BCC Minutes 06/17/1997 R REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 17, 1997,
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in
and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning
Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as
have been created according to law and having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 9:06 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building
"F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
ALSO PRESENT:
Timothy L. Hancock
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
John C. Norris
Timothy J. Constantine
Barbara Berry
Robert Fernandez, 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 June
17 meeting of the Board of Collier County Commissioners. This morning
-- I'm sorry. I apologize, I didn't get your name ahead of time.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Reverend Harold Brown.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Reverend Harold Brown, is it?
Reverend Brown, thank you for being here this morning with us.
If I could ask you to grace us with the invocation followed by the
pledge of allegiance.
REVEREND BROWN: Our Father, we thank you for the day. We thank
you for the gift of the day. We thank you for health and strength and
daily food. And as we deliberate today to think of the letter of the
law, we also thank you for your endowing us with compassion and
understanding for all segments of those who are under the law. So
bless us with your guidance, and we thee thank. Amen.
(The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Reverend Brown, thank you for taking the time
to be with us this morning. We appreciate it.
REVEREND BROWN: Sorry I have to leave early. I have a funeral.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, we're sorry, too.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, Mr. Fernandez.
MR. FERNANDEZ: While we're handing out sorties, I'd like to add
mine. I recognize it was my responsibility to let you know the name
of the reverend that's here this morning for the invocation, and I
neglected to do that, so my apologies.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, the first week in the chair, you're
allowed one mistake. And I'm afraid that was it this morning, Mr.
Fernandez.
REVEREND BROWN: The fact is that the Lord knows all our names.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Good cover.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Brought into perspective quickly by the one
man of knowledge in the room. Thank you.
What changes do we have this morning, Mr. Fernandez?
I'm looking at only one on our sheet, and it's one that -- that
I'm a little surprised at, an item being advertised to be heard at
1:00 p.m. today.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. Mr. Chairman, that -- it's not really a
change. I'm just calling it to the board's attention that in
anticipation of a full agenda this morning, the cable franchise issue
from Marco Island Cable, Incorporated, was advertised at time certain
for one o'clock, and given the length of your agenda, it's entirely
possible that the meeting won't go that long, so you may want to
decide how to handle it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think in -- since it was advertised at one
o'clock, the proper thing to do would be to have it at the end of our
regular agenda today which may be as close to one o'clock as we're
going to get, but I do have a concern.
This is the first I've seen of any time certain and whomever was
responsible for -- for making that advertisement needs to know that
this board sets those time certains and that I should be consulted
before that is done, because I would have liked -- I certainly
wouldn't want to have a meeting that ends at ten o'clock in the
morning and then keep people around for two or three hours waiting on
a hearing.
So I donlt like the way this was done. So if you could find out
which -- which part of our staff prepared it in that manner, I would
appreciate that.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Iill make sure we take care of it in the future.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And itls done a little out of order --
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- so weill hopefully correct that. Are there
any other changes, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. In regard to that item thatls advertised
for one olclock, if we move off the one olclock date, it may be
problematic in the sense that being formally advertised for one,
certain parties or individuals, citizens or business entities may be
looking at that one olclock date as the time at which this matter will
be heard.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. ~eigel, is one alternative, then,
to continue the item for a week?
MR. ~EIGEL: That would be -- that would be in the realm,
certainly.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thatls what I would suggest to do because
this deals really with the franchise to a private company who might be
challenged by another private company, and hearing the issue early
might give them something to argue about, so Iill recommend that we
continue it.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second it.
CHAIRNLAN HANCOCK: Continue for one week not time certain. It
will follow in the regular set schedule of the agenda.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Time certains are the prerogative of the
chairman, not the staff. And I think thatls the way we need to handle
it from now on.
CHAIRNLAN HANCOCK: I would appreciate that. I donlt like being
surprised at nine olclock in the morning with a schedule change like
that. So we have one amendment to the agenda. MR. FERNANDEZ: I have no others.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No others, Mr. Fernandez. Commissioner
MacIKie?
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: I have nothing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No changes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: One item under communications for me. But
other than that, no changes.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Then Iill make a motion that we accept the
agenda and consent agenda with changes as noted.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, Mr. ~eigel, did we procedurally
table that correctly for next week by just approval of the agenda and
consent agenda?
MR. WEIGEL: You did -- you did just fine as far as that goes.
In regard to the specific item scheduled for one o'clock, yes, that's
taken care of.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I just wanted to make sure, again,
procedurally we didn't give somebody something else to argue about.
Item #4
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF HAY 21, 1997 AND SPECIAL MEETING OF HAY
27, 1997 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we
approve the minutes of May 21, 1997, special meeting and the May 27,
1997, regular meeting.
COMHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
Item #5C1
PRESENTATION BY DIANE FLAGG, CELEBRATING THE SHOWCASING OF EHS
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, we unfortunately have nothing to
proclaim and no awards to give this morning, but we do have --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's no joy in Mudville.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There's no joy in Mudville, thank you. We do
have a presentation to the board by Miss Diane Flagg celebrating the
showcasing of EMS.
Good morning, Miss Flagg.
MS. FLAGG: Good morning, Commissioners. Today we'd like to
celebrate with you the achievements of the Collier County emergency
medical services department who was recognized by the State of Florida
EHT and Paramedic Association. The Collier County EHS department was
selected by the statewide association to represent EHS systems
throughout Florida. Our organization was featured on the cover of
their statewide magazine with an accompanying cover page article.
Our mission is to provide world class emergency services in a
cost effective and efficient manner. And this mission is made
possible through the continued support of the county commissioners and
our community members. I would now like to present to you the article
that was sent throughout the State of Florida to organizations.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm going to have to build a new wall now.
MS. FLAGG: Commissioners, on behalf of the emergency services
department, we thank you for your support.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Ms. Flagg. Now what do I do with
it?
Again, thank you to you and all the folks in EHS and keep up the
good work. From the Phoenix Awards to the competition that your folks
volunteer for every year and do quite well in, we're very appreciative
of all of the efforts of the personnel in EHS. Thank you.
Item #8A2
REPORT ACCEPTED REGARDING COLLIER COUNTY 2020 TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
ASSESSMENT RE-EVALUATION PRESENTATION BY DAVID PLUHMER & ASSOC., INC.
We are to item 8(A)(1), deleted. 8(A)(2) is the Collier County
2020 transportation needs assessment teevaluation presentation. The
HPO recently heard this 2020 assessment, passed it but there was some
discussion afterwards. And I'll try and provide you the benefit of
that discussion at the conclusion of the report.
Miss Cacchione, are you kicking off?
MS. CACCHIONE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. CACCHIONE: For the record, my name is Barbara Cacchione with
your comprehensive planning staff. I'd like to just make a few points
for clarification before Mr. Plummet gives his report and Ken
Heatherington from the MPO would make his report. First off, the
board directed us to send to the MPO a change order to pay for a look
at our need -- 2020 needs assessment. In the area that's described as
green on the map behind me is the agricultural property that we looked
at a reduction of density. So what's reflected in the study before
you today is a reduction of density in the area identified as
agricultural on the map to my right at one unit per five acres, which
represents about a hundred thousand drop in population. And that's
the premise. There were no other changes to the model. The
socioeconomic data didn't change. The other premises in the 2020
needs assessment didn't change. The only factor that was changed was
reducing the density in the agricultural area. And with that I'll
turn it over to Mr. Plummet -- excuse me, Mr. Talone.
