apologize, but again we have to tie public comment into board action either current or future, not a response to a comment a commissioner made. That's a personal correspondence. So we need to tie this in, somehow. MR. AGOSTON: Into what? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Into something this board is gonna deal with. MR. AGOSTON: You were dealing with FoCuS. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, sir -- MR. AGOSTON: And I'm comparing -- you have made a comparison from FoCuS to TAG. Now, I consider FoCuS a special interest group. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Agoston, I again have to say, that was a comment by an individual commissioner in response to yours. If you wish to address that commissioner on how you feel TAG has a role in the community, that's fine, but this board does not take action regarding TAG. MR. AGOSTON: You're not -- I don't ask you to. What I am asking you to do is to take an action in regards to FoCuS. CHAI~ HANCOCK: Okay. Then please do that. Make that request. MR. AGOSTON: Okay. I consider FoCuS a special interest group. As a matter of fact, somewhat a shadowy government who's operating behind the public sector, that you could examine and they are essentially taking what I would consider -- what we used to consider in business a mother-in-law serving. What I mean by that is they go around asking, "Well, what's your opinion on a given issue?" There was a great deal of difference between what we are wishing for and what we can afford and a good example of that was the referendum last November on green space issue and on the jail issue where all the service came out that the public is positively behind it. However, when it came to paying for it, what we saw -- the substantial majority by which both of those referendums have lost. Now, we have this habit of re-examining the results of these referendums like the Gordon River Bridge was -- well, they voted on the wrong location, and we are talking now about that the public did not vote against the jail and did vote against the work release. They voted against spending money, but, you know, you can rationalize it any way you want, but the fact of the matter is, that I see FoCuS essentially looking to spend money and be more intrusive to our lives and I don't believe that we should be. I think the best government is the least intrusive one. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm not going -- Mr. Agoston, for your reference and future reference, I'm not gonna allow members of an organization to stand there and criticize other organizations. That's not in this board's purview. If you want to request this board to withdraw a proclamation issued regarding FoCuS, that's an appropriate request because that deals with board action, but I won't let someone stand up here and talk about abortion rights. I won't let someone stand up here and talk about how they think TAG is a waste of time or how they think FoCuS is a waste of time. That's not an issue for this board to -- not in the purview of this board, so please, in the future, your personal feelings about FoCuS are yours, sir. I encourage you to express them in the proper medium, but this isn't it. MR. AGOSTON: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. With that, we are to noontime. We'll take one hour for lunch and return at one o'clock. (Whereupon, a recess was had from 12:00 until 1:00.) Item #12B1 PETITION PUD-92-9(1), AGNOLI, BARBER AND BRUNDAGE, INC., REPRESENTING J. D. NICEWONDER REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE IHMOKALEE ROAD CENTER PUD FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADDING A USE OF THE PROPERTY FOR A FIRE PREVENTION TRAINING AND FIRE/PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF IHMOKALEE ROAD IHMEDIATELY EAST OF SA_M'S CLUB WAREHOUSE - TABLED UNTIL THE MEETING OF HAY 27, 1997 CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good afternoon. Going to -- coming back to order the Tuesday, May 13th meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. The first item on our afternoon agenda, as soon as I find it, is Item 12-B(1). 12-A(1) was continued. We are to Item 12-B(1), Petition PUD-92-9(1), Agnoli, Barber and Brundage representing J.D. Nicewonder. Good afternoon, Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Good afternoon, members of the board -- MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. MR. NINO: -- Ron Nino for the record. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me, Mr. Nino. Mr. Weigel, you have something. MR. WEIGEL: Yes. I would ask that all of the PUD or rezoning matters and the conditional use matters, that the parties to speak or testify be sworn in. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I'd like to ask all individuals here to speak on Item 12-B(1), whether you be petitioners or just citizens, if you plan on speaking on this item, please stand and raise your right hand. That would include all registered speakers for Item 12-B(1). Madam Court Reporter, would you please swear in the individuals? (The speakers were sworn). CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. Anything else, Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: No. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Nino, please continue. MR. NINO: Yes. Ron Nino, for the record, presenting Petition 92-9(1) being a petition by the -- by Nicewonder; Mr. Nicewonder really on behalf of the North Naples Fire District to amend the Immokalee Road Center PUD. The effect of the amendment would be to add as a permitted use, in addition to all of the uses that are now permitted within this PUD, the following: public administration and -- and the addition really is the underlying, and fire prevention training and fire public safety facilities as a use to be authorized in this PUD. The Immokalee Road Center PUD is located on the south side of Immokalee Road immediately east of Sam's Warehouse. On the east side of this PUD, there is existing commercial development in the form of an office building and a convenience type of gas station. To the south and east of the property, there are contiguous residential lots fronting on Winter View Drive and on the south end, lots fronting on Curling Avenue. The -- the natural conditions of the Immokalee Road Center PUD are such that when that PUD was approved, a major piece of the east side of that PUD was -- were -- were classified as jurisdictional lands, and therefore, placed into a preserve, conservation type of requirement, and that a larger scale -- that is reflected on this map here. This being the Immokalee Road Center PUD. This being the portion that would have to remain as -- as open space. It's an interesting or it's -- it's interesting that -- that that is about 220 feet wide, and it abuts residential properties on Winter View which are deeper than you would normally expect. Those lots are in the neighborhood of 220 feet deep. So that in terms of the buildable area of the Immokalee Road Center PUD, you have about 400 feet of separation between single family development and potential commercial development of the type permitted by this PUD now, perhaps with the addition of the fire station. To the south -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me. Really, the crux of this request, as I understand it, is the inclusion of a single use for a training facility there, so all of the -- I assume what you're building to, as I read the staff report, is that the commercial uses, there are sufficient buffering and so forth. We probably can kind of do a cut to the chase on this one on -- on what specifically allows for the compatibility of what is being proposed. MR. NINO: Thank you. I -- I always like you cutting to the chase. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I'd like to point out that it's the preparation of the staff report and the reading of it that allows us to do that. MR. NINO: Yes. We -- in terms of the compatibility, the report points out that if you looked at the uses that are now permitted in this PUD, they are far more intensive, have a far greater impact on level of service relationships than the fire station would have, and, for example, we did a couple of scenarios, one which would have a shopping center. Given -- given the size of this property, a hundred thousand square foot shopping center could be built on this property, and if so, that would generate 7,067 vehicles a day. I think it's safe to say that the fire station training facility would generate nowhere near that type of average daily traffic, but we certainly think that this use is not any more obtrusive. We think it's a lot less obtrusive than the potential uses that are now permitted in this PUD. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I'll save my specific operational request for the petitioner because I do have some concerns over the location of a burned building adjacent to -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Housing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- housing and so forth, so I just want to discuss those things with them. I'll assume in your compatibility that you received information on the characteristics of those types of operations, like what are the impacts of a burned building? I may be the only person on the board that's gone through any fire fighting training, and depending on how they do it -- I mean, not to exclude the fact that Commissioner Berry may very well be a certified firefighter, but -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, I'm not. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- but I just -- I know that the ones I went through, they used diesel fuel as an ignition source, and it produced some pretty gusts of smoke. MR. NINO: Well, we'd have to leave that type of expert testimony to the applicants. Let me add before I conclude, however, because we -- the timing didn't permit us to include the planning commission's recommendation. The planning commission did hear this petition and unanimously recommended its approval. No person spoke at that meeting or communicated any level of objection to this petition. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Yes, Mr. Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: My question does relate to the timing, Mr. Nino. I -- it seemed to me that I remember this being recently scheduled for the 27th, and now I see it here today. Was I thinking of something else or was it this one? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I asked to have it moved up to today or called to Mr. McNees' office when I met with the fire chief and heard that -- saw their contract date. If it hadn't -- I think their contract for purchase date was maybe the 1st or something like that, and it -- it could have put them in a real bind to -- to have their hearing a few days before the contract expires. So, I called and said, is there some reason why this can't go ahead and be heard on this date, and next thing I know, here it is, so -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The advertisement in the paper listed what date as the date of public hearing? MR. NINO: Today. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, I did that -- MR. NINO: We had sufficient -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- some time ago. MR. NINO: We had sufficient window to advertise, and we responded to a request to do it for today's meeting. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So, it has met all the advertising requirements? MR. NINO: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, Mr. McNees; is that correct? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The public hearing won't in any way be compromised? MR. WEIGEL: No, the public hearing is not compromised because it's my understanding that staff can provide you with a CCPC recommendation who have heard it also through a public advertised situation. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Further questions for staff? Okay. Is the petitioner here, representative for the petitioner? MR. FARRAR: Yes. For the record, Brian Farrat, Agnoli, Barber and Brundage. We just wanted a minor change to the language of the PUD, and I think what Ron says stands on its merits. I don't think we have anything else to say unless we have to respond to public comment. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. This isn't a court of law. We don't have testimony -- MR. FARRAR: Sure, sure. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- and recross. So, if there is anything you feel you need to get on the record, now would be the time to do it. MR. FARRAR: I think the -- I think the statement about the burned building, Chief Tobin can address. There has been EPA requirements on how they do that now. It's a propane system, and it's a very clean system, and it's all self-contained. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. FARRAR: Besides that, I think we fall well within what Ron said regarding the use and traffic and everything else will be fairly reduced, and that's how we stand. MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Might I, because I asked the fire people to present their exhibits. I didn't take them at the planning commission, but exhibits were presented to the planning commission. I directed them to bring them back to this meeting and to display them so that they get into the record. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let's, if we can, post those exhibits for the purpose of entering them into the record, and we'll also need one copy of this for the -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We've got it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You have it, okay. Are there any questions of the petitioner or of the fire service? While they are setting that up, Chief Tobin, I do have some operational questions on the burned building. Good afternoon. The only burned building I've ever went through was in the Coast Guard, and we used diesel fuel as an ignition source. They just flooded the room and ignited it, and it was -- it was not real -- not real environmentally friendly, so I'm a little curious with a neighborhood being, you know, a couple hundred feet away, what kind of external impacts the burned building and other training apparatus will have. CHIEF TOBIN: You know, obviously, with the environmental concerns that are addressed in the United States today, the technology has grown so that these types of facilities do not have any impact whatsoever on surrounding areas. You know, we are excited about the -- about the fact that there's over 400 feet approximately from any people and also a lake to the rear. This building will be completely self-sufficient within inside and -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ken, you just failed easel 101, I'm afraid. CHIEF TOBIN: Not unlike what you're used to if you've been to any shows with the theatrical smoke, those types of conditions will be displayed in here. There will be actually -- you'll see no smoke from the outside whatsoever at this facility. It's completely self-contained. It uses smoke machines, theatrical smoke, and any type of simulation on heat is generated from propane; not unlike that anyone may have that you use at your gas grill at home. So, when we are burning our gas grills at home, you don't see any smoke, and again, that's -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You haven't seen how I barbecue, but -- CHIEF TOBIN: That's the food burning. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's a fact. Okay. CHIEF TOBIN: And you will not see any effects whatsoever from -- on this building. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A second question that I have is -- the facility, as I read through the report, is not just for -- it's not being designed just for North Naples Fire Station -- Fire District. It -- it will allow training, joint training from other stations and so forth. I start to picture a scene with joint effort and a lot of engines and so forth, and the radios on and so forth. Any concerns there about noise, because when you stand at a scene, one thing you hear is you hear a lot of radio traffic, and it has to be loud enough for the on scene people to hear? Is that going to be -- is that a concern? Has it been addressed so that the adjacent residential areas aren't listening to that on a regular basis? CHIEF TOBIN: Again, with the buffer zone around there and, also, the hours that the facility is in operation, and even if we were to do something, let's say, at night -- well, I won't even go into that. You know, the magnitude will be, for example, maybe a single engine or a ladder company operating at a particular time, not six or seven or eight different types of companies operating at the same time. Again, having control of the situation, again, practicing in a controlled situation, a lot of the communications will be done with people verbally talking to each other as to what's going on, what's happening. Again, people operating inside the facilities will be, for example, in rooms so that there will be no impact on noise on the outside. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Mac'Kie, did you have some questions? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. Actually, you asked mine. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Tobin, Chief Tobin? Seeing none, do we have registered speakers? MR. McNEES: Yes, you do. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. McNEES: Your first speaker would be Robert Sommer followed by Terri Tragesser. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I am -- I'm a registered speaker on that issue also. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But, sir, sir, we -- everyone who is registered will have the opportunity to speak. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He's just calling them in order. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The first name is the person speaking. The second is in the on deck circle. MR. SOMMER: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Bob Sommer, and I'm a North Naples person, taxpayer. Last week I attended a commissioners' meeting. I was asked to come because there were a number of citizens who are very concerned about this -- the planning on this fire station and -- and training facility. Unfortunately, I did not know about any meeting that the fire -- the fire chief had with the planning commission. Otherwise, I certainly would have shown up for that too, and I apologize for not being there. I'm -- I'm here to ask that you postpone this until at least June which will give the people of North Naples an opportunity to get a little more information and in-depth on this whole facility. When I attended the meeting last week, I was absolutely astounded that there was no financial plan offered, no answers to anything as to how much this thing would cost, how much the -- the running costs would be, who would pay for the joint training because I understand we were going to be host to other sections of Collier County. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me a second, Mr. Sommer -- MR. SOMMER: Yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- could I explain something here, and for everyone that intends to speak on this, the issue of the money is not a subject for the county commission -- MR. SOMMER: I understand that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- and I don't want you up there talking about it, Mr. Sommer, okay? MR. SOMMER: Okay. I'm not going to talk about it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Our issue from the county commission's perspective is simply we are being asked to make a conditional use or to amend a PUD, I'm sorry, and our only issue is compatibility and so forth that we would do under any land use issue. The money is not our subject, okay? MR. SOMMER: Okay. If you're going to do it -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So, we're not worried about it. MR. SOMMER: If this will develop into a terrible disservice to the people of North Naples, that is not a factor here? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It can't be for us. It cannot be. We -- that's -- you'd have to take that up with the fire commissioners who have control over that much of it. MR. SOMMER: We did -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Unfortunately, Commissioner -- MR. SOMMER: -- and unfortunately, nothing happened. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, Commissioner Norris is correct, in that because it's an independent fire district, by state statute, the actual financial operation of that district is not something, no matter how much we would like to or not like to be part of, we are disallowed from. So, the information you're presenting, although pertinent to the people that are affected, doesn't play into the land use decision, and that is the parameter that we have to make our decision within today. So, it's not that we don't care. It's not that we don't want to hear it or want you to be able to voice it, this just isn't the proper forum unfortunately. MR. SOMMER: All right. I'm sorry if I'm in error. It's -- well, let me ask this question. If you go ahead and -- and -- and grant the petition and the fire department is able to buy this land, there will be nothing we can do about it? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: From this board's standpoint, other than compliance with county regulations, that's the only enforcement element we would have with this or any other development once it receives its proper zoning. MR. SOMMER: And you cannot postpone this decision until, say, June? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We cannot postpone without -- without due reason, and that reason must apply to the elements of consideration this board has before it, and the financial elements, as Commissioner Norris has stated, are not under our purview. MR. SOMHER: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I -- I wish I had a different answer for you, but I don't. MR. SOMHER: Well, that's really not the answer I was looking for, but thank you. MR. McNEES: Your next speaker is Terri Tragesser who will be followed by Janet Vasey. MS. TRAGESSER: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Terry Tragesser, and I do reside in North Naples. Last night, the board of the second district addressed the information that we had at hand on the subject of a training facility being constructed in -- off of Immokalee Road on that proposed site, and it became quite clear during our discussions on -- on this subject that this was a land use issue requiring a good bit of understanding and information coming to the individuals who live in -- in the northern part of the county, and for that reason, we thought it would be very helpful to the residents of North Naples to have a town meeting and share with them and have the opportunity for the fire department and perhaps folks who have some other interests in this project to come forward and explain to the taxpayers just what the physical impact might be of a training facility on that site. So, as a representative of the second district, I've been charged with the responsibility of making a request to you today to please consider delaying a decision on this issue until approximately June 17th, and that would give us ample time to bring a forum to the public to hear all the issues relating to this subject. Thank you. MR. McNEES: Ms. Vasey who will be followed by Michael Kelly. MS. VASEY: Hello. I'm speaking to you today as a resident of the North Naples Fire District taxing area and also as a participant in the GNCA study that has -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Name for the record. MS. VASEY: Oh, I'm sorry. Janet Vasey. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. MS. VASEY: -- and also a participant in a GNCA, Greater Naples Civic Association, study that's looked into the whole issue of the training facility, fire station and administrative building. Now, this agenda item, as you already mentioned, was initially scheduled for May the 27th -- yeah, May the 27th, and it was moved up to today, as the executive summary says, due to certain time demands of the North Naples Fire District, and as you brought up, it had to do with the -- something with the contract, and we would like to ask for a continuance on this until June the 17th based on the fact that it is not in the best interests of the North Naples taxpayers to have this issue brought before you today. We'd like it to be pushed back so that we can have longer time to -- to consider land use issues as well as financial issues, and since their -- their argument was they had contractual interests that needed -- needed -- have you hear this today, we are looking at the other side of that, and we have other issues that we say it shouldn't be considered today. It should be moved back. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: When was the planning commission meeting on this? MR. McNEES: Last week. MS. VASEY: It was the 1st of May, I believe. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Hac'Kie, did you say there was a contract on the property for June lst? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: As I recall. Is that right, guys? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Why would we move a hearing from Hay 27th, which is prior to the contract date, up two weeks? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'll tell you what my thinking was is that if there were issues that came up that we needed to continue the hearing to get some resolution, that then those issues would be identified. These guys would kind of know what their options were instead of hearing on the 27th, close in three days or not. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yet, procedurally, the objections that I think people are here to state are not under the proviso of this board, so it's almost as if that -- that is now relevant because we -- to allow them to voice that is, it's outside of the context or outside of the operation of this board, and I'm just a little -- I guess I'm a -- I see us as being asked to be a stopgap here. I don't know that we have the right although we do have the ability. I'm -- I'm a little torn. Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: By law, the only issue we have here is a land use one that this board has the ability to deal with. The fire district though is a public entity as well, and what I would suggest is, whether we approve this -- if we do not, it answers the question today, but if we do approve this, if the contract date isn't until June 1, that public entity still has three weeks in which to deal with the public. I've got to assume that the fire commissioners and the administration would be willing to work with the public on feasibility issues before signing that contract. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I tell that that's part of the reason why I called and said, for heaven's sake, this -- this, in my judgment, is -- after hearing the presentation from the Chief about the impacts on the neighborhood is a simple land use question. Is this less impactful, if that's a word, on the community than what's currently permitted to go there; yeah? This is a net positive to the neighborhood from a land use perspective. That's all our jurisdiction is. Please -- I mean, you won't find a stronger advocate than me for -- that you get a lot of problems with fire districts and that this is a perfect example of, that you need to have some consolidation of fire districts and that we need to do something entirely different from what we are doing as far as who has authority over spending money in fire districts, but this isn't the forum for that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I guess -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: A land use question is easy. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I'm a little concerned that we artificially shortened that time frame, and maybe did so unnecessarily, because this discussion would have been going on in the community with a pending date of hearing kind of being a drop dead. If everything wasn't resolved by that point, then everyone knew where they stood at that -- I'm -- I'm just concerned that moving it up two weeks kind of artificially shortened that -- that public debate period that was preset and unnecessarily so since the contract date was after the 27th; not that your intentions weren't good, but the result is, I think some people in the public are feeling as if that hammer, if you will, that they thought was out there has been taken away from them, and they aren't going to get the same attention to those questions they would have otherwise. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It seems like the fire commission still has to make the call. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: They do, I just -- we've moved things up, but usually because the contract date required it to be moved up, and in this case, that -- that wasn't so, so that is a concern. I don't know what we can do about it, but I'd -- MS. VASEY: Well, I would like to make two points on that issue. We did call and -- I didn't get to talk all that time. We did call -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry. We used your five minutes, sit down. MS. VASEY: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Go ahead. MS. VASEY: We did call and found out that the -- that the scheduled date was May 27th, and we were -- we were working towards that end to get all of our issues resolved and -- and have public comment on things, and it was quite a surprise to find that it was moved up two weeks, and I don't -- I don't personally find their reason for moving it up compelling. Contracts can be renegotiated. You can get an extension to them. I think that this is much more important that the community has an opportunity to speak. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I agree wholeheartedly, but again, our only issue and the issue is going to be exactly the same, whether it's today or two weeks from now, is the land use issue. All the details as to whether or not it's financially feasible and whether or not they are going to do training with all the groups or just one group or whatever are fire district decisions. We don't have the authority over that, and so I would think in the three week interim before a contract was entered into -- I'm going to ask the Chief, I assume you'll work with the public on that in the next three weeks and try to iron those details out. CHIEF TOBIN: Well, in -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You know, I don't want to put you on the spot, but I mean, we are all here to work for the public, so -- CHIEF TOBIN: Through all the days, I guess the long hours and three days on a brush fire and those types of things, we have -- we've been working very closely with Janet and her group to provide everything that they've asked for us to provide them with and to the point -- and I'm going to try to say this -- the point of being -- saying, how much more can we give, and so it starts to get to the point where sometimes I'm not doing what I'm supposed to be doing. So, you know, we have the utmost respect for Janet and the people that are voicing their concerns. You know, the interesting thing is that -- we were speaking about it at lunchtime is that, you know, we need to get away from the them/us kind of scenario, because the fact is that we are there for them. I mean, if something were to happen here today, with somebody here, we are there for that person. So -- sometimes I don't know where to go -- go with this, because, you know, sometimes we just have to base things on our -- our -- our experience, our training, our understanding of the subject matter, our understanding of what needs to be done and where we need to go for the future, and -- and we are -- we are trying to cooperate 300 percent with these groups of individuals and will continue to work with them 300 percent. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just guess -- we are legally advertised. We have it in front of us. Let's go ahead and hear the land use issue. That -- that issue is not going to change in two weeks time. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Why don't we go ahead and complete the public speakers. I will say I have some reservation in -- in -- and it's in the perception category, and the perception is that this thing was moved up and, you know, may not allow organizations ample time to, you know, study an issue and bring questions to bear, you know, on a schedule that was presented initially. Like it or not -- you know, and whether we hear it today or the 27th, our issues don't change. I don't see our issues being fluid. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let me ask this since I was the one who -- who, quite innocently, frankly, and still think that it makes a lot of sense just to go ahead and answer this question of the -- the issues to be studied by the Greater Naples Civic and second district association I can't -- well, I'm going -- I am assuming that there aren't any really significant land use issues. There may be hugely significant issues, but none that need to be studied for presentation in this forum. You may well have a million issues for presentation in another forum, but this one is just about whether or not the land use is appropriate, and all the studying in the world isn't relevant to land use. MS. VASEY: Well, to be perfectly honest, as I'm sworn to be -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good. MS. VASEY: -- I don't know that there's a land use issue. We would probably be taking these next two weeks and looking more closely into that. The problem that concerns me is that it's my understanding that this contract has been signed. We won't have three weeks to deal with it. I -- I understand that the contract is signed, waiting for funding and zoning changes. So, it could be -- I may be wrong, but I understood that it could be in effect as soon as the zoning change passes. So, that would effectively take two weeks away from us to be working on any potential issues, and I grant you, we have -- we have none right now, but that doesn't mean we wouldn't in two weeks. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris, you had something. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, it would be just as appropriate at the end of the discussion, but the point is, Ms. Vasey is right, that the -- as a practical matter, if we approve the zoning today, the contract is done, and therefore, the deal is done. We have some citizens here voicing some concern that the schedule was advanced without, perhaps, their knowledge, and, therefore, not allowing them as full a discussion as they would like to have had. That's an important point to me. If the citizens are concerned that -- that something is being done that may not be 100 percent proper, that's a concern, and I -- I think we need to, at least, think about that during the rest of the discussion. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Was this hearing ever advertised for the 27th, publicly advertised, newspaper? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: moved ahead and -- MR. NINO: No, it was not. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: think that's the case. MR. McNEES: It was not. Because we keep hearing that it was -- people were misled, and I don't COHMISSIONER BERRY: Well, where did the 27th come from? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's the normal cycle that we schedule meetings for following a planning commission meeting. It's just practice. It's nothing -- it's not official, and it's not the first time. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But all legal advertisements, everything that's required of any public hearing was done for this one, and that was for Hay 13th? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's go ahead with the public speakers. MR. HcNEES: Your next speaker is Michael Kelly who will be followed by Dr. Fay Biles. MR. KELLY: Good afternoon. My name is Michael J. Kelly, and I live in Quail Woods Estates which is less than a half a mile from this proposed site. I'm not going to cover or recover all of the old ground. However, nothing that's been said in opposition to this basically do I disagree with. There are just a couple of quick other issues. I just want the commissioners to recognize that there is a modern full -- fully staffed fire station less than two point four miles down the road from this same proposed property; big deal, okay. The thing I am -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, it is a big deal. MR. KELLY: -- concerned about, however, I live less than a half a mile, and I see myself as being fairly cognizant of what's going on in my community. I want to just relate to you quickly in about one minute how I learned about this. I was at the car wash on the East Trail the other day having my vehicle washed. I overheard the owner of the car wash tell his wife, and I'm quoting fairly succinctly, make sure that you tell the kids don't buy that house in Regent Park. Well, Regent Park is very close to where I live, so I said, well, wait just a minute. I don't mean to interrupt, but why, and he said, well, because there's going to be a fire complex there including a training tower, and I said, oh, okay. Gee, I don't know whether that's good or bad. He said, I went through a situation exactly like this on Long Island where all of the drawings were beautiful, and it was to be everything anyone could want. When it, in fact, was constructed, one of the things that was discovered was that there was a huge cost connected with it, and it was completely under utilized. Therefore, in order to do the proper fiscal thing, it was advertised for use by other fire companies throughout and up and down the length and breadth of Long Island. It was so accepted by many of these other fire companies, and it became a noise, smoke, traffic nightmare. That's what I'm concerned about, and that, I believe, ladies and gentlemen, is a land use issue. Just one other thing, one of the gentlemen mentioned that the planning commission had approved this. No one had objected. Well, again -- and it may not be germane to this group. I approached 12 of my neighbors in Quail Woods Estates just very quickly, either by phone or in person, within the two days that I learned about this. No one in my neighborhood was even aware until I brought it to their attention that such a complex was in the planning stage let alone anywhere near this far along. I have no axe to grind with the fire department. Fire people are wonderful. I have no problem with a fire station. I have questions about the financing of same, but that's a totally different issue. I am concerned, however, about the possibility that this becomes a nightmare after the fact. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. HcNEES: Dr. Biles, and your final speaker would be Eric Watler. MS. BILES: Fay Biles, and I'm speaking for myself. I'm not '- I'm going to cut mine short, because evidently, mine is not compatible land use. I was going to bring up the subject of another firehouse on that particular thing because the North Naples control is still in the HPO thing, and in it says they want 16 fire stations by 2010. They want 26 acres. They want 89 vehicles, and 156 firefighters. That is still in the HPO plan, and I'm just wondering if this land use has anything to do with that land use. I -- I don't understand where all these firehouses are coming from and why, but that's a land use type of thing, and my other question then is, if this is passed today, is it -- it's a done deal? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Zoning is done. MS. BILES. Just the zoning is done? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Only the zoning. That's all we have authority over. MS. BILES: I want to make sure that's in the record; just the zoning deal. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's all we have -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All that we control. If there's a contract executed pending zoning, then that contract would become -- but that's not what we are here to approve or hear. MR. HcNEES: Your final speaker is Eric Watler. MR. WATLER: Good afternoon. Eric Watler, and there's some question being raised about whether the petition for Hay the 27th was advertised. In fact, it was. There's a document here with Mr. Hulhere's name, Mr. Arnold, Mr. Cantero's name on the same note. This petition has been advertised for Hay 27, 1997 BCC meeting. I see nothing like that to indicate that Hay the 13th was so advertised. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can we see what that is? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's the staff report. MR. WATLER: So, that's point one. So, I have to wonder whether -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would you hand that to Mr. Weigel? MR. WATLER: -- Hay 13th was in order. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sorry. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Did you need that back to continue your comment -- did you need that back to continue your comments, Mr. Watler? MR. WATLER: No. I would like to have it back sometime. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You can have it back. Just go -- please go ahead and continue. MR. WATLER: The other -- within the narrow confines in which we're talking about whether this is a deal or a done deal or relative to the land use only, forgetting all the other matters, if, in fact, time is given, permit us to go back to the advertised date of Hay 27th, then the public input may well discover -- as a result of that input may well be from their discovery that this facility is not needed, particularly in that location. That being so, there will be no need to make any change in the land use, and there will be a quick meeting two weeks from now, and my request is that you would observe that, bearing in mind that that could well happen. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Watler. It's in our -- our packet, it says May 27th also. I do have some -- did you -- MR. McNEES: Apparently, Chief Tobin had registered to speak and has asked if he could make another comment. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, come on up, because I'm going to have some questions anyway. CHIEF TOBIN: You know, it's -- as a -- as a taxpayer in North Naples, and just putting a $2,000 deposit down on a house in Regent Park, actually, we -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, you're building this close to home? CHIEF TOBIN: Right. I can walk to work, right? You know, I feel like the coach on Monday morning when -- when we've been diligently going out to wherever we could to talk to groups. For example, twice last week we went to Palm River. We spoke at St. Monica's. We are scheduled to speak this week at Naples Park. We've gone to Pine Ridge Association. We briefly spoke at second district. We have made it known that we are there to bring this out, and, you know, as far as it always being out there, there has been no hidden agenda. I mean, it's been in the newspaper. We -- we are putting out a pamphlet on it that we are starting to hand out to people, and we have made it known and quite known and actually have asked this group of individuals to address them personally of which we have not even been given that consideration to address that group on -- personally on the issues, only through documents and surveys and those types of things. I find it interesting as a taxpayer in North Naples that two out of the three people on this committee live in the City of Naples, and, you know, again, like I say, I feel like the coach on Monday, and the fact that -- you know, trying to be proactive, it's extremely easy to be reactive, and when your tasks in the morning and when you carry portable radios and pagers with you 24 hours a day, seven days a week and you're tasked with the task of being prepared for the hurricane, the tornado, the flood, the storm, the fire, the special rescue, and you see a group of individuals, firefighters and have their safety also in mind and see that we do not have a place as professionals and no different than a professional team to practice. For example, the Miami Dolphins can practice all week long for their game on Sunday. We don't -- we don't have that opportunity. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Chief, would you mind relating all this to the land use issue, please. CHIEF TOBIN: So, the training facility was put together so that we could have a place for firefighters to work and practice together. Now -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Chief, when you and I spoke a couple of weeks ago about this, you explained some of the -- the way the land use had been set up for compatibility and for -- to minimize any danger or to make sure that no danger existed. CHIEF TOBIN: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you just explain that a little bit? CHIEF TOBIN: We are extremely aware of the fact of the neighborhoods. I mean, we -- we -- you know, we have -- as going out into the neighborhoods, you know we have unanimous vote from the Collier County fire chiefs. We have letters from Palm River, Willoughby Acres. We've gone out and knocked on doors in the neighborhood, and we've been really trying to see what the feedback has been. Up until last week, I've had probably well into two dozen phone calls into my office all of which were very positive as to what we were doing. I have not -- I have personally not received one single negative phone call on this facility, none, and every group that we've gone into for the last month has not given us any negative feedback. So, you know, it's -- I feel like I'm caught in the middle sometimes, and whether -- how this goes or how it goes is that -- you know, we feel that we are not going to be an impact in the neighborhood. It will be a positive effect on the community, and we are diligently going to work with whoever we need to work with so that it is done right and people feel good about it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Chief, could you tell us, clarify for us the status of the contract? If this was to be heard on May 27th, would that void your contract? CHIEF TOBIN: What we had was a 90 -- 60 day window -- 90 day window, and June 1st, it's up. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Chief, my question is, Mr. Kelly's comments brought back to mind that every time I've gone out and -- and again, I have to go back to my experience in the Coast Guard, because I use gun ranges all over the place, and typically, the gun ranges and the fire training facilities are out in the sticks. I mean, I've never, of the half dozen ranges I've been to throughout Florida and where at least three of those had fire training facilities adjacent to them, they were kind of in the way out. They weren't in town, so to speak, and I have to believe there is a reason for that. What has changed dramatically in the last five years that would make it okay to put that in town now instead of on the perimeter? CHIEF TOBIN: Well, first of all, the technology has changed. You know, the reason they were put out in the sticks before is the fact that they were doing that. They were burning the pallets, the tires, the couches, the diesel fuel, you know, and there was -- and that was mainly the impact on the community because if you got a windy day and they were doing a lot of fire burning and training out there, there was an impact on whoever was living in the neighborhood. This here, you know, are modern facilities; again, theatrical smoke and, you know, the training tower is used for high-rise simulation, you know, high angle rescue simulation, the garden type of apartments. It's used for those type of operations. So, there's mock-ups of kitchens and living rooms so that fire fighters can -- can, you know, train, and the impact is none. You won't even see the facility from the road. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That was my next question. What is the maximum building height in this zoning? MR. NINO: Fifty feet. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Fifty feet, so five stories typically? Okay. What's the maximum height you anticipate your structures going to? CHIEF TOBIN: The one tower will be 49 feet high. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that's -- what's the size of that? How many square feet by -- I mean, how many -- what's the footprint of that? I'm trying to get an idea of the size. CHIEF TOBIN: That - that building there is going to be approximately -- 20 by 20, Brent -- 40 by 40 and about four and a half stories tall. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any questions for Mr. Tobin? MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman, might I -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: -- comment on how the date of Hay 27th comes about. Normally our staff reports are prepared in advance of any advertised public hearing, and that's procedurally. That has been the separation. We identify between planning commission and board hearing. It doesn't mean necessarily that they are advertised for those dates unless we follow through with that schedule. Unfortunately, we forgot to change the report to reflect that procedural change. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Constantine. Thank you, Mr. Nino. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It would probably be a good time to point out that I've had communication, both verbal and written, from both sides of the issue. However, my decision will be based solely on the information provided during this public hearing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie, disclosure. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Same. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Ditto. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And likewise, I've had discussions with both the fire service and interested individuals. Before we can go to a vote, we do need to make sure Commissioner Norris offer that disclosure if he's here. Are there any further questions for Mr. Tobin or the petitioner? Any other speakers, Mr. HcNees? MR. HcNEES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I guess -- you know, the problem is, two weeks from now the decision is the same, and I don't have a real feel for the use of this facility as far as how many trucks a day or week or the volume or -- I mean, was there a -- Mr. Nino, was a traffic impact study required for this? MR. NINO: No, there wasn't. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, because it was assumed that the impact would be less than the commercial acreage that could occupy the space? MR. NINO: Right, exactly. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There are some land use issues that -- or operational issues that need to be addressed. One is noise. The use of sirens for training purposes should be disallowed. Again, I would assume that's operational, but unless we write certain things in, I don't know that we can guarantee those -- those assurances. My problem is that regardless of how I feel about this being moved up, I think it should have been heard on the 27th as it was originally scheduled or anticipated to be scheduled, excuse me. The decision then, I don't see anything today that changes unfortunately. There's nothing here, based on the comments we've heard, that I have -- can find any reason why this should be denied. I would love to see a voluntary continuance to deal with some of the other issues, but barring that, I don't know that I have the opportunity or am able to require a continuance just because I'm not comfortable. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I'd like to see us go ahead for a couple of reasons. I think all the legal advertisement requirements were met. I think as far as the substance of the petition itself, traffic impacts are less, that's a positive. We can address some of the specifics, as you said, with noise, but, I mean, we've had half a dozen guys from a government agency sitting here all day. I don't think they need to do that again two weeks from now. The public isn't best served by that, and I think you're absolutely right, nothing of substance is going to change in two weeks on the land use itself. There may be some very viable economic questions. We don't have the authority to deal with those here, and so, Mr. Sommer and Ms. Vasey and all the others, if you have those, I would urge you to talk with your fire commissioners, but there were no land use issues brought up today that -- that question the compatibility that are viable. So, I'm going to make a motion we go ahead and -- have we closed the public hearing? I think we did. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I make a motion that PUD-92-9 is approved. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second to approve the amendments to PUD-92-9. I have a question for Mr. Nino on access. We don't really have a site plan, per se, in our package. It shows the build out access. Again, one of the things I like to do is look at the transportation impacts, and I need the site plan, and I don't have one. MR. NINO: I handed one out to each member of the board. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I have this. MR. NINO: Yes, that's it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No, that doesn't show me access. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The thing that's up right -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'll give you this. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Is the only access off of Immokalee Road? MR. NINO: It access off of Immokalee Road about in the middle of the project. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I want to amend my motion too. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion maker has requested an amendment. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I just want to make sure we include the point about noise that you indicated. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That for training purposes, the use of sirens will not be allowed? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Prohibited. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Prohibited. Okay. I appreciate that amendment. Does the second amend? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Agrees. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Second amends. Again, I don't have a comfortable feeling about the way this was handled, but I don't, from a land use perspective, really have anything at my disposal to say that it shouldn't be approved. So, I'm a little bit between a rock and a hard place. I wish I was elsewhere. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've got to just take some exception to that because it sounds -- you're uncomfortable with the way this was handled. This was a simple land use matter. They brought it to me. I said, gosh, why are you getting dragged around so much. Let's just get it going, and, you know, it's not anything complicated. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It is when you know that there is several individuals and several groups out there that have taken exception to action by that organization. Now, whether you agree or disagree with what the fire service is doing, and the fact of the building of a training center I support, but when you know there are people out there that are working toward something, to move it up unnecessarily -- and quite frankly, the movement was unnecessary, in my opinion. The 27th did not infringe upon the rights of the contract to be executed in a timely fashion, I think, you know, it can present a situation of expediting things unnecessarily to avoid the -- the battle that may be going on out there. Thatws -- thatws my concern, and quite frankly, if Iwd been asked to move it up, I wouldnwt have asked for it, because I donwt see a need. The 27th did not sacrifice this contract in any way, shape or form by hearing it on that date. So, thatws where I take exception, and itws not with you personally. Itws just with the fact that maybe -- I donwt know. Maybe Iwve heard more from people on this than you have, and maybe Iwm more aware of people being concerned about areas that it may not be our job to look at, but by moving this thing up in the hearing schedule, I think it carries a perception with it that I would not have wished to create. COMMISSIONER MACwKIE: I think it might carry that perception a little less if we could keep our focus on that the land use issues are the land use issues, and the point here is if you have a problem, go see your fire district commissioners, and -- and we need to make that clear that this board canwt be used to interfere with the legitimate duties of another board, and I donwt want to do that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And wouldnlt have been on the 27th either. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thatls fine to focus on that, but focusing on the fact that even our own material says the 27th, and that some people did expect it to be heard on the 27th, and that -- whether itls a major concern or a minor concern, itls a concern. Procedurally, I can offer something here to see if therels any support for the board. Iill -- Iill make a motion to table for two weeks. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Iill second that. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Therels already a motion on the floor as I recall. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thatls correct. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: All right, and this motion takes precedence over it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If youill let me run the meeting, sir. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Sure, no problem. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. We have a motion to table and a second. Any discussion on the motion? All -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can -- can I just ask reason? Is it just the perception question? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, sir, nothing -- nothing further. I have no problem with the land use issue. I think the land use issue is fairly clear here, and welve been given all sorts of assurances by the fire district that they are not going to create a nuisance, and welve put some safeguards in there, so Iim very comfortable with the land use issue itself. Whenever therels a perception that the public was left out of the discussion for even an inadvertent reason, I think we need to, at least, consider that, and that's why I offer that motion. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. Any questions on the motion? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In the event we continue it or table it at this point, I assume we pick it up at the point we've left off here until we -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, it's tabled. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, we will not -- when it's tabled, that means we will not re-hear the same discussions we have heard today. Basically, we'll come back for our decision. If there's new information to be presented that is pertinent, it may be presented, but we are not going to rehash what we heard today. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We're picking it up from this point. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm going to support the motion, particularly because I'm the one who asked for it to be moved up, and -- and if that has cut some people out of the process, then fine. If we don't have to go back through this discussion again in two weeks, so be it. We'll come back to it with a motion on the floor to approve. That's about as good an indication as you guys can get that from a land use perspective, you're going to get an approval with only the conditions you've heard about today, and if there are other issues, then that -- you know, so that gives you the comfort on your contract and gives these people the time to go out and talk to their commissioners about the appropriateness. So, I think that's a good compromise. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Please understand, Commissioner Hac'Kie, I was not trying to insinuate that there was some insidious move on your part -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Gee, I hope not. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- but just a relative -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I live in the district. I mean, he's not going to come to my house and ask for -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response). CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, motion carries five-oh. The item is tabled for two weeks. Again, we will pick up where we left off in -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: With a motion on the floor. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- this hearing with a motion on the floor in two weeks. Oh, that was certainly easy. Item #12B2 ORDINANCE 97-19, RE PETITION PUD-90-1(2), KAREN K. BISHOP OF PHS, INC., OF NAPLES, REPRESENTING PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE RICHLAND PUD FOR THE PURPOSE OF CHANGING THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR "R" RESIDENTIAL AREAS BY REVISING THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOMES FROM 7.5 FEET TO 5.00 FEET AND REVISING THE MASTER PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF IHMOKALEE ROAD (C.R. 846) AND C.R. 951 IN SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST - ADOPTED Item 12-B(2), PUD-90-1(2), Karen Bishop of PHS of Naples representing Pebblebrooke Lanes (sic) Limited Partnership. Mr. Nino, back at the mike again. MR. NINO: Yes. Ron Nino, for the record. The Richland -- the petition before you -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to have to ask you to have your discussions in the hallway, please, while we continue the meeting. Thank you very much. Mr. Nino, please continue. MR. NINO: The -- the petition before you is, I hope you will agree, is not of any substantive -- is not greatly substantive in its -- in character. The petitioner proposes to change a side yard from seven and a half feet to five feet, and because of additional permitting knowledge about the property, the jurisdictional preserve areas had to be reconfigured, thus causing a change in the master plan. So, we are doing two things, changing the development standard and adopting a new master plan for the Richland PUD. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This -- this -- MR. NINO: The matter has been referred to the planning commission. It's unanimous in their endorsement. There are no objections. Staff of -- jurisdictional staff has reviewed it, find no problems with the changes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I guess if people want to buy somewhere where the homes are ten feet apart, that's their business, but when people talk about, you drive to Hiami and you see what's along the interstate along the way, this is what causes that, allowing homes to be ten feet apart. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Welcome to -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Or side yards are five. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, you know -- MR. NINO: If I might, Mr. Chairman, it's a pretty common standard. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I know. I just don't like it. MR. NINO: In most of our PUDs, we insist on the -- the minimum we require is ten foot of spacing between single family houses and -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It doesn't impact the densities at all. I mean, it's still a limited number of -- MR. NINO: No, it doesn't change the density at all. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're right. I mean, I wouldn't buy it, but -- COHMISSIONER BERRY: similar one recently. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: COHMISSIONER BERRY: CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: to be consistent. COHMISSIONER BERRY: CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I believe we just did one of these, a I know. And I agree with you, Tim. But if I'm going to complain about it, I need That's right, you're consistent. Okay. MR. NINO: Ironically, some of our most expensive housing in Collier County got eight feet between them, ten feet between them. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, but they never go outside. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have a question. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I need to determine for -- positive if I have a conflict or not on this. Is the owner of this property Histers Werner and Will or is the owner of this property Pebblebrook something? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is the applicant the owner in this case? We need to hear from the agent then. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The application form is a little confusing because it has Werner and Will, and they are signing off on something, and they are clients of mine. I don't think they own this property anymore. MS. BISHOP: For the record, Karen Bishop. The applicant at the time we made the submittal was George Will and George Werner. I believe that George Will and George Werner still own several parcels of this and are not -- the only parcel that's closed is the 65 acres to the south of this -- on the south half of this parcel. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Then, just to be safe on this, Mr. Weigel, I'm going to abstain from voting. MR. WEIGEL: Okay, and if I could ask all people testifying here to be sworn in if they've not already been sworn. MS. BISHOP: I raised my hand before. Did that count? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, since we do have comments from Ms. Bishop, let's go ahead and do that. All -- all individuals testifying in this matter, please raise your right hand. Madam Court Reporter. (The speakers were sworn). CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Go ahead and -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Wait a minute. Are they married now? MS. BISHOP: No, I just wanted to answer your question. I'm done. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That would be a surprise to your wife, wouldn't it? MR. NINO: I've already been there. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You believe. Pay attention. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm going to close the public hearing. I -- I may come after these development standards in the future, but I can't because we -- we've really done it in the past and I don't want to be unfair, so -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There's a motion to approve. Is there a second? COHMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? Aye, just on the five foot thing. Thank you. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It failed. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Did you make -- did you say it was four-oh because I had to abstain? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's four-oh. Then I'm sorry. I'm going to -- I didn't -- I don't want to stand in the way of it. I was trying to make more of a statement there. So, I'm going to -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Recall the question. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- recall the question -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: For clarification. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- for clarification purposes. All those in favor of the original motion, say aye. Opposed? (No response). CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none. For future reference, I will be voting against those. Item #1283 ORDINANCE 97-20, RE PETITION PUD-82-26(2), BLAIR A. FOLEY OF COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC., REPRESENTING GATH, INC., REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE "THE VILLAGE PLACE" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT THROUGH A "PUD" TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REZONING ACTION HAVE THE EFFECT OF REPLACING THE MASTER PLAN WITH A NEW MASTER PLAN; RELOCATING THE ACCESS FROM C.R. 860 RIGHT-OF-WAY TO VANDERBILT DRIVE; REDUCING THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL TRACTS; INCREASING CONSERVATION AREA; AND MAKING OTHER REVISIONS TO THE TRANSPORTATION, ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT COHMITHENTS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; THE VILLAGE PLACE PUD IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF U.S. 41 AND EAST SIDE OF VANDERBILT DRIVE IN SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, AND CONTAINS 72.5 ACRES MORE OR LESS - ADOPTED Okay. Petition PUD-82-26(2), and am I just getting a little punchy up here or what? COHMISSIONER BERRY: Well, it is two o'clock. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good afternoon, Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: Good afternoon. For the record, Ray Bellows of current planning presenting Petition PUD-82-26(2). CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is a cut to the chase one, isn't it, Mr. Bellows? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, this is. This is a minor amendment to the PUD; basically, to relocate access off of Vanderbilt Drive and reduce the residential tracts from five to three. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Unless it causes heartburn, I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response). Item #13A1 RESOLUTION 97-235, RE PETITION CU-97-2, HICHAEL CONRATH REPRESENTING NAPLES RADIOLOGISTS, P.A., REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE "4" OF THE C-1 ZONING DISTRICT FOR A MEDICAL HEALTH SERVICE BUILDING FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD AND RIDGE STREET, FURTHER DESCRIBED AS RIDGE COHMERCIAL LOT 2 IN SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY .48 ACRES - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, we are to Item 12-B -- I'm sorry, 12-B(4) has been continued. We are to Item 12 -- well, C(1) has been continued also. To Item 13-A(1), advertised public hearings; I'm going to ask all individuals here to speak on Petition CU-97-2 to please stand and raise your right hand. Do we have a petitioner here on that item? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Apparently not. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We do not? Okay. Madam Court Reporter, would you -- well, since they are staff -- well, swear them in. What the heck. (The speakers were sworn). CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Bellows, hello again. MR. BELLOWS: This is -- for the record, Ray Bellows presenting Petition CU-97-2, Michael Conrath representing the Naples Radiologists. They're requesting conditional use 4 of the C-1 zoning district. Basically, it's for a 5,500 square foot medical office facility. It's located on the west side of Goodlette Road and north of Ridge Street. It's next to an existing medical office facility to the west. To the south, there is an industrial zoned property. To the east is Goodlette Road and the Wilderness Golf Course, and to the west is the -- as I stated, is a medical office facility. The project will generate a -- let's see. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Traffic of -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, a couple hundred trips per day. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Since we don't have a petitioner here, and we've all read the staff report, I don't see any sense in going through it. This looks like a great idea for the piece of property from my perspective. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: One question, this will be subject to commercial architectural standards? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: C-1 zoning, okay. I wanted to make sure. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are there any registered speakers? MR. McNEES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Close the public hearing. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second. MR. MULHERE: I just wanted to add very briefly that -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And you are. MR. MULHERE: My name is Bob Mulhere, current planning manager. I just want to add briefly that relative to this petition, in the upcoming LDC amendment cycle, we'll be bringing forward an amendment that proposes to allow medical offices in C-i, and I just wanted to put that on the record. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. We have a motion and a second on the floor. Any discussion on the motion? COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have not -- well, no, but I have a question about some wording in here that I'd like to -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Now would be a good time to ask. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. Where it says fiscal impact, when I was reading this, it says after the first sentence or second -- actually, third sentence, the mere fact that new development has been approved will result in a future fiscal impact on county public facilities. Will you tell me how this medical office impacts those facilities? MR. BELLOWS: Basically, any new construction will result in impacts onto roadways, and they have to pay impact fees. MR. MULHERE: Right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's got to be in there to justify the impact fees. MR. MULHERE: It could be positive impact in terms of taxes and -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. Because I guess I looked at it -- when you see impact, I guess the automatic thing that comes up, it's the negative, you know, and I'm going, how in the world is this a negative impact on public facilities. Anyway, that's my only question, but I understand it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any further questions? Seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response). Item #13A2 RESOLUTION 97-236, RE PETITION CU-97-E, ROGER LOCKE REPRESENTING FIRST UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE "3" OF THE "E" ESTATES ZONING DISTRICT IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH A CH8LD CARE FACILITY INCLUDING AN OUTDOOR PLAY AREA, AND TO CONSTRUCT A GYMNASIUM FACILITY FOR CHURCH FUNCTIONS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF COUNTY BARN ROAD AND WENDY LANE IN SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, we are to Item 13-A(2), Petition CU-97-3, Roger Locke representing First United Pentecostal. Again, I ask all members who are here on this petition to please stand and raise your right hand. Madam Court Reporter. (The speakers were sworn). CHAI~ HANCOCK: Thank you. Good afternoon. MS. MURRAY: Good afternoon. Susan Murray, for the record, current planning. I'm going to start over here. The applicant is requesting conditional use approval to establish a child care facility for a maximum of 50 children, and that will be within existing buildings on the site, and the applicant also desires coupled with that use to construct a 2,500 square foot playground area. I'll get into a little more detail in just a second. The applicant also has a desire to construct a 6,250 square foot gymnasium on the northwest corner of the site, and the site is located on the northwest corner of County Barn Road and Wendy Lane on the western side of County Barn Road. There's 317 feet of frontage on Wendy Lane and 322 feet of frontage on County Barn Road for a total site area of 2.35 acres, and it is zoned estates. Access to the site is provided by a driveway located off County Barn Road. This driveway leads to a 46 space existing paved parking area. To the north of the existing parking area, we have a 6,800 square foot 187 seat sanctuary which -- the rear of which -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me, Ms. -- excuse me, Ms. Murray, you've done a lot of homework here and maybe we can make your afternoon a little bit shorter. This looks like a -- somewhat of a no brainer the way it has been presented to us. Does anyone have any questions of staff or the petitioner on this matter? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Traffic impacts? MS. MURRAY: If I may, I just want to clarify one thing, and then I'll tie into the traffic impact question. The staff report you have indicates that the petitioner was in here originally for a school as well as a day-care facility and a gymnasium facility. After the planning commission public hearing and at the request of some of the neighbors, the applicant did amend their original petition, and now they are just requesting the day-care use. The traffic analysis was based on all three uses. The transportation department broke that out for the day-care at 198 average daily trips. CHAI~ HANCOCK: How many children? MS. MURRAY: Fifty children maximum. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Last time I checked at day-care, you dropped them off, you pick them up. MS. MURRAY: That would be about -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, two and two. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, each way is 2. Okay, okay, okay. I'll go look at that planning certificate on my wall; thank you. COMHISSIONER BERRY: You just don't drop them off, Tim. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: You have to pick them up. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I was thinking of my family. I drop her off in the morning. She picks her up in the afternoon. I'm sorry. Okay. Any further questions? Do you want to try and talk us out of this? MR. LOCKE: No, sir, I want to try to talk you into it. Also -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You may not have to. Your name for the record. MR. LOCKE: Roger Locke, I'm representing the church, and we did talk over with our neighbors, and everything is fine according to the stipulations that we have down here as to putting up fences or whatever they want us to do to comply with, we'll be glad to do that for the children's sake. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. That's something that is very helpful when you're in a developed neighborhood like that. I will close the public hearing. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response). CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, Ms. Murray, thank you. Item #14A DISCUSSION RE BEACH PARKING ISSUES We are to BCC communications. Commissioner Mac'Kie, you had some. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just wanted to report back that Marla Ramsey, the director of the parks and rec.'s department, met with Bill Harrison, assistant city manager, Gary Franco, Collier County park superintendent on the city/county beach parking issues, and they have so far come up with three possible solutions to the question that we had been discussing. One I think was reported in the newspaper, and it had to do with creating 50 new parking spaces on the south side of the park in what's currently green space. It's not very utilized. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Pave it, pave it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. Oh, no -- and have those new 50 spaces available only for county and city vehicles or to eliminate the meters in the third and fourth row of the parking and reserve spaces for city and county permitted vehicles or, perhaps, to create those 50 new parking spaces and reserve them only for city vehicles. The other option being, status quo, the way it had been. Our parks and rec. staff is recommending the first solution which is the new -- 50 new parking spaces that are available to city and county residents and suggesting to us that if we should go down that route, we would be wanting to pay for half of the improvements and the improvements for the parking and the paving that Commissioner Constantine so loves, but we'll be getting more information. I just wanted you to know they had met. They've gotten some ideas so far, and as they get more formalized, we'll be bringing them back to you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Of course, we greatly appreciate the city revisiting this issue, and thank you for that report, Commissioner Mac'Kie. We'll look forward to something from staff. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks. Oh, one more, one more. I said one, but I've got -- Item #14B MEETING OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS RE DAVIS TRIANGLE CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We'll go back to Commissioner Mac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just that tonight is the meeting of the residential property owners who are interested in the Davis Triangle revitalization effort. I want you to know that they're going to be here, and I found out from Katie this morning it's going to be on TV and will also be rebroadcast so that people who aren't able to be here can participate, at least by watching. So, that's great. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you remember back in '88 when that boat went down in the Davis Triangle? It was awful. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But I'm bummed. Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think we've had enough for today. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I do too. Commissioner Berry. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I don't have a thing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine. Item #14C UPDATE OF MIDNIGHT BASKETBALL COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I was shocked and surprised to see none of you suit up for the midnight basketball last week -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm ashamed. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and I have to say, despite the MVP efforts of Mr. McNees, the kids eked out a victory over us -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I thought it was this week. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- 42/28, so -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If that's eked -- no -- well, you know -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So, they get 50 percent more points than we did, but -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: By a paltry how many points? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, I appreciate you letting them cheat and letting them win. That was nice of you. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's the least we could do. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. McNees, a valiant effort. Anything to add? MR. McNEES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I want to recognize Mr. Weigel. He made himself available to me at a drop of a hat on all issues regarding the county manager employment agreement, and from my perspective, Mr. Weigel, a gentleman's work, and thank you very much for your best efforts on that. I think the result was something that made today's deliberations a little bit easier than -- than what otherwise could have happened. So, again, for your efforts in making yourself available, I, for one, am very appreciative and wanted that to -- to be noted. Did you have anything to add for today? MR. WEIGEL: No, not at all. I would appreciate if maybe you might be available at a drop of something later this afternoon so that I can show you the revised agreements so that we can send it out this evening. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I should be -- MR. WEIGEL: Or whatever your schedule is. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I should be -- MR. WEIGEL: Even telephonically would be great. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What is it; 2:157 MR. WEIGEL: Whatever you would like as far as that, we'll have it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Good enough. Ms. Filson, anything? MS. FILSON: Nothing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We are adjourned. ***** Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner Mac'Kie and carried unanimously, that the following items under the consent agenda be approved and/or adopted: ***** Item #16A1 - This item has been deleted ITem #16A2 RESOLUTION 97-232 RESCINDING PREVIOUSLY APPROVED RESOLUTION 83-12 RELATING TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY STAFF TO ACQUIRE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR A CONNECTION BETWEEN CYPRESS WOODS DRIVE AND GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD Item #16A3 APPROVAL FOR THE RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "GREY OAKS, UNIT TEN" - SUBJECT TO PERFORMANCE BOND AS SURETY, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT & STIPULATIONS Item #16A4 APPROVAL FOR THE RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "GREY OAKS, UNIT ELEVEN - SUBJECT TO PERFORMANCE BOND AS SURETY, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT & STIPULATIONS Item #16A5 APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "BERKSHIRE PINES, PHASE ONE" - SUBJECT TO CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT & STIPULATIONS Item #16A6 APPROVAL OF AN EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE (EHS) REFUND IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,250.00 RESULTING FROMAN OVERPAYMENT Item #16A7 APPROVAL TO RECORD THE FINAL PLAT OF FIDDLER'S CREEK PEPPER TREE VILLAGE AND BENT CREEK VILLAGE - SUBJECT TO LETTER OF CREDIT, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT & STIPULATIONS Item #16A8 APPROVAL TO RECORD THE FINAL PLAT OF FIDDLER'S CREEK, PHASE 1B, UNIT ONE - SUBJECT TO LETTER OF CREDIT, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT & STIPULATIONS Item #16B1 - This item has been deleted Item #1682 APPROVAL OF A HODIFICATION TO THE TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION FOR LIVINGSTON ROAD FROM PROGRESS AVENUE TO GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ELIMINATING A PORTION OF A PATHWAY ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF THE ROADWAY CORRIDOR - STAFF DIRECTED TO INCORPORATE MODIFICATION INTO FINAL CONSTRUCTION PLANS Item #1683 APPROVAL OF WORK ORDER NO. JEI-FT97-1, UNDER FIXED TERM ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACT WITH JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC., FOR THE DESIGN OF THE IHMOKALEE ROAD/I-75 INTERCHANGE SIGNALIZATION, IN THE AMOUNT OF $17,500.00 Item #16B4 - This item has been deleted Item #16B5 - This item has been deleted Item #16B6 ADDITIONS TO PETITION TM-96-012 FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM TO CALM TRAFFIC ON KINGS WAY WITHIN THE FOXFIRE DEVELOPMENT - IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $3,313.00 Item #16B7 APPROVAL OF MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS TO GENERAL FUND (FUND 001) RELATED TO STONEWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS - NET INCREASE OF $29,000.00 Item #16B8 APPROVAL OF MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS TO VICTORIA PARK DRAINAGE M.S.T.U. BUDGET (FUND 134) - NET INCREASE OF $3,200.00 Item #16B9 APPROVAL OF MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS TO PINE RIDGE INDUSTRIAL PARK M.S.T.U. BUDGET (FUND 140) - NET INCREASE OF $1,500.00 Item #16B10 APPROVAL OF MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS TO NAPLES PRODUCTION PARK M.S.T.U. BUDGET (FUND 141) - NET INCREASE OF $900.00 Item #16Bll APPROVAL OF MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS TO HAWKSRIDGE STORMWATER PUMPING STATION M.S.T.U. BUDGET (FUND 154) - NET INCREASE OF $1,100.00 Item #16B12 APPROVAL OF THE PURCHASE OF SUNSHINE VILLAGE PUD, NECESSARY FOR THE SIX-LANING OF AIRPORT ROAD, IN THE AMOUNT OF $310,000.00 WITH CLOSING COSTS OF $8,000.00 Item #16B13 AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO APAC-FLORIDA, INC., TO CONSTRUCT THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS IN MARCO ISLAND AT THE INTERSECTION OF BALD EAGLE DRIVE AND ELKCAM CIRCLE, PROJECT #62041, BID #96-2487 - IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $332,146.00 Item #16C1 BID NO. 96-2586 WITH FLORIDA SECURITY LOCKERS, INC., FOR BEACH LOCKER RENTAL SERVICES AT VARIOUS COLLIER COUNTY OWNED BEACH FACILITIES Item #16C2 APPROVAL OF A BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE GOLDEN GATE COHMUNITY CENTER FOR THE MIDNIGHT BASKETBALL PROGRAM, A SCOREBOARD FOR THE GYMNASIUM AND A PROFESSIONAL WRESTLING EVENT Item #16C3 APPROVAL OF A BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING RESERVES IN FUND 368 TO COMPLETE THE SKATEBOARD RAMSP FOR THE SKATEBOARD PARK PROJECT AT EAST NAPLES COHMUNITY PARK Item #16D1 RESOLUTION 97-233 AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR A LUNCHEON TO RECOGNIZE RECAP (REDUCE COSTS OF ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL) EMPLOYEES; FUNDS NOT TO EXCEED $500.00 Item #16El APPROVAL OF A CONTRACT WITH NET ASSETS, D/B/A NUVEEN MASTERS FOR $390,000 TOURIST DEVELOPMENT CATEGORY C FUDNS FOR A QUALIFYING TENNIS TOURNAMENT Item #16G1 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE FILED AND/OR REFERRED The following miscellaneous correspondence has been directed to the various departments as indicated: There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:15 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL TIMOTHY L. HANCOCK, CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING BY: Sherri Radin and Dawn Breehne