MR. TALONE: Good morning. My name is Ronald Talone. I'm with
David Plummet and Associates. We're the transportation planning
consultant for the MPO. In November of 1995 the MPO accepted the 2020
needs assessment as the basis for the development of a 2020
financially feasible plan. As you may recall, that 2020 needs
assessment included several six-lane facilities, two new Gordon River
bridge crossings, and three expressways. We showed an expressway on
Golden Gate Parkway, also a State Road 951 -- County Road 951
expressway, and a Livingston expressway. The expressways are shown in
red as well as 1-75. And in addition the needs assessment included
several potential grade separations.
Our firm was recently asked to reevaluate this needs assessment
assuming a reduced population forecast for 2020. And using the
Collier County model and plus revised zonal data that's provided to
us by the MPO staff, we completed this evaluation and provided our
findings in a report which I believe is included in your packet. The
teevaluation assumed an approximately 18 percent reduction in the
household population in the county. All other assumptions remained
the same.
First we performed an initial model assignment for the purpose of
trying to determine what the effects of a reduced population might
have on travel characteristics in the county. We note -- first we
noted that the vehicular miles of travel in Collier County declined by
about 9 percent. This resulted in a delay due to congestion -- a
reduction in delay due to congestion of approximately 15 percent in
overall improvement or increase in travel speed of something over one
percent.
We then wanted to take a look to see how the volumes declined on
a road segment basis. In this exhibit (indicating) we've noted
substantial reductions in traffic volumes in red and other significant
reductions in traffic volumes in yellow. And we found that the
traffic volumes were reduced generally throughout the urban area, and
in particular the volumes decreased in the northeast and along the
County Road 951 corridor. So this initial test confirmed that it
would be possible with the reduced population forecast to consider
reductions in what was shown in the original needs assessment.
So we then performed several additional travel model assignments
to identify appropriate reductions in that network. We've indicated
reductions in the number of lanes in red, and we used yellow to
signify that we had -- we've shown all three of the expressways that
were originally in the needs assessment as major arterials rather than
expressways. In addition we dropped the proposed 1-75 interchange at
Vanderbilt Beach Road. The interchange at Golden Gate Parkway is
still in the network that we are testing. And we eliminated one of
the two Gordon River bridge crossings -- new river crossings, the
north Gordon River bridge. And in addition, as you can see, several
-- on several roadways, the number of lanes was reduced.
The resultant needs assessment is provided here, and that was
included in your report. And we wanted to point out one thing about
the needs assessment, is that even though the analysis has indicated
that a much reduced needs assessment would be possible with the lower
population forecast, that there still may be the need for grade
separations at several key intersections. We think this due to a
number of factors.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sorry to interrupt you. I need you to
go back to the last display for a minute if you would.
MR. TALONE: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You indicated -- we can see that
several roads have been -- the number of lanes on several roads have
been decreased. Is that the red lines or -- MR. TALONE: The red lines.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's where it's become four instead
of six or --
MR. TALONE: Generally, yes. Six to four or four to two.
Primarily it was a two lane reduction. There's a more -- there's a
more extensive list in your report. This is basically a graphic
display of information that's provided in a table in the report. And
the table goes into specifics as to what the lane changes were.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. TALONE: Okay. As I was noting, we still show the need for
potential grade separations at a number of locations, and we think
there's a number of factors that are behind this. For one, the
Collier County road network consists of a few widely spaced arterials,
and this is especially true with regards to east-west arterials west
of the interstate. Also we noted that three major arterials more or
less dead end at major cross streets. For example, Goodlette-Frank
Road ends in the north at Immokalee Road. Livingston Road ends in the
south in the proposed network at Radio Road. And Radio Road, of
course, dead ends at Airport Road. And what this does is this creates
discontinuities in the roadway network, forcing traffic volumes to
divert one way or the other rather than being able to proceed
continuously in a certain direction.
We wanted to point out that the revised needs assessment was
developed for comparison purposes only. It should not be considered a
recommended needs assessment. And the reason for this is that the
roadway service volumes that we used in the plan update and in this
study are no longer supported by the Florida Department of
Transportation. We've had discussions with the HPO staff about
working towards updating the service volumes that are being used by
the HPO. Also, Lee County recently approved a future 2020 roadway
network for Bonita Springs that is considerably different in some ways
than what was used for the need -- original needs assessment and in
this comparative study. So a comprehensive update of a needs
assessment should consider both of those factors.
And in conclusion, we wanted to note that despite improvement in
the operating conditions and reductions in the number of lanes, etc.,
that are needed in the -- in the needs assessment, there are still
some level-of-service problems. In particular two roadway segments in
all the assignments we do still tend to show problems, and those are
north Tamiami Trail from Immokalee Road north to Old 41, and east
Tamiami Trail from Airport Road to Rattlesnake. And in both of these
instances, these are roads where several other roads have converged
and there's a bottleneck situation.
In the case of north Trail, it's a case where both Tamiami Trail
and Goodlette traffic tend to converge and go north on Tamiami Trail.
And in the south -- in the case of the east Trail segment, you have
Tamiami Trail and Airport Road converging and all that traffic
continuing down towards Rattlesnake.
And in addition, we mentioned, as before, the major
intersections, we do still see problems at some of those. Therefore,
we've concluded that land use revisions alone may not provide the
highway network preferred by the county. We've offered a number of
suggestions for further consideration by the MPO and the county.
Among these, corridor studies should be performed to determine the
feasibility of extending Goodlette-Frank Road north of Immokalee Road
and extending Livingston Road south of Radio Road. This was
recommended in the 2020 financially feasible plan that further -- that
a corridor study be performed to test both of those possibilities to
see if they are feasible. In the past we've presumed they are not
feasible in the planning, and it probably ought to be established more
definitively whether that's the case.
Second, the city and county should establish an expanded network
of collector roads to try to divert traffic away from major
intersections in the problem segments. Another thing that could be
considered is adjustment in the level-of-service standards. One would
be to consider reducing the level-of-service standard on specific
roadway segments. The county's already used this technique in a
number of cases to show LOS-E for some roadways instead of LOS-D as a
standard. Another possibility would be for the community to consider
level-of-service standards based on year-round traffic conditions
rather than peak season traffic conditions. I do have to point out
that that would probably require some working out of things with DCA
and other regulating agencies.
Also, Naples and Collier County should implement the annual
congestion management system to optimize the operational efficiency of
the existing and future roadway networks. At this time, I would like
to ask if there's any questions.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll go ahead and at least give those of you
that were not at the MPO meeting the benefit of the discussion because
I think we had a very good one following this. And this is not
directed at necessarily the consultant or at our staff, but it's
concerned me for several years that every time we go through this
exercise of the 2020 transportation plan and we see what the result is
and we don't like it, that we all grouse and whine about it and then
we approve it and move on because we feel like we don't have any
option.
I think there are two reasons why we continue to make what I
think is a mistake in that regard. And the first is that there are
alternatives that we have not directed our staff and our staff has
really not taken the initiative to explore more greatly, and I'll
express one of them.
If you have ever been driving south on Airport Road and you've
gone to the movie theater over there, there's a road called, I think,
Naples Boulevard that was built privately. What is has become -- it
has become a way to avoid the intersection of Airport and Pine Ridge,
and it's used quite heavily for that reason. It's in essence a
broadened concept of a traffic -- it's a way to avoid an intersection.
Host of these things -- the intersections where we see there are
going to be problems with traffic, it's because of one or two
individual turning movements. At the HPO what I suggest is we
identify those with most restrictive turning movements and begin
looking now at how we can provide an alternative route for that
turning movement. If you know going southbound to westbound a roadway
is going to be a two-light delay, if you're given another option a
quarter mile up the road, you're going to take that option. It's
human nature and it makes sense.
But we really haven't approached intersection analysis from that
standpoint. We've looked at lights. We've looked at additional lanes.
It's those kinds of transportation planning things we need to really
begin looking at now.
I think the second thing that caused me concern is if you look at
-- and the one area that keeps coming to mind is the area between U.S.
41 and future Livingston Road and -- bordered on the north by Lee
County, on the south by Immokalee Road. That is a huge tract of yet
to be -- for the most part yet-to-be-developed properties. All are
upland. All are going to probably explode when the university opens,
yet we look inside that area and I see nothing. I see no two-lane
roads. I see no grid type system. I see us perpetuating the same
mistakes we've made in the rest of the county in that area.
There's another area in East Naples that I think lends itself in
a smaller part to that same application. I guess my point is that
we're continuing down the arterial collector system in the same
wayward manner we have in the past. We're continuing to perpetuate
the same problems we've experienced in the past with our road system.
And we need to direct our staff and the consultants associated with
our roadway transporta -- our transportation system to become critical
thinkers and find a better way of handling and delivering the traffic
than what we're doing now. If the standard is a two-lane roadway
every mile then, by God, let's build a two-lane roadway every mile
wherever we can now. Let's secure the right-of-way sooner rather than
later. There's a roadway shown on here that's a second Gordon River
bridge --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You know, that one sentence is going
to be tomorrow's headline regardless of anything you say here.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That was a big if. That was a
hypothetical if.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If I worried about that, I'd just shut up.
The second Gordon River bridge that's shown here loops northward to
Livingston Road, and that looks good on this map. But if you look at
an aerial, you'll see the homes that that roadway goes through.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: This is not realistic.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that's something this county hasn't done
before. We haven't condemned homes to build roads. But here we have
a 2020 map that shows a roadway going through people's homes. Now,
these are the kind of things that I think we need a more critical
approach to, and we're not getting it done this way.
I'm working on something individually that hopefully will
dovetail with this, but that's several months off in the future at the
earliest. But the HPO was very encouraged, and Norm Feder actually is
researching grant possibilities because he said that discussion was
one of the first times that has been had at an MPO that he's aware of,
that you're going to that next step, you're not just putting it on
paper, but you're looking at the creative options to traffic
management.
And so Mr. Feder is going to be getting back with me on if there
are grant options out there, money that we can tap in a state fund
that'll help us research some of these things. But I guess I wanted
to get us thinking along that path now if it's agreeable to this
board, because I just -- this isn't where we want to go and this isn't
the solution, so let's find out what is.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I couldn't agree with you more, and the
only hesitation I have is whether we ought to even accept this report
or if we ought to ask -- you know, to send it back and say come back
with something, you know, incorporating some of these innovative
changes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, this is exactly what we asked them to
do.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I understand.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just to take the reduced number and give us
what it -- show us what the system looks like, so they've done what we
asked to do, and it's better than what we had. So the question of
accepting it is -- I think it's the next step. I think we need to --
to really work hard on what that next step is and design a
transportation system that we want, determine what population it can
serve, and move ahead in that direction instead of reacting and
getting this kind of system.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that's what -- I've been talking about
that in the community a lot, and people are calling it an
aesthetically feasible transportation system, and I kind of like that.
But I think that's exactly what we've got to do. And what I wonder is
-- I guess the place to be watching for this is in the budget
discussions. Is there money in the budget -- let's be sure that there
is -- to facilitate exactly this kind of work, because this is
probably one of the most important things we're going to be doing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's not going to happen overnight, but I
think we need to start that -- start that process now.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I agree.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm very happy to see
this little discussion item this morning because this is the first
tangible evidence put down in documentary form that shows the benefits
of the work that we've been doing over the last few years in taking
actions to reduce the ultimate build out of population here in Collier
County. We all have known for some time that we've been making
progress, but it seems like a lot of our citizens don't know. They
still keep hearing numbers being bandied about, such as 800,000 or
600,000, and you know, it's just not realistic. The actions that we
have taken -- right here on this document say four twenty-nine.
That's a little higher than we've been hearing, but we have other --
other techniques that we're going to employ to keep bringing this
number down.
But the benefit there that we are looking at over the long term
is we've eliminated these three expressways and the need for one of
the two Gordon River bridges, if ever.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Was eliminated.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The lessening of the number of lanes on
some of these roads that will be expanded in the future. I mean, all
of these things are what the citizens have been asking for for ages,
you know, keep it down, keep it down, keep it down. Well, we're doing
that, and this is evidence that we are doing that and we're
accomplishing that and we're making headway. And I'm sure glad to see
it, and I hope we get some recognition through the media about this
because this is exactly what our citizenry has been asking for many
years.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed. Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I concur, and I agree with
Commissioner Hancock that while we need to tweak and do some more
hands-on planning, more proactive, I agree wholeheartedly with you
that to look at -- and the number you mentioned, the 429,000, I think
the most recent numbers this board has actually gone over is three
eighty-nine or three eighty-six, so it would be even smaller. But to
look with this number at how many lanes are eliminated from what has
traditionally been the 2020 plan, and as you said, Commissioner
Norris, if we continue to lower that number, then these only get
smaller. So I think sometimes it's a little scary to look at that
2020 plan and see everything four-laned or everything six-laned, and
reality says very clearly now that's not the way it's going to be.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What I'm looking to do is not to take the
approach that if we can build more roads, that population can go up.
That's not the focus. The focus to me is to determine what you want
as a roadway system. One thing that was mentioned by the consultant --
I think he had to give us the list of things that we could consider,
but one was adjusting the level of service; that gets a big no from
me.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Giant no.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: People's quality of life they seem to
determine on the roadways first and foremost day to day. And I think
when you're sitting in traffic, your opinion of growth in this
community changes dramatically. If you hit two light cycles, you
know, we've grown too fast. If you hit all green lights, we're doing
a good job. And it's amazing how that fluctuates with the traffic
cycles. So adjusting a level of service to a point that we allow a
greater level of congestion to me is not an option.
I think the options we have to look at are those -- those
physical features of the roadway system that are desirable versus
those that are undesirable and pursue the first. That has got to be
-- and people are saying more smaller roadways. We hear it all the
time. So let's look critically at those areas where we can -- right
now we could have large tracts of undeveloped land. We have common
property owners that share a section line that if a roadway goes
through, it benefits everyone. We have a lot of those types of
options to look at, but it's a little more proactive, a little more
detailed approach.
I think that's where our staff, our MPO staff -- and the reaction
at the MPO was rather good I thought. I think they were -- they were
probably excited at first and then realized just how much work we were
throwing on them. But I think that's what we construct to expect --
or should expect from our staff, to give us those options. There are
going to be costs associated with them, but let's know that going in.
Better to have a quality roadway system at a little higher cost than
to have a congested roadway system that fits the projected budget.
And that's my opinion. I know it's never popular to spend money, but
I think that would be good money.
One thing people need to see is -- everyone was talking about
grade separations. This plan at 429,000, which we believe is still a
little higher than what we'll experience in the year 2020, has no
grade separations in it, no flyovers, which I think is probably the
single biggest element that scared people; so I was really grateful to
see that. We went from -- what was it -- a half dozen or more
flyovers to only -- to all at grade intersections. I mean, I think
that's significant.
MR. TALONE: Well, I do need to point out that we have concluded
that there's a potential for some -- for grade separations at a number
of intersections. That has been --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Potential meaning the intersections are
operating near capacity or slightly over.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: At 2020.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: At 2020.
MR. TALONE: At 2020. Well, the way -- the conclusions are,
first, that we've reduced those by about half, the loc -- the sites
where we show potential grade separations. And also because you have
the reduced population, the point in time at which you might achieve
those levels of volumes are going to be much later, of course, than
they would have been with the original population forecasts.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The one sure way to change the character of
our community is start putting overpasses in.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not going to do it.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: As long as I'm on this board, you ain't
going to see any. Let's put it that way.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was up looking at the midpoint
bridge project in Lee County, and while it's very impressive from a
design standpoint, it's nothing we want in our community. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, it's not.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Unfortunately what an engineer would consider
impressive our community probably doesn't from a roadway standpoint,
so this whole area is kind of a pet project I'm working on a committee
with. So hopefully we'll be able to assist the MPO staff in bringing
back something in the next twelve months that will give us a different
look at transportation, but I think this is a good start. Mr. Arnold.
MR. ARNOLD: Wayne Arnold, planning services director. I'd just
like to clarify one point and just remind the board that this whole
study was predicated on the agricultural properties that we currently
have in the urban area remaining at near those rural densities to
perform this analysis to determine what kind of impact that had. We
fully believe that a full needs assessment needs to be completed to
really determine the full benefits of doing that. But I think that
it's important to remind the board and the public that what this
contemplated was essentially taking that urban density from those
agricultural parcels currently within the urban boundary.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed. And since -- and I'm glad you brought
that up. Because when I heard that I remember that being listed as
one option as we were talking about the overall growth issue, not that
the board had decided that that would be a change to our Growth
Management Plan. We've seen the effects of that option, but the
bottom line to me is there's still 429,000 projected population in the
year 2020 on this roadway system.
What we're going to have to do -- and I think we're going to have
to get some help on the roadway system -- is get more options on ways
to disseminate traffic through smaller roads a little closer together,
other options, combine that with some of the land use options we had
been looking at until we come up with a match, till we come up with
what we are looking for in a roadway system and a population that that
will serve. When we get there, that's what -- that's what I thought
planning was all about. So that's the goal. The key to me is the
population number. I appreciate that statement, Mr. Arnold.
Are there any further questions of staff or of the consultant on
this?
Okay. Since this is not a formal adoption, it doesn't
necessarily, I think, need board action. I think it's just a report.
Mr. Fernandez, do we have speakers?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman, you do have three speakers.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let's go to the speakers then.
MR. FERNANDEZ: The first is Richard Yovanovich.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Good morning, Commission, Rich Yovanovich with
the law firm of Roetzel and Andtess. We represent the residents of
Wyndemere, and basically the residents of Wyndemere are encouraged by
the discussions that are going on regarding the county's
transportation network and have always taken the position that the
county should build roads when the roads are needed.
The only critique we have of this 2020 needs assessment is -- and
with the first needs assessment is the level -- or the service volumes
used for the roadways which are no longer endorsed by the state. We
would just propose when you go to the next level and do the needs
assessment, that the county establish what service volumes they want
to use for designing its needs assessment and then we go from there.
I believe that's in the process right now of deciding what those
service volumes would be. But I would really like to discourage the
county from spending any more money on needs assessments until we have
service volumes that we all can live with and then base our network
from there.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed. I think that stemmed from the
Wyndemere discussion where we were getting different sets of numbers,
and we asked at that time that we boil it down to one set of numbers
that everyone agrees upon rather than which numbers are we using this
week. So I would assume that's going to happen when this comes back.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Yovanovich.
MR. FERNANDEZ: The next speaker is Ty Agoston. Hope I got the
pronunciation correct.
MR. AGOSTON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Ty
Agoston. I live in Golden Gate Estates. I am speaking for myself.
You are all familiar with the current planning for the expansion of
Golden Gate Boulevard and the absolute cumbersome process of
acquiring right-of-ways that belatedly came to conclusion that we need
more space. And I believe a planning process such as this is
invaluable if it's overestimating rather than underestimating. For
you to acquire land today will cost a fraction of what it will cost my
grandson to acquire it 20 years from today. So I would encourage
rather than to talk about reducing lanes, to acquire sufficient land
as you plan for the future so our children don't have to pay.
I was part of meetings where people wanted to charge a thousand
dollars a tree on a piece of land they probably paid a thousand
dollars for the five acres. So I think you should keep that
essentially very close to your vision that we are all selfish, and if
we are in a position down the road to get more money than we are
entitled to, we will take it; so we should buy the land and plan for
the maximum and thank God if you won't need it. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Agoston.
MR. FERNANDEZ: The next speaker is Dr. Faye Biles.
DR. BILES: Good morning. I am Faye Biles, president of the
Marco Island Taxpayers' Association. And I just want you to know that
reading this report I think everybody on Marco breathed a big sigh of
relief because we were facing a six-lane Marco Island expressway from
75 to Marco, as you remember, with flyovers at every intersection
including 41. Now, my question was I -- when I did read here that
there is still potential need for grade separations, can anybody tell
me are any of those on 951 on the way to Marco?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. 951 and U.S. 41 is indicated as a
potential, which means that's an at grade intersection that will be at
or near capacity based on this plan.
DR. BILES: Right. Okay. Then if you'll turn to the map on page
13, there's a very heavy line coming off of 41 and I assume going to
Hanatee Road there.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. That's an eight-lane.
DR. BILES: That's an eight-lane? Now, does that mean a flyover
or just eight lanes coming on to 9517
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That means just eight lanes. And as you know,
Faye, that's -- state road is FDOT. But, no, that means eight lanes
from U.S. 41 south to Hanatee and then six lanes continuing from there
to the island.
DR. BILES: Six lanes or four lanes?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I read it as six lanes.
DR. BILES: No. I thought that was reduced to -- Isn't that on
the map, 951 reduced to four, I thought.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's let the consultant take a look at that.
I believe it's indicated as six lanes based on the map I have.
DR. BILES: Can you clarify that for us Mr. -- Because originally
it was six lanes but I thought reading this it was reduced to four.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The map looks like 6.
DR. BILES: Six?
MR. TALONE: I think we still show six down to the bridge.
DR. BILES: So it's still going to be a six-lane expressway to
Marco Island.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Maybe we need a point of clarification.
The terminology here it's -- sometimes causes a problem. A needs
assessment is what would it take to make everything work as well as
possible in an ideal world if money was not a consideration. DR. BILES: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. What really controls the real world,
though, is what's called a financially feasible plan. It won't look
like this.
DR. BILES: Right.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. So the needs assessment is not
necessarily reality; that's the main point you need to understand.
DR. BILES: Yes. I understand that because way back when we had
the first and second plan. But I thought this whole expressway type
of thing was going to be deleted and so I was thrilled to death, but
now it's still going to be six lanes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that's -- you can have six lanes
without it being an expressway. DR. BILES: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But just for my vote, what this tells me
is what kind of roads we would have to build if we allow the
population to continue to grow as we expect it to under the current
regulations.
DR. BILES: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And all this says to me is big red flags
continue to wave about what we need to do to reduce the densities so
that we avoid -- so that we develop this aesthetically feasible
traffic plan.
DR. BILES: I just have to remind you that there's just one
bridge going over to Marco Island, and I suspect that within the next
ten years we'll have a second bridge, maybe four lanes. But six lanes
converging into two lanes on Collier, ow. I think we ought to look at
that plan.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, if I know the FDOT, it'll probably be
four lanes for a long time. Thank you, Dr. Biles.
Any other speakers, Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, seeing none -- what I'm encouraged by --
and, Commissioner Norris, you brought up a very good point. We have
-- we're finally seeing some of the fruits of the last several years
that you and Commissioner Constantine and more recently the other
three of us have sat on the board. And each little project that comes
in and we beat them over the head about density time and time again
will eventually result in a reduction in this type of plan. And I
think that's a point that is lost on a lot of people, that each little
10-acre project, each 500-acre project, each thousand-acre project
where the density comes down just a hair results in an improved
situation for our roadway network. So we'll need to keep that -- that
ship running smooth as best we can.
Are there any other questions for staff on this matter?
Okay. Then we'll just accept the report, and we'll go to the
next item.
Item #8A3
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $340,400 TO ESTABLISH THE
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO) BUDGET FRO GRANT YEAR 1997-98
- APPROVED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Item 8(A)(3), a -- imagine this, a budget
amendment request to establish the MPO budget for grant year '97-'98.
MR. HEATHERINGTON: Mr. Chair, members of the board, Mr.
Fernandez, good morning. My name is Ken Heatherington. I'm the
recently appointed transportation manager and MPO coordinator for the
Naples-Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization. Good morning, and
I'm pleased to be here.
The budget amendment request is an annual event to have our
budget coincide with the state's fiscal program and the county's
budget cycle year. As you can see, the total amount is $340,400.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Heatherington.
MR. HEATHERINGTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Could I interrupt you just for a second?
MR. HEATHERINGTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any discussion?
Any speakers, Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: None.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, all those in favor signify by
saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I was quite convinced by Mr.
Heatherington's overwhelming presentation there so I would just --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just so you know, Mr. Heatherington, we're
not always that easy.
MR. HEATHERINGTON: Nice to start that way. I look forward to
the opportunity to work with you.
Item #SB1
BUDGET AMENDHENT NECESSARY TO IHPLEHENT A PROJECT BUDGET FOR THE
IHMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION MAIN STREET MASTER PLAN ON STATE ROAD 29 -
STAFF RECOHMENDATION APPROVED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Item 8(B)(1) under public works,
to obtain board approval of a required budget amendment necessary to
implement a project budget for Immokalee beautification and Main
Street master plan. Good morning, Mr. Bobanick.
MR. BOBANICK: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is -- for
the record my name is Dave Bobanick, interim transportation director.
Staff is requesting board approval of a budget amendment and
authorization to create a project budget for the Immokalee
Beautification Streetscape master plan. On December 17th of 1996,
agenda item 8(B)(2) was approved which approved a loan of $275,000 to
the Immokalee Beautification HSTU for the Immokalee Beautification --
Main Street Beautification project. This was subsequently reviewed by
the attorney's office, and they determined that the ordinance that set
up the HSTU requires a payback in two years.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: When in fact it would take about five years
based on the uncommitted funds on an annual basis.
MR. BALDANI: Yes. Based on the revenue, they could not make
this kind of a commitment, and staff then worked with the advisory
committee and developed a scaled down project of about $421,800 that
could be added to at a later time. At issue also is a $100,000
lighting contribution by FDOT as part of the project. Staff
recommends approval of the scaled down project and necessary budget
amendments to move the money from reserves.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. As I read this -- and correct me if I'm
wrong -- it's not really additional funds; it's still a loan amount,
but it's to a smaller phasing project so that it can be paid back in
the appropriate time frame.
MR. BALDANI: No. It doesn't consider a loan amount at this
time. It's using the existing money that they have in the reserves.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So we tried to do the loan over a
two-year period but that's just not possible due to the uncommitted
funds; so they're saying, well, let's do it at our own pace with our
own funds.
MR. BALDANI: Right. And with the opportunity, perhaps, to come
back to the board at a later time and again request a loan perhaps in
a smaller amount.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Does anyone have any questions of Mr.
Baldani?
Do we have any speakers on this, Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No, we do not.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, is there a motion?
COMHISSIONER BERRY: I move for approval.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion for approval of staff's recommendation.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And a second. Any discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries four to zero.
(Commissioner Norris not present for the vote.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Dave.
Item #BE1
PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE FISCAL YEAR 1997-98 COLLIER
COUNTY BUDGET TO BE HELD ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1997 AND WEDNESDAY,
SEPTEMBER 17, 1997
We're to Item 8(E)(1) under county manager to establish public
hearing dates for adoption of the 199 --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we adopt
the proposed dates in the staff summary. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Smykowski and Mr. Fernandez, anybody want
to talk us out of that? Anything to add to that, Mr. Smykowski? It's
just to adopt the dates as I read it.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Just to adopt the dates. This is actually a
courtesy item, because the school board has -- Hike Smykowski, budget
director. The school board has first priority in setting dates, and
they opted for September 16th for their final public hearing. The
county is second on the priority list in terms of setting the dates
and then all subsequent -- all the balance of the taxing authorities
within the county set their dates following our selection.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Berry has
indicated she has a problem with Thursday, September 4th. I might
suggest we change that to Wednesday, September 3rd and our final
hearing still on Wednesday, the 17th.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that a conflict with the school board, Mr.
Smykowski?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: No, sir. In fact, that is the first date allowed
by statute for the first public hearing, September 3rd.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So, Commissioner Constantine, are you
wishing then to amend your motion on the September 4th date to
September 3rd?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That is correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second amends.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Second amends. Anything further, Mr.
Smykowski?
MR. SHYKOWSKI: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, I'll call the question. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Smykowski, thank you very much.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Thank you.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 97-275 CALLING A REFERENDUM ELECTION BY AMIL BALLOT TO BE
HELD ON AUGUST 28, 1997, WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL BOUNDARIES OF THE
PROPOSED CITY OF MARCO ISLAND AS DESICRIBED IN HOUSE BILL 1729 TO
DETERMINE IF THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS RESIDING WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL
BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPOSED CITY OF MARCO ISLAND APPROVE HOUSE BILL 1729
CREATING A CITY OF MARCO ISLAND AND PROVIDING FOR ITS CHARTER - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: To Item 9(A), county attorney's report,
resolution calling a referendum election by mail ballot. This is the
Marco Island cityhood vote again.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have -- do we have any speakers, Mr.
Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: We have none.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We do have a motion to approve on the
floor. Is there a second?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, motion carries five, zero.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 97-276 APPOINTING DIANE WILLIAMS TO THE LIBRARY ADVISORY
BOARD - ADOPTED
We are to Item 10, Board of County Commissioners. Item 10(A) is
appointment of member to the Library Advisory Board. The resignation
was Hiss Hartha Gordon from commission district five. We have two
applicants. Barbara Berry, have you been contacted by either applicant
or have a preference one way or the other on this? COHMISSIONER BERRY: Diane Williams.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Can you do that in the form of a motion
then?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I move that we appoint Diane Williams to the
Library Advisory Board.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, thank you very much.
Item #10B
RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ENVIRONHENTAL IHPACT
STUDY - CONTINUED TO JUNE 24, 1997
We're up to Item 10(B). Before starting any staff presentation
on this, I received a phone call from Colonel Rice's office last week,
and I got the opportunity to return it and discuss with his assistant
this item. They were extremely concerned about the position the board
had taken, and I'll give you the benefit of that phone conversation.
I certainly wasn't of a mind-set to let them off the hook and
expressed to the young lady that I had two very serious concerns.
One is that an EIS is being proposed that would carry with it
regulations affecting the people in Collier County. And this board
was never notified, asked about, or consulted on any aspects of this
EIS. In fact, we've been left in the dark and given the mushroom
treatment by the Army Corps of Engineers. I didn't appreciate it.
This board didn't appreciate it, and part of what she was saying was
simply a reaction to the fact that they think they can come in and
affect our residents and we're just going to stand idly by and watch
it happen. So I think she understood clearly that we were not real
pleased with that take on things.
The second thing was that the only thing we had seen to date,
which was provided by other sources, was that in the interim before
the study was completed they were going to affect individual rights,
whether they be property rights or development rights, without any
substantial reasoning that's been presented. Again, what I was told
was that the whole focus is to streamline the process for permitting
and that all of this other has been talked about and discussed but is
not really the focus of the study.
Her request was that we continue this for one week since Colonel
Rice will be in town the 21st through the 24th and will have the
opportunity to speak to each of us if you should wish. I did tell her
we had budget discussions next week and that would be difficult.
There is a meeting 10 a.m. in Fort Myers under the sustainable South
Florida heading that Colonel Rice will be explaining the EIS on the --
I believe it's Tuesday, that morning of our meeting. And Commissioner
Norris, as the chairman -- apparently their mailing list is a little
out of date -- received a letter dated June 16th telling us about this
meeting on Tuesday, which is our board meeting day, and asking if we
could send someone to attend. I did tell Colonel Rice's office that I
would req -- ask the board to consider a continuation of one week for
the simple reason that one of two things will happen; either we will
be more specific in our rejection of their concept, or we would
determine that there's a better course of action to take for our
residents.
What concerned me is they've received hundreds of letters from
businesses in Collier and Lee County and it took this board saying
we're going to adopt a resolution saying we oppose this for us to get
a phone call. I don't like the way that that's done. I think it's a
little disingenuous now, but I personally would rather know exactly
what the content of the study's going to be so that we can list our
objections specifically as opposed to a general objection. That's the
only motivation I have for continuing the item.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I concur with you wholeheartedly. I
don't mind waiting a week, but I maintain my objection. We have
several levels of bureaucracy that we already need to go through
permitting. I'm not sure I agree or accept that they're going to
streamline the process. It's just a general distrust of government.
And, Commissioner Norris, you said last week about the irony of
Congress and virtually all elected bodies trying to bring decisions
back to the local level, and here's a federal bureaucratic group
involving themselves in local issues. And I just don't think we need
the federal government meddling. So I don't mind waiting another week
and finding the specifics out so we can be more specific in our
objection, but I'll be amazed if I -- I'll certainly listen to what
they have to say, but I'll be amazed if they change my mind. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are there any further comments?
One of two things will happen. We either need to hear this item
today and adopt the resolution or adopt a modification or table the
issue for -- continue the item -- I'm sorry -- for one week. And I
did express to his office that if it is continued, the resolution will
appear in its current written form on our agenda next week and at that
time will be acted on either with modifications or with the denial if
everyone is just fully convinced that this is for the greater good. I
think they've got their work cut out for them in doing that. Is there
a desire from the board before we go into this matter further?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let's -- I think we're going to have some
speakers. Let's here what they -- they may have some different -- MR. FERNANDEZ: I have one.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We do have one registered speaker, Mr.
Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's hear from that individual.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Whit Ward.
MR. WARD: Thank you, Commissioners. My name is Whit Ward. I
represent the Collier Building Industry Association, and I certainly
appreciate the position that you're taking here today. I would tell
you this. I've never been anywhere or heard any time of -- after the
Army Corps of Engineers coming in and doing a study that when they
left people were more pleased than they were before they came in.
It does trouble me that a large federal government agency wants
to -- to help us out and -- and we have those decisions -- the
ultimate decisions will be made by the Army Corps of Engineer in a
room that we're not in with discussions that we're not privy to and
with a final result that we have no input in or if we don't like, no
chance to change it; that concerns me, especially when the reason
they're doing it is they think we're not doing a good enough job in
governing ourselves. And so I, too, share your concerns. I certainly
appreciate your -- your position.
One of the things that I would like to reiterate and then I'll
sit down is that while the Army Corps of Engineers will tell you they
do not interrupt the permitting process, they do review every permit
during the time they're conducting the study. And while they may not
reject the permits or call a moratorium, they don't process the
permits. And we have been told those studies can last anywhere from
-- depends on who you talk to -- I've heard as little as 18 months to
2 years and as long as 23 years quoted from people.
So that's a concern that we have. While there may not be an
intent here to create a moratorium, if you hold the baby under the
bath water too long when you're washing them, they drown. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Ward, did I understand you to say they
do not process the permits at all? In other words, they will just
hold them until the study is finished; is that what you said?
MR. WARD: That's my understanding from what I have read and --
that's correct. And the reason is that if they -- now, they may let
some one or two single-family permits in Golden Gate through or
something of that nature, but my understanding of the reasoning is
that if they ultimately decide on a restriction or a program and they
have let a permit through, it may not comply with their ultimate
restrictions and so they just -- while they're in the process of
determining what those restrictions are, they just don't process the
permits.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is the same organization that we had to
wait three weeks to get someone down to stand ankle deep in mud in
Clam Bay to determine manatees don't live there. So the opportunity
to apply regulation fairly from the federal level to the local --
local level has not proven itself capable in my opinion. So I think
-- you know, I have no problem waiting seven days to get more
information on this. And I would -- I would prefer that we do that
simply because at this point none of us likes what we're seeing.
We're on the defensive, I think, because of the manner in which this
has been brought forward and the lack of input from residents and
affected people in Collier County and the lack of input from this
board; so I would like to see this continued for one week so we can
get a little more information and hopefully be more specific in our
stand on this.
MR. WARD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Ward, thank you.
Do we have another speaker, Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, we do have another
speaker. Mr. Ty Agoston wants to speak on this one as well. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock, you made the
point that there's been no contact with the county and I think that
just --
MR. AGOSTON: Morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Ty
Agoston. I live in Golden Gate Estates. And I am in no way connected
to this county financially. I don't own any property that gets
affected by the Army Corps of Engineers, and the only reason I
actually came up here -- because after listening to you, you already
have a -- what I consider a favorable response of this whole
initiative of the Army Corps of Engineers. But knowing the media,
responding to the gentleman just before me, is someone commercial
who's trying to exploit the environment and exploit whatever else
large businesses normally exploit. So consequently I want it to be
known that I am not financially involved. I'm a private citizen, and
I still don't think that the Army Corps of Engineers should be coming
in here telling the local government how to deal with a strictly local
problem. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Agoston.
Is that it for public speakers, Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have a couple of options available
to us. What's the pleasure of the board?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to continue the item for one
week.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. Is there any
discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
Item #10C
BONFIRE TO BE HELD ON JUNE 28, 1997 FROM 5:00 P.M. TO 10:00 P.M. AT
VETERAN'S PARK
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. We're to Item 10(C), discussion of
bonfire at Veteran's Park. And I saw your name on this, and I think
we're on parallel courses but we do have some folks here; it'll
probably make it real simple for them.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, this is a
courtesy item. The sheriff's department is interested in doing some
things with youth nights so they inquired about bonfire, and I
suggested we put it on here. I know we have some legal impediments,
hurdles we need to jump. But if you want to come up and tell us what
you-all want to do, and I think Mr. Olliff can tell us some of the
problems we may face.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And this is Deputy Abreu?
DEPUTY ABREU: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You didn't ride your bike down here, did you?
DEPUTY ABREU: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. And you're avoiding all the sand, I
understand, now?
DEPUTY ABREU: Yes, sir. My name is Deputy Abreu. I'm employed
with the sheriff's office in Collier County. The reason why we're
here is there was a bonfire several months ago out at Sugden Park.
The sheriff told Ernie Gaglin, another deputy, that he would like to
see the same event in north Naples. We're doing the same exact event.
As a matter of fact, it's all family oriented, has a lot of kids games
in it. One of the attractions we had is a bonfire, which we were told
we couldn't have any more, and that's why we're here. But Sugden
Park is having another bonfire this night, so I guess it's selective,
you know, banning, I guess. I don't know.
But we have -- we have the fire marshal from North Naples Fire
Department here. He's willing to give us a permit for the bonfire.
He's sent trucks to stand by. There's a fire hydrant real close to the
bonfire site, so I really think it's a good idea.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We're confident the North Naples Fire
Department can handle a bonfire. We're very confident in their
capabilities. The date of the event is?
DEPUTY ABREU: June 28th from 5 to 10.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Five to ten. It's a family oriented event.
It's a way to get to know the -- I believe it's -- the cops' moniker
-- a lot of the --
DEPUTY ABREU: Getting to know the public, yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- deputies on foot, on bike.
DEPUTY ABREU: Yes, we're going to be on bike. We're going to
have a lot of the different departments in our agency there on
display. We have many other sponsors sending in clowns and things
like that for the children.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Olliff, anything to add on this?
MR. OLLIFF: Unfortunately, yes. For the record, Tom Olliff,
public services administrator. The only difficulty we have is that
this -- the bonfire that was held at Sugden Park was held before that
property was actually rezoned to a park. It was still under the
residential PUD zoning. There is both a state special act and a local
county ordinance that both have the same language that prohibits fires
in the county parks except on cooking grills. And that's the
difficulty that we've had in being able to approve the bonfires. We
certainly support the idea of the bonfires and the community events --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A really big grill.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Big grill.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: If the sheriff's department would supply
marshmallows, I think we could certainly --
MR. OLLIFF: If we want to be creative and put a grill underneath
the bonfire, I think we can probably work our way around this --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: A little hibachi under there.
MR. OLLIFF: -- and bring to you hopefully some language that can
amend that special act at a later date.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I was going to say let's do two things. Let's
find a way to comply in the first part; and the second part, let's
address the language in the future. Because this is something that's
becoming really attractive to the community, and it's something that
can be done very safely. You know, the fire departments get involved,
and it's a good idea; so I'd like to find a way to -- in particularly
county parks to allow for this.
MR. OLLIFF: It's something that we would like to incorporate
into some of our youth nights, and now they've found a way to maybe
interpret this correctly, we'll be able to do that on some of our --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Good.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think the community is certainly showing
a burning desire to have this --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, God. On that note, Deputy Abreu, you may
want to go get a couple 55-gallon drums, cut them in half, lay them on
the bottom to make your grill.
But, Mr. Olliff, if you will help him work with that.
MR. FERNANDEZ: We'll make a note of this for presentation for
our legislative package for next year to make a change in that special
act to see if we can get this taken care of.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Great.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Please do. I'm sure we'd have no problem
getting that one sponsored.
Deputy Abreu, thank you.
Are there any speakers on this, Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We have two others. We have
Mr. Ernest Gangl.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are you the man with the match, Mr. Gangl?
MR. GANGL: Good morning, Commissioners. I'll just give an
overview of COP, community oriented policing. It's our duty to work
with the neighborhood watch programs, the civic association programs,
and the main purpose of this picnic is to get all the groups together
for the North Naples district and any other districts that wants to
participate. It's to get them together, to get them familiar with
what the county wants to do as far as the gang situation, the drug
situation.
We're also trying to find different things throughout the county
for the young kids, and this is the best way we feel that we can do it
with the community oriented policing project. If we do it throughout
the year -- and hopefully this will be a continuous project over the
years, we can make our communities better. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: We have another one, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Carl
Reynolds.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: First we have the man with the match; now the
man with the bucket of water.
MR. REYNOLDS: Good morning, Commissioners. I believe we're
going to be the ones with the match and the bucket of water. Carl
Reynolds, fire marshal of North Naples. Just wanted to let you know
that we are going to be standing by for the whole event. We will be
there at the beginning all the way to the end of it. So other than
that I think you pretty much covered --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I understand you're also going to have fire
equipment and stuff for the kids to get a look at.
MR. REYNOLDS: We'll have engines and ladders and clowns and
everybody else there so --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Fine.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Sorry I'm going to be out of town. Mr.
Olliff, have we given -- I know it's a little murky -- but fairly
clear direction to find a way to help this happen and then we'll --
with Mr. Fernandez leading the legislative delegation, we'll work with
the local language.
MR. OLLIFF: I think we can interpret it the correct way to make
this event happen.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you very much. We, I believe, need a
motion on -- well, it's a discussion. Actually, I don't think a motion
-- permits on motions are not necessary as I read it.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Staff has direction.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Sufficient direction has been given. Okay.
Thank you.
We're to public comment on general topics. Mr. Fernandez, do we
have any additional speakers registered? MR. FERNANDEZ: No, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, we'll move on to the afternoon
agenda at 10 a.m. I love that.
The only item on the afternoon agenda, 12(C)(1), has been
continued; so we are down to BCC and staff communications, Board of
County Commissioners.
Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just -- what I hope is not a touchy
subject, but I was going to ask a question. And if you guys want to
continue this for discussion later. Apparently there is confusion
about the applicant to the utility board, whether or not he pays the
-- he's a ratepayer in the system. And I wondered if the people who
were under that misconception have now gotten enough information to
want to change that. I'd just like to leave that out there since
apparently it was our mistake.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't think we can -- since we can't take
any action on this part of the agenda, though, that has got to come
back to us for the appointment anyway. So I think we've all received
information and phone calls and so forth.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I believe Hiss Filson readvertised that;
didn't you, Hiss Filson?
MS. FILSON: I'm going to readvertise as soon as the ordinance is
amended.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That was the board direction, to
readvertise.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just wonder if that expense is necessary
if we're operating under a misconception that now has been corrected.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think it's necessary now that we've given
the direction.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That person can still reapply, and we can deal
with it that way. I just -- I think it's a procedural issue at this
point.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And when we advertise, that's
primarily done through press release, isn't it? So there's no expense
associated.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, good. It's not an actual
advertisement. Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Norris.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine.
Item #14A
DISCUSSION REGARDING UPCOMING BUDGET HEARINGS
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two items. One, we have all our
budget hearings coming up. I have my annual cut list. One of the
things I found very helpful last year was each of us just kind of
assembled some of the big items we thought maybe didn't need to be
there. And I know there were some of those anyway that at least three
people agreed on at the start, and it just saved us some time.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I start with Commissioner Norris' salary this
year.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's general agreement on that.
I assume all of you have been working on your budget yourself,
too, but if anybody has those lists, maybe during the budget hearings
we can make those available and just -- I know that was very helpful
in last year's.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As long as we initial them.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There you go.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's not in writing.
Item #14B
MPO MEETING TO BE HELD AUGUST 8, 1997
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The second item is our MPO is
scheduled -- its August meeting is scheduled for the 22nd, which is a
week we are in recess. To keep the schedule for the Transportation
Disadvantaged proposal that's been put out there, we need to meet
prior to the 13th, I think, is when the state hears it. I wondered if
there'd be any objection to moving that back to August 8th?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't have a problem with it. Why don't
we --
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I'll be glad to return from Tahiti just for
that meeting.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But since the Transportation Disadvantaged is
something -- I know, Commissioner Constantine, you've been very
intimately involved with, I think you'd represent the board well. If
we can get -- do we have at least a majority of the board that is
available on that date, the 8th? Okay. If you would ask for the MPO
to make that request of Councilman Van Arsdale as the chairman.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Will do.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman, where is the -- they were
talking about changing HPO meeting. Have you heard any -- has there
been any word come to you on that?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Actually they asked that each mem -- and
thank you for reminding me. I almost forgot about that. They asked
that each member of the commission give available windows on when --
or possible dates and --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- that will be considered at the next HPO
meeting.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My hope is we don't alter that too
much. We've had that discussion a couple of times. And for five
years we've had it at the same time. And I've kind of crafted my
schedule of doing different things different days, and Fridays are set
aside for -- in the morning but HPO in the afternoon, and I don't want
to have to try to retool everything if we move that to a Wednesday or
to --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, the intent clearly is to exclude you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great. Great. As long as we know
that up front.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. Actually that was one of the things I
brought up is that some people had -- but there are other windows that
maybe we can pursue. But we'll know that, I guess, now on August 8th
instead of August 22nd. Anything further?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's all.
Item #14C
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO SELECT APPROPRIATE STAFF MEMBER TO ATTEND THE
CORPS OF ENGINEERS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY MEETING AT 10:00 A.H. ON
JUNE 24, 1997
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. For me, the hollow invitation to attend
a 10 a.m. meeting next Tuesday --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's only 48 counties that meet on
Tuesdays. I'm sure --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Only 48. Since no one from this board can
attend and we'll be hearing the resolution in the afternoon because of
that meeting -- the resolution will be heard after twelve noon that
day, if there is a member of our staff that we think is appropriate to
attend and -- you know, I'm just asking if we want to direct Mr.
Fernandez to have a staff member attend that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would like to have a staff member there.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Staff member.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's my feeling, too. And whoever is most
appropriate, we'll leave that to the county administrator.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Send Mr. Olliff or Mr. McNees.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or Mr. Cautero. I mean, it's up to Mr.
Fernandez I'd say.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Why don't we leave that up to Mr. Fernandez to
determine who is most appropriate.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you. I'll figure it out.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. He's going to draw straws and the short
straw has to go, so look out folks. Okay.
And let's see. Okay. That's all that I had.
Item #15A
DISCUSSION REGARDING SETTING TIME CERTAIN FOR ITEM #12C1, THE
APPLICATION FOR A CABLE FRANCHISE SUBMITTED BY MARCO ISLAND CABLE, INC.
Mr. Weigel, anything?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, Mr. Fernandez and I noted that on 12(C)(1),
heard earlier today and continued earlier today, that, in fact,
brought to our attention the ordinance itself for this type of matter
does, in fact, specify a time certain. It's just a question of
getting a good time certain that works for the board. So I would
request especially if the board open up 12(C)(1), that its continuance
be for the time certain that it directs in the morning of next week
perhaps, you know, at ten --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest ten
o'clock or as close thereto as we can, and that way if we're a little
before or a little after, then that's fine.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have a motion to amend the
continuation of 12(C)(1) to a time certain of ten o'clock.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Weigel.
Mr. Fernandez, your first -- first complete meeting in the chair.
MR. FERNANDEZ: The county attorney just stole my thunder.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I didn't have anything else I was going to bring
up.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Miss Filson, are we done?
MS. FILSON: We are finished.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We are done. We're adjourned folks.
Commissioner Norris moved, seconded by Commissioner
Constantine, and carried unanimously, that the following items
under the Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16A1
APPROVAL OF THE RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "PELICAN HARSH UNIT
FIFTEEN" - WITH LETTER OF CREDIT, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT AND STIPULATION
Item #16A2
APPROVAL OF THE RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "PELICAN HARSH UNIT
SIXTEEN" - WITH LETTER OF CREDIT, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT AND STIPULATION
Item #16B1
CONTRACT TO CONSTRUCT REUSE SYSTEM UPGRADES TO SERVE LAKEWOOD
SUBDIVISION, BID NO. 97-2669 - AWARDED TO DOUGLAS N. HIGGINS, INC., IN
THE A_MOUNT OF $1,269,550.00
Item #1682
WORK ORDER FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES TO AGNOLI, BARBER &
BRUNDAGE, INC., FOR SUNNILAND MINE ENTRANCE STRUCTURE REPLACEMENT,
ORDER NO. ABB-FT97-1, PROJECT NO. 31702 - IN THE A_MOUNT OF $19,650.00
Item #1683
AUTHORIZATION FOR A REDUCTION IN THE CONTRACT RETAINAGE FOR C.R. 951
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, BID NO. 95-2320 PRIOR TO FINAL PAYMENT - IN THE
AMOUNT OF $97,367.24
Item #1684
CONTRACT FOR THE SITE DEVELOPMENT OF SUGDEN PARK AT LAKE AVALON, BUD
NO. 97-2670 - AWARDED TO BONNESS, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $706,221.00
Item #16C1
LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND COLLIER MODEL AERONAUTIC
CLUB, INC.
Item #16C2
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE A_MOUNT OF $25,000.00 FROM PARKS GENERAL FUND
CAPITAL (306) PROJECT #80081, AND AUTHORIZATION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAYGROUND IN THE COPELAND AREA AND STAFF AUTHORIZED TO
ENTER INTO A MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH RESIDENTS OF COPELAND FOR THE
ON-GOING MAINTENANCE OF THE FACILITY ONCE COMPLETED
Item #16C3
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD TO PROVIDE PREPARED
FOOD FOR THE SUHMER FOOD SERVICE GRANT PROGRAM
Item #16D1
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR REPLACING THE WINDOWS IN THE CUPOLA ON THE ROOF OF
THE MUSEUM ON CAMPUS - IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,000.00
Item #16D2
REPORT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS ON THE ONE BID RECEIVED
FROM THE ADVERTISEMENT TO SELL THAT SURPLUS REAL PROPERTY FORMERLY
KNOWN AS THE LANDFILL EXPANSION PROPERTY - BID RECEIVED BY COLLIER GOLF
AUTHORITY, INC. AS NON-RESPONSIVE AND FORMAL REJECTION OF THE BID
SUBMITTED WITH NO FURTHER DIRECTION AT THIS TIME
Item #16D3
BID #97-2661 FOR ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS - AWARDED TO
MONTGOMERY KONE, INC., IN THE ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $37,850.00
Item #16D4
BID #97-2671 FOR A STOCKLESS WAREHOUSE OF OFFICE SUPPLIES FOR COLLIER
COUNTY - AWARDED TO MARCO OFFICE SUPPLY AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16D5
RESOLUTION 97-274, APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN
ACCOUNTS THAT HAVE PAID IN FULL THE 1993 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Item #16D6
SATISFACTION OF LIEN DOCUMENTS FILED AGAINST REAL PROPERTY FOR
ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE
Item #16D7
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO APPROPRIATE THE MAINTENANCE SERVICES REVENUES THAT
ARE IN EXCESS OF THEIR BUDGET
Item #16D8
BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING CHANGES TO EXPENSES AND REVENUES IN FLEET
MANAGEMENT FUND (521)
Item #16G1
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Item #16H1
RECOHMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS SERVE AS THE
LOCAL COORDINATING UNIT OF GOVERNMENT AND EXECUTE THE LOCAL APPLICATION
FORM DOCUMENTS FOR THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
BLOCK GRANTS PROGRAM
Item #16H2
PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS OF THE STATE REVENUE
SHARING APPLICATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997-98 AND TO OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR
THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE APPLICATION
Item #1611
SETTLEHENT OF A CONTRACT DISPUTE BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND P & H
CONSTRUCTION CORP. INVOLVING THE CONSTRUCTION OF MAX A. HASSE, JR.
COHMUNITY PARK AND AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN ALL NECESSARY
SETTLEMENT DOCUMENTS
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:20 a.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
TIMOTHY L. HANCOCK, CHAIRMAN
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 SERVICE, INC.
BY DEBORAH PETERSON