Loading...
BCC Minutes 08/05/1997 R REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 5, 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 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Collier County Government Center, Administration Building, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Timothy L. Hancock John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine Pamela S. Hac'Kie Barbara B. Berry ALSO PRESENT: David C. Weigel, County Attorney Robert Fernandez, County Administrator Item #3A AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. If I could have your attention, please. I'm going to call to order the August 5th, 1997, meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. This morning it's a pleasure to have Reverend Charles West from the Naples First Church of the Nazarene here for an invocation. Reverend West, I would ask for your blessing this morning. And in doing so, one of our fine county employees, Ernie Cousineau, will be traveling this Thursday to Houston to deal with an issue of cancer that, that she's facing. So if I could ask you to please make a good mention for Ernie. Our wishes and prayers are with her this morning. REVEREND WEST: Let's pray together. Father, thank you for this day, for the joy that comes with it. It is a gift and we receive it from you. We pray that you would help us to be wise stewards of this day. We do pray for all those who are in attendance in this hour, bearing with them issues that are very important to each one. I pray that you would give those in leadership the wisdom and the guidance that is necessary to render the proper decisions and have the right insight into each situation that's presented. We do pray for this good workman and friend of those in the county offices who will be traveling due to illness. We pray that you would be the great physician to this one and that you would render the kind of touch that is necessary in restoration and healing. We pray that this day would be a good day. We pray blessings on our community. In the name of Jesus we ask it. Amen. ***(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)*** CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Reverend West, thank you very much for taking the time to be here this morning. We certainly appreciate it. And I need to start giving warning that the Pledge comes right after the invocation. I keep hearing people sit down. Good morning, Mr. Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: Good morning. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What do we have on the -- on the change list this morning? MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman, we have three changes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me just a second. Folks, I'm going to ask, if you have conversations, to take them out in the hall. We're going to try and get through a meeting today, if that's okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: We have three changes this morning, Mr. Chairman. First is to add an item under ll(A). This is the board authorization for the sheriff's office to apply for funds under the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program added at the sheriff's request. The next is delete Item 7(C), Joseph Coriaci, Marco Health Care Center regarding a title to land for the medical facility. That's withdrawn at the petitioner's request. Third is delete Item 13(A)(1). This is Petition FDPO-97-1. Vanderbilt Beach Motel requesting a 4.1 foot variance from the minimum required base flood elevation. That's requested at the staff's request. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They had a related Item 12(C)(7). Is that one remaining on the agenda? MR. FERNANDEZ: I believe 12(C)(7) is staying on. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I believe that's the result of a legal determination the DPO is not necessary; is that correct? MR. WEIGEL: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I had that same question. Mr. Weigel, did you have anything on the agenda today? MR. WEIGEL: No, nothing for a change. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Nothing, thanks. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No changes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry? COHMISSIONER BERRY: Nothing, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two things. I don't wish to remove the item, but let the record reflect I'm voting no on Consent Agenda item 16(C)(2) when we do the Consent Agenda. I will vote affirmative on the other items. And also, I'll be abstaining from Item 12(C)(6) today, the MediaOne franchise. While I pay them for my airtime, they don't pay me, I do derive revenue from advertisers and, theoretically anyway, if the franchise was denied, my show would be too, so we won't participate in that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I thought you were saying theoretically you derive revenue and you were hoping -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. Well, that too. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. And I don't have any changes. Do we have a motion on the agenda? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the agenda and the Consent Agenda as amended with the exception, of course, in my case, of 16 (C) (2). COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries 5-0. Item #5A PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING AUGUST 16, 1997 AS AIRBORNE DAY - ADOPTED We are to 5(A) on the agenda, Proclamations. Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Do we have Scott Gregory here today? Scott, and Chaplain Robert Kalmanek? If I could get you to stand here and face the camera. They're pre-empting CNN for this so that you can be shown nationwide. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It happens all the time. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The proclamation reads, Whereas, the United States Army Parachute Test Platoon performed the first official American Army parachute jump on August 16, 1940. And whereas, the success of this parachute test platoon lead to the formation of the large and successful airborne contingent serving in World War II and continuing to the present. And whereas, the continuing development and increasing effectiveness of airborne warfare and air assault units has protected the United States of America and continues to contribute to American eminence. And whereas, those airborne soldiers who fought and died for our nation, as well as those currently serving and protecting us, deserve special recognition. Now, therefore be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that August 16th, 1997, be designated as Airborne Day. Done and ordered this 5th day of August, 1997, by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, Timothy L. Hancock, Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we accept this proclamation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Gentlemen, congratulations. (Applause.) MR. GREGORY: Scott Gregory, Chairman of the Raleigh Duff Chapter, 82nd Airborne Division Association. On behalf of all of the troopers worldwide and all the paratroopers currently serving on active duty, we want to thank the commission for taking the time out this morning to do this proclamation for us. There are thousands of young men and women serving today in the airborne forces of the United States of America, and it's for them we stand here today. And we just want to say thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. (Applause.) Item #5B EHPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Next on the agenda, 5(B), Service Awards. Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I do want to mention we have one employee who couldn't make it today but about the time that you and I were in junior high school, this gentleman was starting his career in fire fighting, and I want to mention that for twenty years Tom Mitchell has worked for us. He's in Ochopee Fire Control. And while he's not with us today, twenty years is a long time to be working. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that was elementary school, actually. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: For you, correct. Absolutely. Richard Hartwell. That's a long time. Richard Hartwell, currently serving in OCPH five years with us. We have an award and a pin. (Applause.) Item #5Cl STEVE FONTAINE, BUILDING REVIEW & PERMITTING, COHMUNITY DEVELOPHENT DIVISION, RECOGNIZED AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR AUGUST, 1997 CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Next on the agenda under (C)(1), Presentations. It's time to duly recognize and embarrass one employee of our staff for doing exemplary work. And this month we're pleased to recognize Steve Fontaine. Steve, if I could ask you to come on up. There he is. Come up here and face the music so you can be duly recognized. I hope the VCR at home is running. It's a pleasure. Each year twelve employees individually are recognized as employee of the month and then one, of course, is employee of the year. Steve, what I'm going to ask is, so that everyone in the audience can see, is you turn around. And I promise I won't do anything behind your back that you won't be proud of. For this month, Steve has been recognized, and the considerations for that recognition are as follows. The Building Review and Permitting Department has been working on designing new computer software for issuing building permits and performing building inspections. Steve was one member of the prototype team assisting in designing the system. This endeavor has taken several months. He has worked tirelessly and contributed many hours on the project that came on line in April. Steve now assists the other employees as they become familiar with the new program. The hard work and dedication he has shown has been outstanding. In addition, Steve performs his regular job duties with patience and calmness. He displays excellent customer service skills and is well liked and respected by his coworkers and customers. Without any reservation, he was nominated and selected as employee of the month for August 1997. Steve, on behalf the board it is my pleasure to present you with a letter indicating your employee of the month award, a check for $50.00 and a plaque again recognizing your outstanding efforts and congratulations. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's it for the fun stuff. Item #7A MICHAEL G'FRANCISO REQUESTING A REFUND OF A SEWER IMPACT FEE - REFUND TO BE FORTHCOMING AFTER ADOPTION OF A REFUND ORDINANCE ON SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 Now on to Item -- we are to Item 7(A) under Public Petitions. Michael G'Francisco requesting a refund of sewer impact fee. Under Public Petitions, since we have two of them, or three of them this morning, generally giving ten minutes to present your petition to the Board of County Commissioners. We do not take specific action other than possibly giving staff direction if deemed warranted. But again, you have ten minutes for your presentation. Mr. G'Francisco, good morning. MR. G'FRANCISCO: Good morning to all of you. I don't think I'll take ten minutes. I don't think it's necessary. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's extra points for that. MR. G'FRANCISCO: There is? Well, then sit back, relax, open up your comforters. Now, I'm here to request a refund on the impact fee for the sewer that I had to pay when I built my home because of the fact I believe that where I constructed my home, in that particular area, Coconut Creek, it probably will never be serviced by sewers. I don't think it's on the master plan. And in the knowledge of the fact that it has been waived for other people who have not paid it, and there have also been refunds made to people, I would like to receive my money back. And that's as simple as it is. And I thank you very kindly. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm going to need some help from staff on this, somebody who is familiar with the Coconut Creek area, whether or not there have been waivers or refunds, specifically on sewer impact fees. MR. ILSCHNER: Mr. Chairman, commissioners, Ed Ilschner, Public Works Administrator. That is an area that we have identified as one of our areas that will be excluded in the master plan initially for service. There have been impact fees charged in that area. We are presenting, and will be presenting to you, an ordinance on September the 9th for your consideration that will address this gentleman's request for reimbursement. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Meaning -- MR. ILSCHNER: It will be an ordinance specifically identifying and recommending to you certain areas in Collier County to be excluded from impact fees. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But for those who have already paid it, we should probably go ahead and -- and will they be included as part of that ordinance or will we need to do some separate action? MR. ILSCHNER: Yes, sir. They will be included in that ordinance. It will require no separate action. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Meaning all those that have paid, if the ordinance is passed will receive a refund if the ordinance is adopted? MR. ILSCHNER: If they submit the appropriate paperwork that we will have available for them to fill out, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Does that answer your question, sir? MR. G'FRANCISCO: Not quite. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. G'FRANCISCO: There has been money refunded already and been waived. I don't see the reason why I should have to wait. MR. ILSCHNER: Sir, I can't answer that question today. I will look into that for you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Actually, I can give a fairly simple explanation. We're not going to meet until the last week of August again anyway. MR. G'FRANCISCO: That's all right. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So this will be a delay of I think about two weeks from when we would likely have heard yours anyway. And I think it'll probably just simplify the process. MR. G'FRANCISCO: Fine. That's all right with me. That's perfectly okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. G'FRANCISCO: Thank you all. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Ilschner, do you have the -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hopefully we'll get to the same end result. MR. G'FRANCISCO: Thank you very much. Everybody have a pleasant day. MR. ILSCHNER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Item # 7B J. DUDLEY GOODLETTE RE IMPROVEMENTS TO COUNTY ROAD 29 - CHOKOLOSKEE ISLAND - STAFF DIRECTED TO FOLLOW UP REGARDING IMPROVEMENTS Item 7(B), J. Dudley Goodlette regarding improvements to County Road 29, Chokoloskee Island. Mr. Goodlette, good morning. MR. GOODLETTE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dudley Goodlette representing Kenny Brown Outdoor Resorts of Chokoloskee. This is consistent with the information that's in your agenda materials. We have written to the -- your county manager merely for the purpose today of asking for your direction to your staff to determine a valuation of the parcel of property that's approximately 70 feet by 350 feet. It's adjacent to the Outdoor Resorts. I have met with your staff members, with Mr. Olliff, I have met with Mr. Bobanick and Mr. Mullet in the transportation, as well as Mr. Weigel. They wanted just direction from staff regarding a determination of the value of this property so that we could hopefully proceed with a private sale or exchange, if need be, under Chapter 125.35 or 125.37 of the Florida Statutes that's outlined in my letter to Mr. Fernandez. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. As I understand it, you're just requesting that the board give direction to staff to perform the appropriate appraisals on the property? MR. GOODLETTE: A valuation so that we can then determine whether we're under 125.35 to acquire the property or whether there's a need for possibly acquiring some other property in exchange for this property if -- the property has been improved by our clients since 1955. It's used for parking for Outdoor Resorts. That's been an issue of concern of liability to this county because it's technically owned by the county and we have a right of way permit on the property. And it's really a detail that needs to be attended to, and that's the purpose -- that's the sole reason that we're here this morning. I've met with Commissioner Berry about this previously. This is in her district and I've appreciated her interest in the subject as well. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. I don't have a problem giving staff direction but I don't want that to be interpreted as a de facto decision that we're going to proceed with any type of a swap. We need to look at that independently. MR. GOODLETTE: And this is the first step, as I understand -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. GOODLETTE: -- what Mr. Weigel had indicated we should, should be asking the board for this morning. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It sounds -- of course we should get the information. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER BERRY: We can pursue this and clear up this matter. It's something that's been hanging out there for a long period of time. This isn't just a new, new issue. It's been there. It needs to be cleared up. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed. Okay. That's a majority. Staff will give that direction to do the appraisal. I see Mr. Olliff nodding. Thank you, Mr. Goodlette. MR. GOODLETTE: Thank you very much. We appreciate it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. That's two happy customers. I don't know if we can stand this kind of success. Item #7C - This item has been deleted Item #7D DENNIS VACHON REGARDGING A REFUND OF A SEWER IMPACT FEE - REFUND TO BE FORTHCOMING AFTER ADOPTION OF REFUND ORDINANCE ON SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 Item 7(D). Dennis Vachon regarding a refund of sewer impact fee. And a darn good carpenter, too. MR. VACHON: How are you doing? Dennie Vachon. I'm here for the same reason Mr. G'Francisco was. The only thing I have to add to it is, when will we receive our refund and will it be mailed to us for the sewer impact fee? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Ilschner, assuming the date of the ordinance being reviewed by the board, assuming adoption on that date, what's the time frame from there? MR. ILSCHNER: Approximately 4 to 6 weeks after that approval, sir. MR. VACHON: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay? MR. VACON: That's it. Thank you very much. Item #8A1 RESOLUTION 97-309 THAT CERTIFIED DIABETIC SERVICES, INC., BE APPROVED AS A QUALIFIED APPLICANT, PURSUANT TO S.288.106, FLORIDA STATUES; AND PROVIDING AN APPROPRIATION OF UP TO $36,000.00 AS LOCAL PARTICIPATION IN THE THE QUALIFIED TARGET INDUSTRY TAX REFUND PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR(S) 1998 THROUGH 2002, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Next item under 8(A)(1), resolution by the BCC that Certified Diabetic Services be approved as a qualified applicant pursuant to Florida Statutes regarding an appropriation of $36,000 and a Qualified Target Industry Tax Refund. Mr. Hihalic, good morning. MR. HIHALIC: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, I'm Greg Hihalic, Director of Housing and Urban Improvement, and I'm before you this morning to talk about one of the first steps with our economic diversification program. If you remember, the report that the board approved in January talked about leveraging some state programs with local monies to encourage high wage economic development within the county, and Certified Diabetic Services is a company that qualifies for this. In your package you'll see there is a letter from the Governor's Office, a preliminary recommendation that Certified Diabetic does qualify. It is a high wage industry in a qualified, targeted industry area. And we're please to have them in Collier County. They are a company that has grown from four employees in the last couple years to thirty-six employees now, and they are adding an additional sixty employees to their payroll over the next year or so, and this produces a substantial amount of economic development benefit to the community. Just looking at the wages alone, over the next five years, this community will generate approximately 42 million dollars of additional buying power to Collier County by being located here and retained here. And also they will be expending 9 million dollars on their new corporate headquarters, which will be located within Collier County. The Qualified Target Industry Program that's run by Enterprise Florida requires a local match for twenty percent of the monies that the company will be receiving. The Governor's letter -- Governor's Office's letter shows that there could be an award of up to $180,000 to this company, which is a reimbursement of state taxes that they pay to the state over the next five years, or a portion of those taxes. So our portion is up to $36,000 over the next five years for our local match, that twenty percent of the total. I'm recommending that comes out of the Housing and Urban Improvement Budget that's been approved already for the Economic Diversification Program out of the fiscal year 1997 monies, and that $36,000 is available for this purpose. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commission Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two things, and you just mentioned one. I appreciate the fact that it's already budgeted money anyway for this type purpose. And, two, I assume one of the reasons it's spread out over the five years is so that if, for some reason, what we foresee or what is hoped for doesn't come to fruition then three years, three years from now we have an opportunity to revisit that or '- MR. HIHALIC: Commissioner, this is a reimbursement of taxes they are owe and doing. If things don't work out and they cannot collect them, we do not pay our portion. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It just seems to me this is exactly what we're looking to do, is encourage business but we're not giving anything up front. Assuming everything's going to happen, they are only rewarded if they deliver. MR. MIHALIC: And the average wages here would be about over $26,000 per additional job. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think in the economic development priority we have made over the last two years, this is consistent and in line with that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Exactly what we've, what we've hoped to happen. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Questions of -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think it makes a lot of sense. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Questions of Mr. Mihalic? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Fernandez, do we have anyone registered on that? MR. FERNANDEZ: No, we do not. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. A motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries 5-0. Mr. Mihalic, thank you very much. MR. MIHALIC: Thank you, commissioners. Item #8C1 CONSIDERTION OF A REQUEST FOR FUNDING FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDING TO BE UTILIZED AS THE HEADQUARTERS FOR THE MARCO ISLAND COAST GUARD AUXILIARY - APPROVED WITH THE PROVISO THAT CLASSROOM BE USED BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND THAT STAFF PURSUE ANY GRANTS AVAILABLE CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We are to Item 8(C)(1) under Public Services. Consideration of a request for funding for the construction of a building to be utilized as the headquarters for the Marco Island Coast Guard Auxiliary. Semper paratus. MS. RAMSEY: Good morning. Harla Ramsey, Parks and Recreation Director. I have before you a request from the Coast Guard Auxiliary on Marco Island to use an existing building at Caxambas Park. That was the original request. The request that we have in front of you though is to demolish that particular building and put up a prefab building, which is the cost that you have in front of you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me, Ms. Ramsey. MS. RAMSEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We've had at least one person in the audience say they cannot hear. MS. RAMSEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is it because of our meeting in the hall out there? Okay. Let's go ahead and continue. Thank you, Mr. Fernandez. MS. RAMSEY: The request I have in front of you is for the county to contribute $40,000 of the $60,000 project, with the other 20,000 coming from the Coast Guard Auxiliary on Marco Island. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And this building is again to be located where? MS. RAMSEY: There is an existing building right now of a, of an old bathroom facility on Caxambas, which we would remove and put up a prefab building, which is actually cheaper to do than to remodel that existing building. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you explain to me the rationale why the general fund would put up $40,000? MS. RAMSEY: Other than some other types of funds or just to clarify the question? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Other than -- I mean, why, period? I mean, $40,000, period. Forget the general fund for now, and we'll address that question separately. MS. RAMSEY: Okay. There has been direction from a number of letters and -- Gary, you want to pass that. I have a number of letters that have shown support from various Tallahassee people as well, senators, et cetera, about the supporting of that. So, in order to accomplish the goal, so to speak, so that Auxiliary has an area to perform from, the existing facilities at the 951 Marco Island Bridge is not adequate at this time, is my understanding from the Coast Guard Auxiliary. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If the state is supporting it, why wouldn't the state contribute the money? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's my question. MS. RAMSEY: Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Support without a check. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's a great idea. We think the county should pay for it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let's support it too, but not give any money. MR. OLLIFF: This is actually a request that's -- it's coming from the Coast Guard Auxiliary and it is based on a little bit of precedence in that the, the county did jointly build a building with the Coast Guard at the Cocohatchee River Park, and I believe the rationale at the time was simply that there is sort of a health, safety and welfare issue associated with the Coast Guard and their work here in the county. I can tell you that there are some grant monies that are out there that we're looking at in terms of FEHA grants that may be available for the county portion, but we didn't put that in the executive summary only because we don't know today whether or not we actually qualify under this project. There's no other rationale for it being general fund other than there's no other funding source from the county that's an eligible funding source. MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you tell me what changed between June 20th and now? Your June 20th memo indicates the total expected cost of $45,000, and it's Mr. Olliff's memo. Today's item says a total expected cost, $60,000. MS. RAMSEY: That was a rough estimate of what the facility would cost, but when we did a more detailed -- looking into the actual cost, it comes closer to the $60,000 mark. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess for me anyway, I -- Commissioner Hac'Kie joked that I, I somewhat support that in that great idea. And if there are grant monies out there, I have no problem expending staff time trying to find those. But I have a little bit of trouble putting up 40,000 general dollars for this. I don't know that that's our role at the county level. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Fernandez tried to break in just a second ago. MR. FERNANDEZ: I think a more direct response to your concern is found in the executive summary in that the current Coast Guard site would be utilized as a public boat ramp, and I think that's -- the sense -- I think the sense of your question is, where is the public benefit to the county that equals $40,000? And I think the answer is, the facility that's currently being used by the Coast Guard will then be available as a public facility. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's one of the important things about this whole transaction, is the 951 boat ramp that's existing down there now is heavily used and it's going to be somewhat impinged by the four-lane construction that's going to happen down there. And this is an opportunity for us to be able to provide a second boat ramp, and some additional boat parking or trailer parking down in that same area. So what we -- as Mr. Fernandez said, what the county's going to get for forty grand is another boat ramp site. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me ask -- Ms. Ramsey, we have -- and I do want to draw the differentiation. We're talking about the Coast Guard Auxiliary, not the Coast Guard here. The difference is the Auxiliary is all volunteer. These are not paid members of the federal branch of service. These are all volunteers. And I served out of Station Fort Myers with the Coast Guard, and I can tell you, we never put a cutter down in these waters unless there was a search and rescue call. All of the local boater assistance information was provided by the auxiliary or by the general boating public because of the fact that the Coast Guard won't put a station down here. This is the largest coverage area in the State of Florida, and the Fort Myers station has two boats and only one crew on, so it is their -- these folks provide a great service. I don't think anybody's arguing that. What I'm curious about is, we have a Coast Guard flotilla, I believe that operates out of -- I'm sorry, the Wiggins Pass, the park, Cocohatchee. Okay. When we built that building, we built it in such a way that there was a smaller -- do they operate the radio transmission out of there also? MS. RAMSEY: Yes, they do. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So we built the building as for general purpose use, but there's, there are areas allocated to the Coast Guard Auxiliary. On the area at Caxambas, is that, is that kind of the same thing we're trying to do here? Is this something that would be dedicated solely to the Coast Guard Auxiliary or something that has a multi-purpose use or has a room that they can use for teaching and classes and so forth but the taxpayers get a benefit from if they want to have a meeting in there, that if it's not scheduled for Auxiliary, we can do that also? Is that the -- an end result? MS. RAMSEY: That would be my understanding, yes, is that it's about 1,056 square feet, which is a small classroom situation. So yes, we could work with the Auxiliary if we had an overflow at the community park, for example, that we might be able to utilize that as well. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. What I'd like is, if we move ahead on this today, is to make sure that that building is made in such a way that their radio areas can be secured and the classroom area can be used by the general public for small meetings and so forth because there's just way too many boaters on Marco Island for me to believe that they're all educated to the level that they need to be. And the Auxiliary does perform that function. So, I'd like to see that, that happen. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: With the criteria that you outlined there, Mr. Chairman, I'll go ahead and make a motion that we approve it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is there a second on the motion? COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A motion and a second. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: For 40,000 on the general revenue reserves? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's what the staff report indicates. Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, staff recommendation, yes. COMMISSIONER BERRY: That is to also encourage them to pursue grants perhaps. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Sure. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Is that included, Mr. Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. Yes, that is. That will be included. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Olliff, when you said there may be grants available, what exactly did that mean? MR. OLLIFF: That means I got a notice on my desk between the time that the executive summary was prepared and today that there are some FEMA grant monies available for certain projects that meet emergency management criteria. I just need to find out whether or not this project meets the criteria or not. But if it does, you can be assured that we will be applying for those grants. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Clearly meets the criteria, because a boat not properly lashed down could become a projectile, and we don't want that to happen, so FEMA needs to know, you know. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Any idea if that's -- how big of a percentage of that 40,000 that may be? I mean, is -- do they have monies available up to 40,000 or -- MR. OLLIFF: They have monies available beyond 40,000. So I think, if it's an eligible project, we may be able to get the full funding. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry? COMMISSIONER BERRY: One of the reasons I'll second this is I think Mr. Fernandez made a good point, that the county gets something back too in terms of this additional boat ramp down there. And so this is why I feel very comfortable in seconding this motion. So we're not just handing out $40,000, we're also going to have the access to another boat ramp down there, in that area, which, if you go down 951, the current one down there is certainly over-extended in many ways. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: the parking area -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMHISSIONER NORRIS: COMHISSIONER BERRY: COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's over-extended and it'll be smaller, in Real soon. -- when they four-lane it so -- Right. I understand that. I assume the motion is up to 40,000 if we -- with the first priority to be to use grant money if at all possible. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Sure. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. And what was that, John, you said, thousands of boats on Marco Island that FEMA needs to be aware of? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Sure. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. FEMA. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's go ahead and purse that FEMA grant at all costs. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Tens of thousands. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Tens of thousands. We have a motion and -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Maybe millions. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, folks. Item #8El FUNDING FOR A FIVE EVENT WEEKEND FOR $12,000.00 TOURIST DEVELOPMENT FUNDS, SPECIAL EVENTS - APPROVED We're to Item 8(E)(1) under County Administrator. Approve funding for Five Event Weekend for -- now, these are all TDC fund requests -- $12,000 Tourist Development fund, special event request. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ms. Gansel, this is consistent with the Little League one that's been done in the past, it's just expanded to a bunch of events now instead of one? MS. GANSEL: That's correct. I think it was two in the -- well, actually, they had two events. They were at different times, the softball and a duathlon. They are combining those two and expanding with three other events. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excellent presentation. Thank you. MS. GANSEL: Jean Gansel, from the Budget Office, for the record. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Why don't you just hand those to Mr. Fernandez and we'll make sure everyone gets them, and keep up the press coverage. Let's get people in for this event. Item #8E2 FUND THE MARCO ISLAND CHAMBER OF COHMERCE FOR $436,800.00 TOURIST DEVELOPMENT FUNDS, ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION - APPROVED Item 8(E)(2). Harco Island Chamber of Commerce. This is Category B -- I'm sorry -- Category B funding, Tourist Development funds. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is the big annual award to two groups. This is consistent with what we've done every year? MS. GANSEL: Exactly. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item. MS. GANSEL: And just -- all of these items that I'm presenting today were unanimously recommended by the Tourist Development Council at their meeting. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries 4-0. Item #8E3 FUNDING VISIT NAPLES, INC. FOR $580,200.00 TOURIST DEVELOPHENT FUNDS, ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION We are to Item 8(E)(3). COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ms. Gansel, I assume this is the northern half -- MS. GANSEL: The other -- yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- of the other portion. MS. GANSEL: Not half, but the other portion. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. I'm sorry, other half -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The northern sixty percent. MS. GANSEL: Northern portion. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Make a motion we approve the item. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) MS. GANSEL: Just so I have a purpose for being up here -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What about the folks who brought their presentation materials, they're feeling a little, a little left out today. MS. GANSEL: Yes, that's true. The sixty percent also does include $75,000 for the Naples Chamber of Commerce for fulfillment. That will be coming back to you, so this isn't the full sixty percent but it's for the same purpose. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, the Chamber one is not included. Okay. MS. GANSEL: Not included in -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It was separate on our TDC agenda. MS. GANSEL: Yes. We just had a -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So we'll see that one at our next meeting? MS. GANSEL: Exactly. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Okay. Item #8E4 FUNDING NAVIGATIONAL AIDS IN WIGGINS AND CAXAMBAS PASSES $5,000.00, MONITORING MARCO ISLANDBEACH RENOURISHHENT PROJECT $110,935.00, MAINTENANCE DREDGING OF WIGGINS PASS $440,550.00, MAINTENNCE DREDGING OF SOUTH CHANNEL AND WATER TURKEY BAY $665,115.00, POST CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE NEEDS OF RBEACH RENOURISHHENT PROJECT $283,382.00, AND BEACH CLEANING EQUIPMENT $164,565.00, CATEGORY A TOURIST DEVELOPMENT FUNDS - APPROVED Item 8(E)(4). These are items Hr. Huber brought to the TDC's attention and items that need to be done. I did request of him at that time, does this maintain our ability under Category A to renourish the beaches as anticipated or scheduled, and the answer was yes. The TDC approved unanimously, if I remember correctly, Ms. Gansel? MS. GANSEL: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second on 8(D)(4). Is there any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries 5-0. Item #8E5 FUNDING THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA FILH COHMISSION FOR $140,000.00 TOURIST DEVELOPMENT FUNDS ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION - APPROVED I need to qualify. Items 8(E)(1), (2) and (3). It was a 4-0 vote. I said unanimous. I needed to correct that. Item 8(E)(5). Approve funding the Southwest Florida Film Commission for $140,000 Tourist Development funds. This one takes little explanation, just so we understand the dollar amount change. MS. GANSEL: Okay. This is -- the board had entered into an interlocal agreement with Lee County to form this Southwest Florida Film Commission. There was a stipulation that there would be an annual -- the board would need to approve an annual allocation. What the film commission is requesting with this particular item is that $80,000 -- which is the same allocation that they had in calendar year '95 -- be allocated for calendar year '96 for the same type of events. That does pay first salary of one of their employees and some of their operational expenses. They are then requesting that the allocation be made consistent with our fiscal year, so they are requesting three-quarters of that 80,000 allocation, keeps it at the same dollar level, for fiscal '98. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: we'll get on a fiscal year. MS. GANSEL: Exactly. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: more. MS. GANSEL: Exactly. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: approve the item. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion. Is there a second? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you, Ms. Gansel. MS. GANSEL: Thank you very much. So that as of September/October '98, And not have to deal with that any Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to Item #10A RESOLUTION 97-310 APPOINTING FREDERICK SWETLAND, III AND GARY HAYES TO THE BOARD OF BUILDING ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Item 10(A). Appointment of members to the Board of Building Adjustments and Appeals. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, there are two openings and two applicants. I'll make a motion we -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- approve those two applicants. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries 5-0. Item #10B APPOINTHENT OF HEHBERS TO THE IHMOKALEE ENTERPRISE ZONE DEVELOPHENT AGENCY - TABLED UNTIL LATER IN THE MEETING Item 10(B). Appointment of members to the Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, there are three openings and three applicants. I would make a suggestion and put it in the form of a motion that we approve those three applicants. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm starting to feel like a rubber stamp. Aye. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Question on the motion. Ms. Blanton, obviously, is an employee in part of the county, in part of the state. How does our, how -- how does the policy guide us on that regarding county, quote, unquote, employees serving on advisory boards? She's here as a resident, not as a county employee. I just want to make sure we aren't crossing any areas that we shouldn't be. I know county employees can't cannot sit on advisory boards. The fact that Ms. Blanton is in part, her salary is in part funded by general fund tax dollars -- I mean, I want her on the committee, but this -- I'm not sure about the -- whether or not we can do that. Mr. Weigel, is this something we're going to need to come back to? MR. WEIGEL: I would appreciate it if you could. If you want to -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion we table the item pending review by our legal staff. MR. WEIGEL: -- come back to it later today, in fact, we can advise you later today. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. The motion is to table the item pending a review by legal staff. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We could go ahead with two appointments and just leave one vacant, as an option. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I assume we're going to be able to do this by the end of the meeting, aren't we? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. I meant today. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, I'm sorry. MR. WEIGEL: We can bring it back later today and let you know. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have a motion to table. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous vote of ayes.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. The item is tabled, 5-0. Thank you. Sorry, Mr. Weigel. I didn't pick that up when I looked at my agenda over the weekend, so, sorry for the lack of preparation. Item #10C RESOLUTION 97-311 APPOINTING PETE CADE, JR. AND DORA S. VIDAURRI TO THE HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED Item 10(C). Appointment of members to the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman I couldn't help but notice, there are two vacancies and two applicants. I'd like to make a motion we approve those two applicants. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Second it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries unanimously. Item #10D RECONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 97-31, AMENDING ORDINANCE 96-6, "THE UTILITY REGULATION ORDINANCE" - STAFF DIRECTED TO BRING BACK FOR FUTURE DISCUSSION Item 10(D). Request for reconsideration of Ordinance 97-31, the Utility Regulation Ordinance. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Quite simply, I misread the item when we read this the first time. I would just like the board's indulgence to bring this back under reconsideration. Of particular concern was not the portion -- well, there were two parts that we changed, and the one I was concerned about was, there are already three of those members are required to have some sort of utility experience. Our change called for all five people to. And I just think three is plenty. We ought to have -- general citizens' common sense can fill the other two positions. I just misread the item. I had talked with staff the week before and mistakenly thought that part had been corrected. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Likewise. I'd like to reconsider for the same reason. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ditto. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous vote of ayes.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Item will be brought back. Item #10E BOARD DIRECTION REGARDING ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS' PEIS - STAFF TO TRANSMIT DRAFT DOCUMENT TO CORPS FOR COHMENT We are to Item 10(E). Request board direction regarding the Army Corps of Engineers' PEIS. This -- I have had more meetings than I care to count or think of over the last week dealing with this issue. The up side is that I think that it has resulted in something positive, and I'm going to attempt to give you kind of in a nutshell -- I'm sorry. Commissioner Mac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is there anything in writing? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Did you -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is there a revision to the draft? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Did you get this? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't think so, no. I've gone through everything. COHMISSIONER BERRY: It was with a lot of other papers that I had. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't appear to have it. Maybe, Sue, if you could get a copy for me? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is it under the transmittal? No. That's the wrong one. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't have that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Tell you what, why don't you make a couple copies of that. What we had is, we had a draft EIS from the Army Corps of Engineers. I think as we all read through it, we had individual concerns. Some of the them dealt with the actual authority the Corps had in granting some powers to the county through the course of the study. Some of them dealt with required comprehensive plan amendments that were alluded to, and without -- we can go through this paragraph by paragraph, page by page, but I think it's more important to know that, after a lot of discussion and serious consideration, what we came to -- and it was my suggestion -- that rather than we sign on to a document that the Corps has produced, that we list the considerations for programatic EIS, if it's to be done in this area, and that we ask the Corps to sign off on that document. The reason is, the Corps cannot grant us -- when we sign on something, the Corps really cannot delegate any authority to us, was what came out of that. However, if we develop a document and they agree to it, we then have a contractual agreement with the Corps, one which can be enforced. I thought that was an important distinction. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't understand the difference. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It took a -- an attorney who has dealt with NEPA law to actually point it out to us, and it took about an hour's worth of discussion between a dozen or more people for everyone to understand it, so I figure I'm -- I'm skimming the surface here. The bottom line is, what we were asking for is, we were asking for some level of authority in that document, and that authority was to -- that there would be three bodies that really governed the direction of the study. One, of course, is the Corps. It's their study. And then the Lee County Commission and the Collier County Commission would be equal partners in the -- in that study and we have the authority to say at any given point, this isn't what was expected, and can pull the reins back a little bit. After discussing with Mr. Nicholas Yoss, who was brought in by the Southwest Florida Chamber of Commerce to really review the document, it was his opinion that that's not really within the Corps' authority to grant or to delegate study duties, if you will, to a board of county commissioners, whether it be Lee County or Collier County. They could -- we could all sign it and think we got it, but the truth is, it's not really there. I think it is far better for us to be able to list and identify the concerns that the members of our community have, to ask the Corps to address those concerns specifically in the study and if the Corps is willing to do that, we then have a contractual agreement with the Corps. And should those things not be considered to the length that's set forth in the document, we then have, if you will, standing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think it's a splendid idea. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What has resulted from that is two things. I've taken the tack on this that the source of this was really the Estero River Basin. That's identified in this document as, again, being the cause or the nexus of the study. I think that keeps the study from becoming so unwieldy that it begins incorporating and eating up areas that really should not be considered. I think we all understand, and even landowners and developers understand, that there are wetlands and there are natural systems out there that, no matter what study is done, will be protected and will not be impacted just by the nature of the system. We have state and federal laws that prohibit the development of certain types of systems, and that's going to continue. In a nutshell, what this document has tried to say is, we recognize the Corps' authority and jurisdiction and we actually encourage them to protect those valuable systems. What we want is some consistency in the permitting process. We want some reasonability in the permitting process. In other words, identify the very important areas in which their enforcement should be applied. And those that are outside of that, let's recognize those also and let's develop a consistent either mitigation or impact plan so that people, property owners know what they're dealing with, which has been a big problem in permitting. Now, we're only dealing with the Corps here. You know, the Game & Fish and everyone else can still run willy-nilly if they want to, but at least it's one agency. We have the opportunity to say, by the -- by what has been stated here and what's been agreed upon, the end result is based in the Estero River Basin. It will have the impact of furthering the Corps' work in that area and streamlining the process so that the developers and property owners know what the rules are when this thing is done. And we've been told all along this is to streamline. Well, this is our way to hold, I guess, if you will, hold the Corps' feet to the fire. I do want to say the Corps has been more than helpful, very good about presenting information. And one part of this study that intrigued me is, there are going -- there's going to be a professional facilitator brought in. What that means is that that keeps an organization, whether it be the Corps or any other group, from driving every element of this study. Neither end of the spectrum, when you have facilitation, tends to outweigh the other. I thought that was a good way of doing it, to have a record of success on the east coast with rock mining and the same process. I've expressed to them, and to everyone else I've discussed that, you know, no, I'm not happy about this. No, I don't trust every element of it, and no, I don't think anyone on this board does. But I think we have the ability, by transmitting this document to the Corps for comment -- I'm not asking the board to approve this today. What I'm asking you to do is to transmit this to the Corps for comment so we can identify any areas in which the Corps is not comfortable with agreeing to, and, in the meantime we, of course, can all review the document in detail with whatever interests are out there and determine if it doesn't go far enough or it goes too far in certain areas. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there a red-line comparison? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A strike-through underline? There is one on my desk. The reason I have a clean copy is because this is what I wanted to give the Corps. There is a strike-through portion -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd would like to see it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- but I didn't bring it out. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't have to see it today. It would be -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Actually, it would be nice to see it right now. CHAIRNAN HANCOCK: I'll provide a strike-through underline to all of you. Sue, it's -- I think it's on my desk. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If you can find it now, that would be easier, you know. I was familiar enough with the other one, but it's hard to tell what's different here. Not that I'm going to object to seeing it through. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: One is coming, apparently. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh. Thank you, Mr. Reynolds. Okay. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I must have erred because you were all supposed to be provided a copy of this yesterday, the strike-through underline, and then this came afterwards. As you can see, the first thing we did is -- the first document the Corps sent us, we felt we needed a reassurance that their federal authority was recognized. That's what the first two paragraphs do. What I didn't want is, I don't want a one-sided study, I don't want a one-sided committee, I don't want a one-sided document. The Corps is going to do their job. We have to recognize that, and we included the proper sections of NEPA in the first two paragraphs. Beyond that, I think what we've really done -- and I'll have to say, the Chamber EDC Coalition has been tremendously helpful in doing all the leg work here -- but the meetings included members of the -- certainly members of the development community, but Commissioner Albion from Lee County, myself, and environmental permitting specialists, people that deal with these things on a daily basis on behalf of the property owners, which is the perspective that I thought was probably most helpful. And this is what resulted from that. I think what we have here is a restatement of the thirteen objectives that the board first proposed. It is -- We just got copies. Thank you. -- a restatement of the thirteen objectives, and most of them are found in the tenets of the study, and what has been changed is wordsmithing from what the Corps sent back, and a lot of that was a shifting of responsibility. One of them stated that, we will amend our comp. plan. Well, I don't think any of us would agree, before a study is even initiated, to amend our comp. plan to reflect the study. So those kinds of things have been changed in the document. The Estero River Basin being defined as the geographical area of the EIS. Again, defined here as stating -- we're starting to set some parameters. What this also does is, the first document had what are called CAs, cooperating agencies. What we found is that, according to Mr. Yoss, the principal element that we were assigned was not within the authority of the Corps to assign us. We could be a cooperating agency, but what's happening is the wordsmithing has actually taken the same structure and made us a cooperating agency and then everyone else becomes a -- either a supporting agency or whatnot. It hasn't changed that. Beyond that I think the tenets are fairly straightforward. And as you read through them, you'll see that they are, again, seeking a balance of the Corps' jurisdiction and environmental protection with private property rights and business interests. And we're trying to make sure that both can coexist. Under General on Page 7 of the 13 pages is cooperating agencies and participating organizations, and that's the shift I was talking about. We and Lee County are what are called cooperating agencies. And again, our abilities and authorities are spelled out in the document. The participating organizations will be all those that wish to participate in the study. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could you -- could you just point me to what our obligations are. Oh, I found it. Cooperating agencies -- well, it sends me to CFR section. If we are a cooperating agency, what are our obligations? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Our obligation is to participate in the formation of the study. We do not have financial obligations to pay for or fund any part of the study. We can if we so choose, but I think we already know the answer to that. So what we are doing is, our -- we do have to submit some information such as our comp. plan, which we have stated in here will be the basis and the only alternative, land use alternative considered in the study. That's a little bit of a reversal from what we received initially which said it'll be the preferred alternative. Well, last time I checked, under state law, we decide what our land use plan is, and I don't think the Army Corps of Engineers is going to give us something that says, you need to change your land use plan, nor do they have the authority to do so. So that is our land use alternative. That was specified in here. COMHISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Excuse me just a minute. There is a contribution, though, by local government, whether it's Collier County or Lee County, in terms of staff time that may have to be devoted to this, and that does have a price. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct. It does. And we recognize that some staff time will be expended on this study. But, it states in here clearly that the study is to be funded by the Army Corps of Engineers, period. It doesn't get much, you know, not real fuzzy on that. COMMISSIONER BERRY: There's no actual cash contribution coming from the county -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. COMHISSIONER BERRY: -- for this study? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. But I think we want some of our staff members involved because they're -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Oh, I agree. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- the ones that have the more detailed knowledge of the land use patterns and so forth that we're dealing with here. So I think that's as much for our protection as it is to assist in the completion of the study. COMHISSIONER BERRY: I don't disagree with that at all, but I just think we need to -- don't forget, you know, that we are going to be allocating staff time to this, and when they're doing this study, they're being taken away. But I certainly think we need to be there with them. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No question. Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman, that's really the point that I was just thinking about as this discussion was taking place. I'm aware that your discussions have not reached the point where you've involved county attorney and staff, for that matter. And I'm wondering if we're at that point now. If you've got a document that looks like it's starting to take some shape here, I think it's important to have early input from the county attorney's office, especially if you expect that document to be an enforceable, tri-party agreement. There are probably some legal -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me address -- MR. FERNANDEZ: -- refinements that you're going to need. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me address that, Mr. Fernandez. The way in which, because I'm asking the board to transmit this to the Corps for comment at this point, this is not a document that the board is approving or taking action on. At the same time, I would like the county attorney to initiate his review. The reason this is all happening today instead of the other way around is because of the recess that's coming up. MR. FERNANDEZ: Right. Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So the county attorney will have the opportunity to review it over the next two weeks or so, the same as the Corps. And when we return from recess, we'll be able to gather all those comments and figure out whether or not we have a document. By the way, we are -- Commissioner John Albion and I are anticipating and hoping that each -- both counties agree on an identical document. In other words, this becomes a true group effort between Collier and Lee County. I saw Mr. Weigel smile at that a little bit, but that is the intent here, is that we're all operating from the same page because this study is going to happen in some form, and it's going to affect Collier and Lee County physically. And so I think we're, we're in a much better position by getting the Corps to agree to these tenets than we would be just throwing our hands in the air and saying, do your study and we'll all go to the, go to the altar and pray on a daily basis. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The ostrich theory. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I assume that Corps representatives have seen this and are going to have some comment on it today or is that -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: They -- this document, I think -- I received it in the office yesterday, because this was -- we had a meeting with Mr. Nicholas Yoss, who is the attorney with the Corps and has NEPA experience, on Thursday of last week, which was critical. He had to then do some level of review in the structure of the document, so it didn't arrive until yesterday. Folks in the Corps are here. They have had a little more time than you have to review this. I don't know if we're going to get substantial comment from them today. But our goal here is to -- my goal is to bring a document back to you as I indicated I would with changes to the draft EIS, PEIS that was proposed for transmittal to the Corps for comment. And due to the short time frame and break coming up, this was the best I could do as far as getting it to you in time. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: My -- my basic substantive question is, I couldn't show you on a map what the Estero River Basin is, so I don't know how much of Collier County, you know -- where the boundary of that is in northern Collier County. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You may remember there was an Appendix A to the first draft EIS that listed a time frame. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mm-hmm. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. That time frame is that the scope of the study will be completed within two months of a general agreement from Lee, Collier and the Corps on whatever we will end up agreeing on. So the specific boundaries of that study will be identified in that first two months. What this document does is it puts us in a position to say that that boundary must be logically connected to the Estero River Basin. So, there's got to be some science to that. We all know this general principle that water flows downhill. And you can only connect these things hydraulically so, you know, it's got -- there is a physical connection there. So what we're saying is that this didn't start off as a grab to throw all of Collier County into a programatic EIS. There needs to be a single point of focus. It was stated to me by representatives of the Corps that the Estero River Basin was the primary focus, and all we're trying to say is, fine, let that be. We won't -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I heard that that was the -- that that was one of -- that there were projects within southern Lee County that, you know, got the attention of the Corps, so that it was the, the genesis of the discussion. And I guess -- I've got no objection to sending this since what we're going to do is all be looking at it carefully over the break to come back with comments. And, I assume, for board members individually, if we have comments, we should direct them through the county attorney's office. What would be the process there? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What I would anticipate in the meantime is, if you have comments, to go ahead and put them through Mr. Weigel, and ask Mr. Weigel. There is a disk of this available, Mr. Weigel, so you may want to have it. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Get the disk. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Reynolds has the most up-to-date. He can give the disk to either you or my assistant. Let's get a disk of this in the county attorney's office so we can look at it in the meantime. And I'll ask all comments to be passed through your office, since we're not going to be here, for the most part. It's -- I know which project you're talking about, and let's be frank. You're talking about Alico, if I'm not mistaken. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Actually, the one I heard about was something ranch, something ranch up there. What's the name of it? The -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That is a unique name. COMMISSIONER BERRY: It was one of the sites considered for the University, wasn't it? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: All I know is -- what's the name of it? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Sweetwater? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's owned by the McArdle family. Sweetwater Ranch, yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If I'm not mistaken, and Mr. Reynolds can refresh my memory, I think we had representatives from Alico. I don't know if we had anyone from Sweetwater Ranch there, but they've actually gone through this also, so -- I guess what started the study, or what the motivation is is something that we can talk for weeks and probably not come up with a single -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It doesn't really matter. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- solid answer. And it really doesn't matter. A PEIS is going to happen, and the Estero River Basin seems to be the general area, or the anchor of the study. We're just saying, let's identify that, so it doesn't become unwieldy, doesn't become an octopus and go out and grab things that are unrelated, because the idea of a programmatic EIS is to have measurable outcomes. You can't have measurable outcomes if you do a two-county study. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You know, at the risk of wrath, there are people in the community who think that this is a great idea and that expanding its boundaries, you know, to get a big picture -- holistic, I think is the word that Colonel Rice used -- look at the water management impacts and water-related impacts on development on a broad scale is a good thing, so -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is a double-edged sword. There's a danger to doing it both ways. And I'll tell you, the last large scale study that I've seen was called the ADID in Rookery Bay. Basically everything east of Airport Road's a wetland and can't be touched, is the result of that, with the exception of a couple farm fields I think they exempted. So what happens is, if you get too broad in scope, you lose the detail, and if you lose the detail and lack of specificity, a larger circle is going to be drawn around the area of concern. What we're saying is, identify the area specifically, tailor the study to that area, and this even says that all information that is generalized and not verified by ground-truthing will be subject to change, based on ground-truthing. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Again, let's not look at an aerial and draw a big loop around an area and say, you can't touch it, because within that we know to be areas that may be developable and then we're dealing with a rights issue again. I thought -- it was at my request that we included some of the NEPA language and Corps authority in this document, and the reason is, the environmental community needs to know that we're not trying to go in, and nor does this board have any intention, of reducing the authority of the Corps or creating more developable land in North Collier County. Heck, we're sitting here trying to reduce densities on projects. You know, it would be a nice problem to have to, you know, lose a big chunk of developable land that we thought was going to develop, so we need to -- I want the environmental community to know that we recognize the authority of the Corps and we are not trying to impede that authority. We are trying to tailor it to the area of concern in such a way that is productive for the landowners, environmental interests and, let's face it, the building community, which employs thousands of people. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would just think that probably the most important first step of the group is going to be to define the geographic boundaries, so I'm not -- being uncertain with what that area, you know, of the definition of that area is something that I'll probably want to talk more about. And the other thing that I want to talk more about is the significance of our ability to withdraw if we don't like the way its going. So I'll just tell you, that's something I'm going to want to -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Again, what I would ask you to do is look more at the tenets and determine if they do not cover the concerns that you have. Because if we have an agreement with the Corps that says, these are the basic tenets, and everyone signs off on it, if one or the other violates those tenets, we then have, in essence, a contractual default. So that's why I think it's more important to include in the tenets those concerns than to be concerned about being able to withdraw, stand back and throw stones at a process that is already started and will continue, with or without us. So this is our protection, for our citizens and for our environment, if we structure it properly. If we do not, well, then we're the ones to blame. But I think we can. I think this is a good start. Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: My smile earlier when you mentioned Lee County was that I had a nice call from the Lee County attorney yesterday who asked if our board had taken any particular action in regard to the PEIS and mentioned potential agreement. And I explained to him that we would be having an agenda item today, that if there were an agreement, that I knew that it would probably be a subject of discussion today as a tentative thing. And they, Mr. Yeaget actually solicited if there was anything we can do to coordinate and help, it would be fine. So I would take it from the board's discussion today that I will look to comments and any issues that Lee County has for their county attorney that may assist us in our review of the identical document that we have here. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed. Lee County will hear this item next week. Their commission will hear the item on the agenda next week. So the only reason we're a week apart is again because of our scheduled recess, so '- So we have four speakers on this. Is it okay to go ahead and go to the speakers? Okay. Let's do that. MR. FERNANDEZ: The first is Mary Dunavan. MS. DUNAVAN: Good morning, commissioners. My name is Mary Dunavan, and I am speaking for myself. And I would like to see you create a county government private property rights commission. There are a lot of meetings going on out here that you know nothing about. I'm sure you don't know all of them. And when I attend any of these meetings the -- as an individual, I have no say until everything's settled for the meeting, then I get to have a little input at the end of the meeting. The meeting's already decided what they're going to do. And so I would like to see you create this commission so that they can study and do research on documents and they can report back to you and back to the county manager and to some of your staff, what is going on out here. I do know some of the county staff members were at the ecosystems management area meeting a couple of -- two to three weeks ago. And there are so many meetings and they are even having subcommittee meetings. I can't get to all of them, there's no way. And -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ms. Dunavan? Excuse me, Ms. Dunavan. MS. DUNAVAN: Yes? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think that's fine under General Comments, but the agenda item on this particular one is transmittal of a document to the Corps regarding a specific PEIS, so, I understand what you're saying. I think that's fine under General Comment, but we do need to stay on this issue. MS. DUNAVAN: Well, I do believe what the colonel will create for us will be against private property rights. I am glad to see this discussion today among you commissioners. I am against the PEIS and the Army Corps using the Governor's Commission on Sustainable South Florida Report. The environmentalists initiated this through the Army Corps, and that they -- usually the -- the environmentalists are usually on all these committees as members of those committees. I have an inquiring mind. Colonel Rice brought an entourage with him when he came, six to ten people. They stayed about five days. And I wonder, what is so important that he had to do this? That he felt it was -- what is behind all this? I question. And this is an ongoing matter. If you decide you're going to have certain things in it or not have certain things in it. This isn't going to stay the same. Every meeting I go to, it says ongoing. No matter what you agree to, it's an ongoing, changing pattern. Change the rules. And under what land use, comprehensive plans, I think you understand what I'm saying. And so -- can I get a copy of the papers from you that you're talking about today? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am. They're are public record. Certainly. MS. DUNAVAN: And, on permitting, my question is, what does this document from the Government Commission on Sustainable South Florida have to do with permitting? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Hopefully, nothing. MS. DUNAVAN: Okay. But that's what he's going to go by, Option Number 5 on the White Report. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ms. Dunavan and others, I want to read an element of the document today. Quote, private property rights shall be clearly acknowledged and respected in EIS alternatives. It is recognized that neither the Corps permitting nor this EIS convey a property right nor authorize any injury to property or invasion of other rights. Any provision of the EIS which is regulatory in nature, which is applied through any means in a regulatory manner which results in the taking of private property rights under the U.S. Constitution and the amendments thereto is invalid, or the U.S. shall pay just compensation for the taking. So, just, before anyone goes off on the fact that we don't care about that or are not concerned about it or not addressing it, it's in there. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Glen Dunavan, and then Ty Agoston. MR. DUNAVAN: I would like this to go to each of the commissioners. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And again, Glen, we're just on Army Corps PEIS. MR. DUNAVAN: Yes, sir. That's what it will be on. However, I would like to say that, in the Army Corps PEIS, as we'll show you in these documents here, is tied into all the rest. The Governor's Commission on Sustainable South Florida and the whole bit. And the reason I have compiled these things that I have given you is because I wanted to comment on it last meeting but I was told that I would not be allowed to. So I'd like to comment now. And it definitely has a lot to do with PEIS. Exhibit 4 is Page 168 of the Governor's Commission, recommends the formation of data information, et cetera, for ecosystem management of South Florida. Oh, I started way down the line. I'm sorry. Exhibit 1, the front page is the Governor's Commission, an issuing report. It lists Colonel Rice as Ex Officio member and that he strongly endorses it. Exhibit 2 is the bottom page of 1 and the top page of 2 of the Colonel's White paper he handed out, while the other is in support for PEIS. This lists the Governor's Commission on Sustainable South Florida as one of the studies to be incorporated in PEIS. Exhibit 3 on Page 31 of the commission report states Agenda 21 as a means of forcing the integration of environmental, economic and social planning at the state level, and it should be used as a tool for reconciling economic, environmental and development tensions and conflict. Exhibit 4 is, Page 168 of the Governor's Commission recommends a formation of data information, et cetera, for ecosystem management of South Florida. And, like I say, the PEIS covers all these things, and as he has stated it will. Exhibit 5 demonstrates that an ecosystem team has been organized. It has met three times. This team has declared Big Cypress Basin ecosystem extends east of the Gulf of Mexico to L4 and L28 canal system. Exhibit 6 cross references ecosystem management team as implementing the Governor's Commission recommendation. I commend you on not endorsing his plan entirely and studying it. What I would like to see is that it will not include the Governor's Commission on Sustainable South Florida. It will not include Agenda 21, which is a United Nations recommendation. So your answer to question -- Mr. -- to Nettie, Chairman, as to whether the Governor's Commission on Sustainable South Florida and Agenda 21 of the UN was passed as a law in Collier County is no. But they are being implemented by the ecosystem management team and Colonel Rice intends to implement them into PEIS, as he has stated. We are strongly against putting a new form of non-elected government in place of our elected one, and that is what this is. You are all republicans. I'm a republican. The state law makers are republicans. The United States law makers are republicans. But if you put this in, you're putting in a radical governor agenda and a radical president, and a very radical vice president's agenda. I urge you to study these reports or, if you're not going to study them, insist that they are not included. And there are some 200 reports, according to Colonel Rice, that will be incorporated in this PEIS. I thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. (Applause.) MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Ty Agoston, and then Mr. Alan Reynolds. MR. AGOSTON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. There's a good reason, apparently, that I never got involved with politics because, after I read through with the number of reports that was put out by various environmental government groups contradicting one another within the page, within the actual report itself, it is really almost scary. You guys are superfluous, or, if you are not superfluous now, you will become so. Based on Mr. Rice's White paper, he's -- his group and the various environmental groups are going to define what is the proper social behavior, what is the proper, proper living arrangements, what is the proper working arrangements, and the whole human behavior, probably up to and including religion. The new religion, apparently, is to hug a tree every morning. Don't dig one to plant, but, you know, just hug it. According to Mr. Rice's White paper, he claims to be a neutral party in this. I'm not quite sure, how could you be neutral when you are an ex officio of Sustainable Florida Commission, which the bulk of its trust is social. They're talking about affordable housing, they're talking about raising children, they're talking about a cradle to grave educational program. Where is the neutrality? I would like to know how Colonel Rice can be neutral while being the bottom floor of the -- of a paper or program such as Sustainable South Florida. He's also referring to a need to become part of the way he says to achieve consistency with other state, federal and local processes and would build on the work of the Arnold Committee. I happen to have read through that damn thing and, to be perfectly honest with you, that's pretty much the same as Sustainable South Florida, involving itself in social aspects as well as religious aspects and the whole -- the educational aspects, the whole nine yards. So based on that, you guys just might as well give them the power now and save the fight, because it's coming. The same people who are listed on one board of the environmental group appear on the next board of environmental group. So we are talking about a relatively large but identical group. And what they are looking for is power. Power based on the definition, the mere fact of me breeding, I am polluting the environment. So, I mean, if you go make a case for getting involved in my behavior, you know, it's a relatively clear-cut situation. And frankly, I feel the Naples Daily News have already condemned you, that Colonel Rice should not pay any attention to you, there should be a more higher authority such as the federal involvement and the local, nattower interest should be eliminated. Now, I know that the environmental group do not like public participation. I have been to a number of them. And while they claim on one minute, on one sheet that the public comments are critical to developing a study and nature of an analysis, the next page, the very next page behind it says, since it focuses on regulatory program and restrict it to a subset of identified issues, some members of the public may not participate due to the unfamiliarity of the regulatory program. What that means is ninety-nine percent of public is excluded. If you don't agree with them, there is no need for you to talk. And I don't see the fervor that I see at an environmental meeting. I have seen some at the scenic 41. These people get up and they are perfectly willing to take my property away, southern Golden Gate Estates, we have taken quite a bit of it. Thank you for your indulgence. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Ty. (Applause.) MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Alan Reynolds, and then A1 Perkins. MR. REYNOLDS: Good morning. Alan Reynolds. I'm here speaking today on behalf the Naples Chamber EDC Coalition. As you know, the Coalition has taken a lead role in this process from early on, trying to frame the issues and move this discussion forward to some kind of a balanced conclusion. We decided that once we received the first draft of the Corps' memorandum that the best contribution we could make was to try to provide you with specific comments to that agreement, and that is what we have done, and the document that you are reviewing is the work product there. What I would like to do is very quickly highlight a couple of the key points and then I'd be happy to respond to any questions you might have on it. The major deficiencies we saw in the agreement that was provided by the Corps, first of all were some of the legal deficiencies that Chairman Hancock identified. The document did not specify in any manner what the role and authority of the Board of County Commissioners would be. It did not get into specifics about time frame, scope, and it did not address satisfactorily, in our opinion, the issues with respect to projects that are already in the permitting process. So what we have done is prepared this document that we think addresses all of these issues and is, is something that we think, if the Corps were to agree to -- and we would be hopeful that they do, that this document would protect the interests of property owners and of the citizens of Collier County and move this forward to a beneficial conclusion. If I could, let me just highlight four or five of the key provisions that I think are important, and I'll refer to the line numbers in the underlying strike-through document. And the first one I'd like to highlight is the paragraph starting on Line 52. This is the one that speaks to the comprehensive plans. And it's our opinion that it's important that this agreement state and give the appropriate weight to our adopted comprehensive plans as the basis for the studies because of the exhaustive process that those plans have been through. And so this paragraph serves to speak to that issue and recognize that you, as the elected representatives of our citizens, are the ones that are appropriate to protect those interests. The second key item, I think, is the paragraph that starts on Line 86, and this is the paragraph that frames in more detail the role of the county commission as a cooperating agency, but also a principal in the study. And that would distinguish the county commission from other cooperating agencies, which would be other governmental agencies, because later on we define specifically what the authority of a principal is in the document. The third is a -- is the tenet that starts on Line 101. This is the one that restates what the purpose of this process is. We have heard the Corps identify that its purpose is to streamline the permitting process. We think it's important that that be clearly stated as a tenet. Also, we have given specific dates, rather than eighteen months, to the time frame. The basis for that is, number 1, the study can certainly be completed within sixteen months. Secondly, if we complete the study by the end of calendar '98 it gives us the opportunity to review that as part of our amendment cycle that would commence in January of the following year. So the timing there would be critical in keeping this process moving forward to its ultimate conclusion. Commissioner Mac'Kie raised the issue about defining the geographical boundary. We would like to have -- define that in advance as well but we understand from the Corps that the law precludes them from defining the physical boundaries until they do the scoping process. So what we've attempted to do is define it as narrowly as we can under this agreement, which is the Estero River Basin. And obviously that will be fine-tuned and ultimately approved by the principals, which would mean that you-all would be sitting and making the decision as to the ultimate boundaries of the study area. The next highlight is on Line 126. This speaks to the issue of funding. The Corps has identified that they would like the participation of cooperating agencies in the funding of the study. What we want to make sure is that it's clear that that's not a prerequisite to being a cooperating agency. And Commissioner Berry identified that the contribution of time and talent from your staff is, is probably a more valuable contribution that this county commission can make. So we wanted to make sure that that was clear in the agreement. The next one I think is perhaps, of all of them, the most important. That is, that our comprehensive plan is the land use plan that's used to test this study, not that it's one of many -- may I continue? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Please finish. MR. REYNOLDS: Thank you. Not that it's one of many alternatives that might be considered but that it is the plan that is used to evaluate. The point being is, we want to bring the Corps' process in line with our comprehensive plans, not bring our plans in line with the Corps' permitting requirements. On Line 156, this is a new provision that we think is essential, and that is that no provision of this EIS will cause to be impacted our essential transportation linkages, particularly those that are essential for disaster relief, hurricane evacuation. What would be extraordinarily problematic for us is if this study recommended that certain road quarters that you have identified as being essential could not be built for some environmental reason. So we think thatws an important consideration. At the bottom of that page on Line 188, again clarifying that this study is not going to be used in advance of its final adoption to impact people who are already in the permitting process or alter conditions of permits that have already been granted by the Corps of Engineers. And then on Line 226, this is perhaps one that, that clearly needs your review and the county attorneyws review, and that is siding the specific role of the principals. We think that that should include determining the scope of the study, the boundary, the schedule, directing the activities of the standing committees, and other important aspects of this. So you as a principal will have that authority by virtue of this agreement. You would not have that otherwise because of the federal law requirements that the chairman identified. And then on the Page 301, this is the provision that speaks to your comprehensive plan. And what that says is that you will take the results of this EIS and you will consider that through the appropriate process when you evaluate recommendations and changes to your plan, not that you will predetermine that any changes will be made but merely you will take that input and you will work it into your plan, and if there are changes that are decided to be appropriate, those changes get made. If not, they donwt. And this is the -- this is the appropriate way to do it. It keeps you square with state law and does not delegate any of your authority in advance. And the last one Iwd like to highlight, and not a lot of attention has been paid to Appendix A, but frankly, this is where we need to spend a lot of the time because this is the actual structure of the study. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Where are you, Ai? MR. REYNOLDS: Right now Iim on Appendix A, which is Line 385 to 398. The changes we have made here has the principals being you, Lee County and the Corps, determining the membership of the standing committees of the study, not just the Corps making that decision. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And not just whoever shows up? MR. REYNOLDS: Right. And in one case they actually had the agency, the management making those decisions and directing those activities. The second thing, and itls the line on 394, it says, "Representatives of governmental agencies shall be non-voting ex officio members of standing committees." What we donlt want is to have all of the regulatory agencies driving the membership and the decision-making at the committee level. That should be done by citizens that are appointed to do that task. The governmental representatives should be ex officio and should be advisory to that process but should not be voting members of those committees. And the balance, really, are mostly technical changes that, that we think approve the process and make it clearer. I know thatls a lot to cover and I apologize for you not having had a chance to review this in more detail but, as the chairman identified, this process has been moving very quickly. We have reached out to, I think, over thirty different people for review and input into this that have a lot of expertise. So I think we've provided you a document that, if it is accepted by the Corps, will gives us the safeguards that we need and contribute to a balanced study. We have coordinated with Lee County, with your chairman, and we would expect that they would adopt either the same or a very similar type of an agreement as this one. So I would be happy to answer any questions you might have about the document. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What exactly is the function of the alternative development group? That's there in the appendix and that's what you were just discussing. MR. REYNOLDS: Right. I would characterize the alternative development group as the policy committee as opposed to the technical group, which is the science committee. The alternatives development group is going to be looking at basically alternatives for impact mitigation in land use scenarios. So basically they are the ones I think that probably do the lion's share of the important work in this study. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Almost like one is data collection and one is assimilation and report? MR. REYNOLDS: Exactly. We -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So -- MR. REYNOLDS: I'm sorry. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So in the original agreement it had just the Corps selecting the members of that group and now this draft suggests that the Corps and the other two principals, Lee and Collier, would appoint the committee members to that group? MR. REYNOLDS: That's correct. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But voting members cannot include members of permitting agencies? MR. REYNOLDS: Right. What we think is that the membership of those committees should be citizens, not the representatives from, for example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission. They should be technical advisors to these committees but should not be the voting members of these committees. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Should there likewise be a balancing that development advisors can't be voting members? I mean, my concern is this, we'll end up with a committee controlled by the building industry without advice -- you know, with advice only from permitting agencies. MR. REYNOLDS: No. I think -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How would that balance? MR. REYNOLDS: -- the membership, for example, of that group could include representatives of the Conservancy and other environmental groups, just not regulatory agencies. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I see. MR. REYNOLDS: So we would, we would want to see a balanced committee between environmental and conservation and development interests, otherwise the results of the study would be flawed. We just don't think that -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And those people -- MR. REYNOLDS: We just don't think that the regulatory agencies that are ultimately charged with -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Enforcement. MR. REYNOLDS: -- enforcement should be also members of a committee. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: See, and those people operate on the same plane, was the idea, as a David Guggenheim and Witt Waters, executive directors of organizations that represent elements of our community, and they're on the same plane. You throw in someone from Fish and Wildlife, you know, that's how some studies in the past have gotten way out of control and been too weighted to, in that case, the environmental side. We don't want the opposite. So I agree with your point, but I think it's our job, the way this is structured, to appoint those members to make sure it's balanced, to not let either necessarily get an upper hand so that in the end we can come up with something that makes sense to all parties. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thanks. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Further questions for Mr. Reynolds? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll thank you and the Chamber EDC for all the leg work and all the work on this. It's made it a lot easier to get through, and I appreciate that. MR. REYNOLDS: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: The next speaker is A1 Perkins. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have anyone after Mr. Perkins? MR. FERNANDEZ: No. He's the last one. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. PERKINS: Good morning, commissioners. A1 Perkins, Belle Heade Groups, citizen, veteran, agitator. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let the record reflect. Agitator. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Stipulated. MR. PERKINS: Right. Your previous speakers have done an excellent job. I hope you were listening to them. They couldn't have said it any better. And I think they've touched base on every issue right on down the line. So, needless so say, I won't address any of that, except a few things. First of all, I want to make sure you people in the audience and home, just remember, communism, socialism is alive and well, especially in Washington where the favored nation status is there. Now -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A1, I need to remind you again, we are the Board of Collier County Commissioners and we are looking -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: A little government here. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- we're looking at a proposed document to go to the Army Corps of Engineers on a PEIS. Keep it within those parameters, please. No editorializing. MR. PERKINS: Absolutely. You took and hit on authority as far as Corps of Engineers. Then let me go with the authority. The Corps of Engineers can't be trusted. They haven't been trusted since the early twenties. They are the problem, part of the problem. They created the problem in West Palm Beach and all the way down. So now, if you trust them now, then you're -- what do you want me to say -- fools. You can't trust your government. That's the whole thing. That's the reason why I come here to put your feet to the fire every chance because you are our employees. Now listen up. And those people at home need to let you know what they want you to do. That's the whole idea of this whole democracy, otherwise this whole country's a farce and I fought a war for no reason at all. The environmentalists are going to put pressure every place they can to take and create this Sustainable Southwest Florida. They do it for profit, dollars. They couldn't wait to try to divvy up the 50 million bucks. That's what some of these meetings were all about. With that I'm going to quit because you've heard it all from these people. They've said it right. They've said it correctly. And I hope you've been paying attention. Thank you. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Where we are in a nutshell is that, I believe we at least have a draft document to transmit to the Army Corps of Engineers that states the concerns and requirements that have been discussed to date, and states it in a form and manner that is very straightforward and doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room or gray area. I'm pleased to have been able to do this. The one thing that comes from this is that by our involvement in this study we can turn the light on. If we are not involved in this study, then we are letting it be relegated and controlled by whatever interests show up. And I think we've seen that that's not effective. It's not positive. So I'm just asking for the board to consider seriously our role in this and whether or not this document defines that role well enough, and then we'll have the opportunity to discuss that in detail as we get back. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, are you looking for board direction to go ahead and implement cooperation with the Corps and to transmit this document to them? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I am, Mr. Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll give that direction. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Is that a consensus from the board? I agree that we should transmit this to the Corps for comment, receive those comments back. In the meantime, we'll send any comments we have to Mr. Weigel and then the board can review this in its entirety in the form of a -- I'm blanking now -- but in the form of a document that we can sign on and the Corps can sign on and Lee County would also do the same. Is there a consensus to move in that direction? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So be it. Mr. Weigel, we'll provide the documents to you and you can transmit to the Corps. We'll make your office the point of contact on this. I would like to recognize and thank the representative of the Corps, Mr. Lloyd Pike, for being here today, and we will obviously have further discussions with you in the next, next month or so. MR. PIKE: Thank you for all your efforts. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Lloyd. Let's go ahead and -- it's 10:30. Let's take about a ten minute break here. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We're going to reconvene the Board of County Commissioners' meeting. We are to Item -- we just finished Item 10(E). Item #11A AUTHORIZATION FOR THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE TO APPLY FOR FUNDS UNDER THE STATE CRIMINAL ALIEN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM - APPROVED We're to add-on Item ll(A), which is the 1997 State Criminal Alien Assistance Program where we assist alien criminals, as I understand it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hopefully not. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just kidding, Jill, just kidding. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It was a joke. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: TAG was already forming a committee. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It was a joke. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is -- is there anyone from the sheriff's office here on this item there? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sure. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There you are, Greg. This is something that got put on the agenda a little late, so you can just give us a quick overview, Greg. MR. SMITH: Sure. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Assure TAG that alien criminals will not be assisted. MR. SMITH: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, Captain Greg Smith, Jail Administrator for the Collier County Sheriff's Office. What you have in front of you today is the sheriff seeking authorization from the board to apply for the Criminal Alien Assistance Program which is administered by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. It is a grant which enables us to recapture money for the cost of housing criminal aliens who have been found guilty of a felony or two misdemeanors. And that's basically it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me understand this. We don't -- whether they were foreign-born or not, if they commit a crime and receive jail time, we have to incarcerate them one way or another; is that right? MR. SMITH: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But the federal government is now offering grand funds to assist in the cost of the incarceration? MR. SMITH: That's correct, if those people who are foreign-born are determined to be illegally in this country. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Any discussion? Any speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries 4-0. Mr. Smith, thank you very much. MR. SMITH: Thank you, commissioner. PUBLIC COHMENT - RE BIG FOOT IN THE EVERGLADES; FULL DISCLOSURE; COUNTY NLANAGERAND SPENDING OF COUNTY HONEY; OPPOSITION TO PEIS STUDY AND STANDING BY THE CONSTITUTION CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We are at Public Comment on General Topics. Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Ty Agoston. Next is Mr. David Shealy to be introduced by Mr. Herb Luntz. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Been reduced to the bottom of the batting order, Ty. MR. LUNTZ: Thank you. For the record, Herb Luntz, your Special Projects Coordinator. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, Mr. Fernandez, I have been in front of you many times in the past with some unusual things but I think this is probably going to be one of the lightest and probably the most unusual. You've heard a lot recently about a Bigfoot type creature being seen in the Everglades, and one of the gentlemen who is involved and has been tracking and stalking and trying to find out what this is all about wanted to appear before you. I said that I would be more than happy to introduce him to the commission. His name is David Shealy. He owns the Big Cypress Trail Lakes Campground down in Ochopee, and, of course, he's been in business there for thirty years. He's also one of the directors of the Chamber of Commerce down there, and is also a spokesman for the Greater Everglades Chamber. With that I'm going to turn it over to David Shealy, and I think you'll have some interesting -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just a second, Mr. Luntz. MR. LUNTZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As an employee of the county, you understand that public comment has to have something to do with this Board of County Commissioners, and the last time I checked we weren't in the area of UFOs or Bigfoots or anything like that. So I'm, I'm looking for a tie here, Herb, and I don't see one, because I have told -- and Mr. Perkins behind you will tell you -- this is not public access TV. This is not get-your-information-out-to-the-world time. This is public comment on matters of importance or matters dealing with this Board of County Commissioners. MR. LUNTZ: He -- he had a concern. We, you know -- we worked on a couple big projects together earlier this year. He was concerned as to how he could get to you and let you know what's happening down there in the Everglades because you folks are liable to be contacted by the media and he wanted to make sure you had the straight poop. And that's when I said to him, "I'11 be happy to introduce you to them." And whether or not you want to hear from him, it's up to you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's go ahead and hear from him. And no offense, sir, but, quite frankly, it's got to have something to do with the business of this board or I'll have to curtail the comment. MR. SHEALY: It definitely does. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. If it does not I'll -- MR. SHEALY: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- speak up. Go ahead. MR. SHEALY: Well, first off, let's cover the issue of whether or not this is even relevant. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We need your name for the record first. MR. SHEALY: My name is David Shealy. My first name's David, my last name is Shealy. Would you like me to spell that? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No, sir. I don't think that's necessary. MR. SHEALY: Okay. Well, I have the tracks here that are -- this is the most evidence ever collected, but what brings it to you? What brings it to you is that you are in possession of the negative, that Collier County has authority over this negative. It was taken by a county employee, a fire chief from a county vehicle. And if you'd like to see the photograph, I have it here. If you want to take a look at it, already Naples Daily News wants it. But I just wanted to explain to you a little bit about this thing. What it is, so you can make that decision, whether or not you even want anybody to see the picture. It's been in -- I've talked to over 50 million people, all of Europe, all of Latin America. I've been on radio shows for the last two weeks. Collier County refuses to recognize this, and I don't mean the county itself. There hasn't been an article in the Naples Daily News about it. And I understand that. They're the voice of the people. They don't want to run no smut magazine. They want to write the facts. People who live in the country in this area, they know what the skunk ape is. It's been around for a long time. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's take a look at the picture. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. Let's see the picture. I -- he threw in county employee, so -- MR. SHEALY: This is the picture, and I also have tracks over there. Inside Edition -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I tell you what, Mr. Shealy -- there we go. We need you on the microphone. Okay. MR. SHEALY: "Inside Edition" has been down for the last two weeks. They thought that this was a hoax. I think they were in for a big surprise. They got eaten by mosquitoes, sunburned, and when they left, they had -- right now they are saying it's authentic. The Bigfoot Association's saying it's authentic. It's the most authentic sighting and collection anywhere in North America. However, the story get a little deeper, and this is another reason I wanted to talk to you today. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Looks like somebody I know. MR. SHEALY: I had -- some of my samples that I had collected from this animal were taken from me at my home. There's been a gigantic helicopter search that's occurred by my house. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, that's just Sheriff Hunter out on his regular patrol, the sheriff in a helicopter, I think. MR. SHEALY: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: He's over by my house all the time, too. MR. SHEALY: Oh, this was a lot of helicopters. It was real late at night, and it was after a visit I had from some people I don't know who came into my house and took hair that I had collected while I was being filmed on Channel 20 out of Fort Myers. They -- I got a knock on my door about 9:30 at night. I answered the door. There were two guys standing there dressed in black. They asked me my name. I told them my name. They came into my house. They wanted the tracks. The tracks were locked away in my truck outside, and it was raining so I didn't go out and get them. But they did get the hair. I told them I didn't have the tracks, but they took the hair. And when I asked them when I was going to get it back, they told me they were going to have it analyzed and then they were going to be back and talk to me. And I want to know maybe if you-all know anything about this. And three days after that, I had helicopters all over Turner River Strand behind my place from 12:00 at night until 4:00 in the morning. They all converged on one area and hovered for forty-five minutes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think in -- the short answer, do we know anything about it -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We don't have a division that -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No men in black? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. No men in black for us. This is -- you said this is a picture taken by a county employee from a county vehicle so the county, in essence, it's our picture, whether it's released or not? MR. SHEALY: I think that the fire chief had talked with the county attorney. He had some real concerns about it. I know that right now "Inside Edition's" got it and I got it, and the Bigfoot Association's got it. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, in the interest of tourist dollars, I think we should release the photo immediately. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, is there a -- is there any board action required? I personally couldn't care less if anybody wants to reprint this, look at it, investigate it, that's fine. And I don't think any of the board cares about that. Is there any action we need to take on this or can we just say this photo belongs to the individual that took it and that's that? MR. WEIGEL: Well, what little information that I had prior to the discussion right now is that the photo was taken outside, prior to business hours, of the particular county employee that took that picture. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: I do not know if it was his personal camera, if it was the equipment of the county, yes or no. That raises a question as to, again, potential ownership of that. But I don't have all the facts to give anything definitive in that regard right now. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Actually, good point. If we sell it to "Inside Edition," maybe we can subsidize the general fund that way and lower taxes next year. I don't know. As far as -- does any member of the board -- you know, Mr. Weigel, I couldn't care less if this photograph is made available to anyone who wants it, to whoever has it right now. Does any member of the board feel differently? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Full disclosure. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. As far as that, I don't think there's a problem with the board making it available. Mr. Weigel, if you have any questions, please address the gentleman with them. There are probably some folks here that would like to look at those footprints. So if you want to hang out in the hallway, we could probably get rid of half the people in this room in about five minutes with that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Where is it? I'm going. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: He's got it right there, I believe. MR. SHEALY: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. (Applause.) MR. FERNANDEZ: Next is A1 Perkins. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Next is A1, who has been mistaken for a big hairy romper of the woods at times. MR. PERKINS: A1 Perkins, Belle Heade Groups. That's a tough act to follow. Well, we've got the skunk ape out in the Everglades and we got a bear on Port Royal. Does that tell you anything, people? Anyhow, the reason why I got up here is, you touched on a couple of things that are very important. Full disclosure. Now, we've seen in the paper here recently full disclosure about a whole lot of things. We've seen assassination, personal assassination by the "Naples Daily Progda." We've seen -- and if they would only tell all of the story instead of just their portion of it, we might be able to do something. But now the meat of this whole thing is, I hope that Collier County would make it point blank clear that, unless you're a voter and a taxpayer in this county, why don't you tend to your own damn business? Meaning Tallahassee, Jacksonville and Lee County in particular. With that, I'll quit and say thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Ty Agoston. MR. AGOSTON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Ty Agoston, Golden Gate Estates. And we've been away for several weeks trying to cool down in New York, and were not successful. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Why would you go there? MR. AGOSTON: Well, I have family up there. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, okay. I'm sorry. MR. AGOSTON: But on the way back, we had picked up a local newspaper and I saw an article involving Mr. Fernandez, and, while I I never had a chance to meet the gentleman, I read the article with somewhat of a scare. Mr. Fernandez is being given the credit of saying that you guys are tight-fisted, and that's what he holds against you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry. Who, Mr. Fernandez? MR. AGOSTON: Fernandez. I'm sorry. I got a problem with the language. But at any rate, I have problem with a statement like that because, as far as I understand, Mr. Fernandez is an employee of the county, or employee of yours, or employee of ours. And as such, I don't believe that he should be in a position to promote or lobby spending of my money. I am from outside of New York City. I built a house in '67. It cost me some $900 in taxes. When I sold it in '91, I was paying $8,000 a year in taxes. I considered those kind of numbers confiscatory and I don't want to see it here. And there is no limit how much public money you can spend. Look, there are -- they make Chevys, they make Lincoln Continentals, and whatever, you know. And to make a blanket statement, I was kind of questioning the propriety of it. And I don't believe that you should be encouraged to spend money. If anything, I would appreciate the less spending as possible. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Two things, Mr. Agoston. One is, I took it as a compliment. Anytime you're in government and you're accused of being tight-fisted, more power to you. The second thing is that I would encourage you -- Hr. Fernandez has been on the job for a couple months. I would encourage you to address these concerns with him individually and get to know him a little better. I know he's got more or less an open door policy. And, as his schedule permits, I think he would be glad to talk to you about it. And if you still have concerns, I -- of course you know how to get ahold of us. But I would encourage you to talk to the man. MR. AGOSTON: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Nettie Phillips. MS. PHILLIPS: Good morning to the board. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good morning. MS. PHILLIPS: Well, yes, still is. I missed the PEIS study thing. I want to go back and speak to that. As to the agenda that I previously missed, I would just like to raise an opposition to the PEIS study and I would just like to say that I did hear what you said in that you could opt out. Well, I wish we wouldn't opt in. But, I would just like to say that I would like our elected board to support and defend the Constitution of this once great country. And under the Constitution, this PEIS study cannot be done. Army Corps of Engineers, as I said before, cannot come into this state and tell you what to do. It's not interstate commerce to regulate under the Clean Water Act, under the Endangered Species Act, which comes under executive order, which Sustainable Florida does go to Agenda 21. It is in Sustainable Florida. It does talk about the PEIS study. Well, the commissioner -- the governor did do an executive order for Sustainable Florida. The President did do an executive order for Sustainable America, which is all in the United Nations agenda, which is all unconstitutional. An executive order is not the law of this land. The law of this land is the Constitution. I would just like our officials to support and stand by our Constitution, not executive orders. Thank you. (Applause.) MR. FERNANDEZ: You have no other public comment. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Item #12B1 ORDINANCE 97-34 RE PETITION PUD-97--5, MR. WILLIAM L. HOOVER, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "A" AGRICULTURAL TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS ZURICH LAKE VILLAS PUD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF i-75 AND APPROXIMATELY THREE-QUARTERS OF A MILE SOUTH OF IHMOKALEE ROAD IN SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, CONSISTING OF 44.36 ACRES, MORE OR LESS - ADOPTED WITH STIPULATIONS We're to Advertised Public Hearings. 12(B)(1) is the first one under Zoning Amendments, PUD Petition 97-5, Mr. Hoover. This is one item that we need to swear in the witnesses, both staff, petitioner, representatives and members of the public here to speak on PUD Petition 97-5. If I could ask you all to stand and raise your right hand, please. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, Principal Planner with Current Planning. The petitioner is requesting to fezone 44.36 acres from agriculture to planned unit development. The property is located on the east side of 1-75, approximately three-quarters of a mile south of Immokalee Road. The proposed Zurich Lake Villas PUD lays out a development scheme consisting of 294 condominiums with recreational amenities such as lakes and open space. The adjacent agricultural properties to the north -- if I can show you on the map here -- consists of agricultural land, an eighteen acre lake. It's within the density band of the Immokalee Road/I-75 interchange. To the east of the subject site is a canal and a church that is approved with a conditional use, Golden Gate Estates, and to the south is agricultural land that's vacant. Because the site is located within a density band, the commissioners may approve up to three additional dwelling units per acre over the base density of four, for a possible total of seven units per acre. The intent behind providing a density bonus is to encourage development of these parcels and to take advantage of existing public facilities and utilities available to the area and to discourage urban sprawl. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What utilities are available in this particular area? MR. BELLOWS: Water and sewer is off Immokalee Road and it would have to be extended down. The project is therefore consistent with the density rating system at 6.63 units per acre. It should be noted the Board of County Commissioners have approved -- reviewed and approved fezone requests, the Laurel Road PUD was approved at six units per acre, and that's at the corner of 951 and Immokalee Road. The proposed master plan limits the location of future dwelling units to the internal portions of the site and is surrounded by preserve areas. The proposed area will encompass eleven acres and is located around the PUD to buffer the project from 1-75. It'll also keep residential land uses from encroaching into or near the estate zoned properties to the east. You take into account the buffers and the 60 foot wide canal, it will effectively result in a setback of over 150 feet from the estate zoned lands. In addition, the PUD documents state an intent to construct condominiums with the common architectural theme that limits the maximum height of the dwelling units to two stories. This should prevent residents in the Estates from seeing any of the proposed residential units. In addition, with the buffers provided, it would reduce traffic noise from 1-75 into the Estates. Staff has conducted a traffic impact study and has reviewed the applicant's traffic impact statement and that indicates the project will generate approximately 1,473 weekday trips. Based on this data, the number of vehicular trips will exceed the significance test on Oakes Boulevard, however, Oakes Boulevard will continue to operate at an acceptable level of service. Staff had some concerns of the private trips on Oakes Boulevard and it did a comparative analysis of what the project would generate if we limited the project's trips to under five percent. This resulted in a density of 4.6 units per acre. However, the petitioner indicates that such a density would make it difficult to develop the project, extending the utilities down, the type of units resulting that change the character of the development and would make it difficult to develop, being close to 1-75. Given the fact that Oakes Boulevard is projected to operate at Level Service C at the build-out of this project, and that it's consistent with the development at seven units per acre or 6.63 units per acre, staff was still of the opinion that some reduction would be wise. We looked at six units per acre. That resulted in 300 less trips per day than the maximum. The Collier County Planning Commission reviewed this during their public hearing of July 17th, 1997, and voted by 8 to 0 to approve the petition PUD 97-5 subject to staff's recommendation of limiting the density to 6 units per acre. This petition was reviewed by all reviewing agencies with the responsibility for consistency with the growth management plan, and they have approved subject to stipulations that have been incorporated into the PUD document. One person did show up during the public hearing at the Planning Commission in opposition. Their main concern was with the density, the types of units, whether they would be low income or not, and the site-generated trips. I will be happy to answer any questions. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I got some questions. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Bellows, this -- the only access to this property is on 18th Avenue Southwest; is that correct? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many trips per day exist right now on 18th Avenue Southwest? MR. BELLOWS: In which direction? COMMISSIONER BERRY. Northwest, Tim. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. You're right. Northwest. You're right. How many trips per day exist on that? MR. BELLOWS: Well, those are estate roads. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. MR. BELLOWS: And, depending on the number of homes, be about ten units per dwelling. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think there's -- how many dwelling units are there -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Folks -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- on this road right now? MR. BELLOWS: I don't have an exact count. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's -- how long is the portion from Oakes Boulevard to here? This is actually the western section, correct? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. As you can see on the zoning map, this is 1-75. 18th Avenue Northwest, it's the length of one estate lot, 660 feet, before it gets to Oakes Boulevard, which is a collector road on the county traffic circulation element. It serves as a major collection point of traffic from Vanderbilt Beach Road and Immokalee Road. The 660 feet is one lot depth in the Estates. To the north is an existing church that was approved with a conditional use. The traffic improvements based -- requirements based on the number of trips coming here will result in intersection improvements here. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does the -- MR. BELLOWS: The Transportation Department feels that is adequate. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does the -- do you think the -- does the church have access on Oakes Boulevard? MR. BELLOWS: I believe so, yes -- no. Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And so most of their traffic is going to be generated on Oakes rather than on 18th. You've just indicated there is one estate lot on 18th. And at ten trips per day, per unit, that would probably be ten a day. Is that a fair estimate? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You made a comparison to -- you said a similar approval was made on the property at the corner of 951 and Immokalee Road. How many trips are made a day on County Road 951 on the northernmost section? MR. BELLOWS: I don't have the count. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ballpark figure. MR. BELLOWS: Immokalee Road? I believe that's 16,223 trips. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many trips a day are made on -- that was on Immokalee or 951 you just told me? MR. BELLOWS: Immokalee. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many are made on 951 on that northernmost section? MR. BELLOWS: I don't have the traffic count on me. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would it be more than ten? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. I guess, comparing access on a street that currently has ten trips a day to an intersection that has 16,000 cars from one direction, and what I'm going to guess is probably a comparable number from the other direction, isn't a fair comparison in my mind. The impact is not only on there but on Oakes Boulevard as well. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many a day do we have right now on Oakes? MR. BELLOWS: Oakes, I believe the last traffic count is around 7,000 something. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And we're asking for how many units, how many new units here? MR. BELLOWS: The petitioner is proposing 294 units. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Almost 300. So that would be at ten units a day -- that would be almost 3,000. So it would be -- MR. BELLOWS: Well, they're proposing multi-family, which is calculated at less than a single family trip generation rate, so it's approximately 5.5 units trip rate per unit. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I thought it was 7.4 for multi-family. MR. BELLOWS: It depends on the type of unit. The IT Trip Generation Manual has a range from about a four to about seven. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: Depending if it's a townhouse, duplex. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: Multi-story. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So we're looking at, what, 1,650 additional a day? I'm trying to do the math real quick. MR. BELLOWS: Well, staff calculated 1,472 trips, based on their proposed units. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So about a twenty-five percent increase from where we are right now. I guess my problem is, it's an estate area. If you go and shop and purchase a lot and build a house or buy an existing house off Oakes Boulevard, you have a pretty fair assumption that you're in an area that is estates. I understand this is by the interstate and that there might be some concerns. There are some other homes that have been built west of the canal, but still east of the interstate, and have stayed with the estates zoning. So obviously it can be used for that purpose. The one other item you mentioned that I wanted to get clarification on was, you indicated the buffer would reduce noise from 1-75. Are you suggesting that clearing this land -- I know there's some water on this land already, but clearing some of the land and putting homes on it will actually reduce the amount of noise that comes from 1-757 MR. BELLOWS: My understanding is that they are providing a berm and a fenced buffer treatment along 1-75, and the two-story buildings will also act as a buffer for noise. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Further questions for Mr. Bellows? Ray, just to confirm my understanding, this is designated urban residential? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Urban residential. It's yellow, not Golden Gate Estates. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: To the north is ag. zoned, undeveloped property? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, within the density band, which is also eligible to receive three additional dwelling units per acre. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Eligible. But -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes. And -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. And to the south is -- is that ag. zoned? MR. BELLOWS: That's ag. zoned too, and it's outside the density band, so that would be four units per acre and there is, a little bit south of that, vacant agriculture pieces, a snake farm operation there. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. And everything to the east is Estate zoned? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. All right. I just wanted to -- I wanted to make sure my orientation was correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And to the south it has been -- some of that has been developed within the agricultural or, and/or estate zones; is that correct? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. There is a gentleman who I believe has a house there and a snake farm. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's also another house and a horse barn just south of that. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Do you want to hear from the petitioner now? Let's do that. Petitioner first. MR. PIRES: If I may, Tony Pires from the law firm of Woodward, Pires & Lombardo, working with Mr. Bill Hoover, and you'll be hearing from Mr. Hoover in a few moments. We would ask that you recognize Mr. Hoover as an expert in land planning and familiar with the Collier County Land Development Code and the comprehensive plan. We appreciate your attention. We also appreciate the recommendation of the Planning Commission in this instance. And the number of units being requested is 266. I know Mr. Bellows mentioned a 294 number. That's for the original petition filed at the Planning Commission. After due consideration of the staff's comments, we agreed to the 266 units, which is a total of 6.0 units per acre, two above the additional base density that's allowed in this area. As Mr. Bellows has articulated, the property is located in the urban mixed use district in the urban residential subdistrict within one mile of the 1-75/Immokalee Road Interchange Activity Center. In fact, its northern border is a half a mile from the southern border of the commercial, sort of light industrial PUDs located at the 1-75/Immokalee Interchange Activity Center. The additional number of units requested then is less than the additional three units per acre allowed under the density rating system found at Page LUI-24 of the Future Land Use Element of the comprehensive plan. We're asking for two, not the full three that's allowed in that density rating system. The staff has also articulated, as part of its staff report, that the petition is consistent with the growth management plan and each and every element thereof. And that was also found by the Planning Commission. The staff has also found that the proposed PUD, the uses and the number of units is compatible with and complementary to the surrounding land uses as required by Policy 5.4 of the Future Land Use Element. Additionally you've heard the staff opinion and -- or in the report, where they've opined and provided their expert opinion that the project is compatible with the neighborhood and area concerned, that this project takes advantage of existing public facilities and utilities available to the area, that the proposed master plan limits the location of future dwelling units to the internal portions of the site, and is surrounded by preserve areas, and therefore keeps residential land uses from encroaching nearer the estate zoned properties to the east, which is at Page 2 of the executive summary. Also, the staff has recognized that the petitioner has gone an extra step, that to improve the compatibility, which the staff already found, the PUD document and the developers agree that there will be a common architectural theme with a maximum height of two stories, which is the maximum height in the Estates area, basically the same. So you have that compatibility as far as heights. Furthermore, the staff has opined that the development of the property is timely and consistent with the Future Land Use Element to the growth management plan. And, as far as the number of units, once again, I think it's important to note that it is 266 units of a coach home/villa type project. I think what Mr. Bellows was articulating, the ten trips per day are generated by a typical single family dwelling unit using the ITE standards. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. MR. PIRES: And so what we have here is a lesser trip generation per type of dwelling unit and type of structure. As to the Baptist Church, and you'll hear some other fact-based testimony from Mr. Hoover, that has access off of 18th. They -- they are on Oakes as well as 18th. In fact, there is -- a large part of their parking lot, I believe you'll hear, is accessed off of 18th, so you already have that traffic trip -- that traffic and trip generation in that area. We'd like to reserve the opportunity for some replies and to answer any questions that you-all may have after hearing the presentation as well as that of any parties who may be opposed. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As you're aware, Mr. Pires, we don't reserve the right for a reply, but if the board does have any questions of you after the presentation, we'll certainly ask them at that time. MR. PIRES: Appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, now might be a good time to disclose that I have had discussions with some of the parties involved prior to this, but as required by the law of the State of Florida, I will base my decision solely on the information provided during this public hearing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry? COHMISSIONER BERRY: Ditto. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Ditto. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Same thing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I have had meeting -- a meeting with the petitioners in describing the project, some correspondence from property owners, and likewise I will base my decision on the information presented here today. Mr. Hoover? MR. HOOVER: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, Bill Hoover of Hoover Planning representing the petitioners. To the west of 1-75 -- to the west of the project is 1-75, whose right of way is about 4 to 500 feet in the area adjacent to the project. A half a mile to the north is the southern boundary of three commercial PUDs. These can be seen on the aerial up here. They're shown in white boundaries. Two of the three PUDs north of the site are either approved for storage or light industrial uses on the southern half of their sites. The PUD master plan shows a strong commitment from the petitioners to work with nature while maximizing compatibility with established uses on surrounding properties in the overall neighborhood. By utilizing the existing wetland areas along the eastern and western PUD boundaries and adding substantial natural habitat reserve areas adjacent to them, it will create a substantial green belt around the project. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Hoover, I have to interrupt you for a second. Mr. Weigel, I need a legal opinion. Mr. Pires asked that Mr. Hoover be tendered as an expert in planning. I just noticed in the application Mr. Hoover is also a property owner on the petition. Is there an implied conflict with his testimony as an expert in planning when he is a property owner also? MR. WEIGEL: I don't think so. I think that it's appropriate to note it for the record, as you have, but I don't think that creates a conflict on its face. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I just wanted to clear that up, Mr. Hoover. Thank you. Please go ahead. MR. HOOVER: The natural buffer adjacent to the eastern property boundary is so substantial that we've been able to guarantee a 150 foot setback from the canal. A thorough review of the PUD document demonstrates a willingness by the petitioner to ensure that an aesthetic, high quality project will be constructed. A substantial berm, berm wall or berm fence combination has been pledged along the property's common boundary with 1-75. Building heights are limited to two stories, and each residential unit would have either a carport or a garage. Any two-family or multi-family unit would be required to have a metal or tile roof and would be predominantly finished in light, subdued colors with stucco. If any single-family homes were constructed, they would have a minimum of 1,600 square feet under air, a two-car garage and a ten thousand square foot lot. Architecturally designed lighting is required and will be similar to what's shown in Exhibit C and D of the PUD document. Additionally, a high quality and aesthetic entry sign is pledged and is similar to what would be shown on Exhibits E and F of the PUD document. The project has safe and convenient access via an extension of 18th Avenue Northwest to Oakes Boulevard. Based on the county's review criteria for traffic impact statements, no traffic congestion is caused on streets which adjoin or lead to the PUD. The project's traffic will not lower the level of service on any roadway within the project's radius of development impact. Additionally, the project's traffic will only have a significant impact on Oakes Boulevard, but it will not lower that level of service below a level of Service C, and that's the highest roadway level of service that type of roadway can attain, by the way. The project's traffic will not have a significant impact nor reduce the level of service on either of the intersections on the north or south end of Oakes Boulevard where it abuts -- goes into Immokalee or Vanderbilt Beach. And I wanted to clarify one thing. I think Ray Bellows mentioned 1,400 and some trips. That would be at 294 units. So the way the property has -- the PUD document's been amended for 266 units, the trip generation for that -- and this is coming out of the executive summary -- would be 1,265 daily trips. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Questions for Mr. Hoover? Mr. Hoover, one question. You hit on it briefly. Is there in this document a commitment to run water and sewer from Immokalee to the project entrance? MR. HOOVER: I think there's a note in there that we have to use public water and sewer, so I guess we've assumed all along that we would have to use it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. But you are not committing in this document to actually, physically construct the water and sewer lines to the project entrance? Maybe that's more appropriate for Mr. Pires, I just -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And if not, are you willing to? MR. HOOVER: If it's not in there, we would be willing to, because the Land Development Code essentially is going to require that for, you know -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. MR. HOOVER: -- any kind of density over an estate zoning, you're going to have to bring in water and sewer. Your subdivision regs. would catch you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Hoover, you're looking for how many units now? MR. HOOVER: 266 units. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Under the current zoning, how many units would be allowed? MR. HOOVER: Agricultural allows one unit per five acres. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So under the current zoning, how may units would be allowed on this property? MR. HOOVER: It would be eight or nine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One of the concerns I have, and maybe you can help me address this, but I'm saying this for the board as much as for you. You may recall probably a year ago there was a fezone, or a change, on the corner of County Barn and Davis. And it was another where it was ag. zoned. It was addressed under the Future Land Use Element and anticipated at some point that that's in the urban area and would probably be developed and could have been up to six units per acre. Actually, it was multi-family, they only asked for four. But, the difference went from, I think in their case, from six or eight units to 254 units, or something like that. It was a dramatic difference. And the board at the time recognized the Future Land Use Element allowed for that, but we had asked staff to visit that as part of our changes long-term. And I'm wondering, have we not addressed that to any extent at this point? I mean, here we are, a year later, with something similar coming forth where we're looking at a change from eight units to 266 units, which is a dramatic change. How have we addressed that in the last year? MR. ARNOLD: For the record, Wayne Arnold, Planning Services Director. I was not sworn previously. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Madam Court Reporter, please swear him in. (The speaker was sworn.) MR. ARNOLD: Relative to the issue of density, as the board may recall, we undertook as part of the HPO's work plan to do an analysis of density within the urban designated lands, making some assumptions for reductions of density on part of our lands in an attempt to not only reduce population but look at the impacts of a reduced population on our road network. That showed some very significant numbers in reductions on traffic trips, road improvement requirements and also population. We, as part of the evaluation and appraisal report to the comprehensive plan, have essentially at this point not changed the density requirements. We still have a base density generally of four units per acre. With three, it's very, very much noted in that plan that, that you are eligible to apply for these. It's not an entitlement. It's something that can be weighed on a case by case basis given the circumstances. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not only on just the density issue, didn't we ask specifically on the future land use items that fall within the urban boundary? The number of parcels that apples to are getting fewer and fewer but it seems to me we asked that question as well to be explored. And I don't know that we ever got back a specific answer. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What was the question, Commissioner? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The Future Land Use Element calls for certain assumptions in undeveloped ag. areas that exist in the urban -- within the urban boundary, that at some point that will likely be developed into something. And what we had suggested after doing that County Barn one was, why are we assuming that that should be developed at the same rate as stuff that's already plowed down or already zoned is. And while we can't say -- it's not appropriate that we say it can't be developed at all, the question we had asked is can we do it at perhaps a smaller density or a smaller usage than the standard thing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I know we didn't get an answer back on it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's what I'm wondering today, is where our direction went on that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, because another -- well, but there's another side to that argument, which is, if we limit things we've designated urban too much, we're going to promote people going outside of the urban area and building, and that's just the opposite concept of designating an urban area where you can provide services. So that's why I remember, we didn't have that, the final discussion, because that's something I needed to flush out myself. MR. ARNOLD: From our perspective, I don't believe there's been closure on that specific point. I know that as part of the HPO's work program, again, we're going to be looking at a very comprehensive network issue related to the urban build-out study, making some other assumptions on how we might reduce densities without making the drastic assumption that all ag. lands do not develop at urban densities, which was part of that initial study. We took some 15,000-odd acres and made an assumption that they developed only at rural densities of one unit per five acres and saw again these very significant reductions in the road network and the improvements necessary to support it. But again, without going to that level to make that drastic assumption, we were to go back over the following year or the coming year and take a look at how we might effect not only some land use assumption changes to our Future Land Use Element, some density reductions, but also looking at our road network more comprehensively. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And where I'm going with this is just -- I get frustrated in that I know Mr. Hoover and Mr. Pires have come forward with -- in good faith, referring to our Future Land Use Element, and that is the document that we have right now that they are required to refer to. So we're hard-pressed to say, well, we're going to ignore our own rules, our own ordinances. But, at the same time, a change from nine units to 266 is a dramatic change. And if you have a neighboring estates property, that would probably be a shock to you. And I realize the debate today can be two things. One is, is the request compatible, and we can deal with those issues. And 2, we could have a discussion on whether or not any additional units -- even if we agree that under the Future Land Use Element they are allowed that four, we can have an open discussion over whether they should get any bonus numbers there. But I'd just like long-term -- and it sounds like that's the direction our staff is headed -- but I want to move forward as rapidly as we can on that, that -- I hate to see several of these come forward with undeveloped ag. property, you know, being requested. And if you have a neighbor who thought there might be eight houses next door and now he's going to have 250 neighbors, that's a shock. And I just -- we ought to address that sooner rather than later. Unfortunately, today we're limited, I think, to, is it an appropriate change? And then, is the density appropriate? That's -- it's just frustrating for me because I know there are people who live nearby and may not be aware of the, of the Future Land Use Element. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that's the same problem, someone has land next to an activity center. When they bought it it was ag. next to them, and unless they were aware of the Future Land Use Element, all of a sudden a commercial proposal comes forward. And they're looking at, they thought they had ag. next to them and now a shopping center, and they think the difference is unrealistic, but in fact, when you buy property there's -- I mean, there is that little bit of buyer-beware there too. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, there certainly is. I'm just suggesting in this case, I mean -- there are cases where you are pretty much directly adjacent to a major roadway. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No question. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And you are going by Immokalee Road or 951 or you're going by Davis Road and County Barn, all of which are going to be four-lane, the only access to this property is off a little 1/10th of a mile stub across the canal. So the assumption, I think -- you're absolutely right -- buyer needs to be aware and take some responsibility, but the assumption here, I think, is a little different if you're on a dead-end Estate street than you would be if you were on -- near the corner of two major -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- roadways. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed. Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It just puts us in an awkward position. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. I understand your point, but isn't part of the answer here concern that all property, whether its inside or outside of the urban area, is originally zoned agricultural until it's zoned something else. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I mean, always. I mean, that's part of the answer to your problem. This is not estates -- already zoned estates property that you're going to try to put back into something different. I mean, it's never been rezoned. It has its original zoning of agricultural. So a more pertinent question that you've raised is whether this particular request is appropriate in this particular instance, more than a global perspective. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that brings us back to the land use issues relative to this parcel specifically, not to ignore that we need to -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- address that, but -- MR. BELLOWS: Commissioner Hancock, I do have that information you requested on Wilshire Lakes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Let me -- the reason I asked this is, there's a single family community next to 1-75, and I was curious about its size and density. MR. BELLOWS: It comprises 246 acres, 200 and -- or 328 single-family and 224 multi-family. The gross density is 2.24 units per acre. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 2.24? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. That's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The reason I ask is, I knew it was much larger than this project. As your size gets smaller, your ability to move things around becomes more difficult, but I was for a benchmark and Wilshire Lakes is the first thing I thought of when I thought of next to the Interstate, so, I just wanted to have that information myself. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's the access to Wilshire? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's off of Vanderbilt Beach Road. MR. BELLOWS: Down this way. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Which is two-lane -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It has direct access into its own communities. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, Commissioner Berry? COMMISSIONER BERRY: This is just a problem that I -- and I expressed this to Mr. Hoover when I spoke with him in regard to this project, and I hadn't seen any of the background information on this but when they came in and spoke about the project, and the first thing I mentioned to him when I looked at the size of the project -- which in most cases probably isn't considered huge for, you know, projects, as such -- happens to be the practicality of that load of traffic on Oakes Boulevard. In most cases -- and I still -- this is where I have a little problem with the level of service and those kinds of things. Perception, I guess, comes into play here as well, when you travel up and down Oakes Boulevard. I have that opportunity on a pretty regular basis, to drive that road. Thank goodness there's now a stop light at the northern end of it. Until there is a stop light placed at the southern end of Oakes Boulevard, which empties out onto Vanderbilt Beach Road, there is a tremendous backup of traffic there at some of your peak hours. People coming off of 1-75 on the Immokalee Road exit, traveling down Oakes Boulevard and then trying to go east on Vanderbilt Beach Road to head out to the Estates area or Vineyards or any of the other areas that operate, Logan, just working their way into the Golden Gate area. This is a huge concern. And the people that I see that are going to be occupying this, it -- Number 1, if it's -- depending on the price of these units -- if they are going to be winter visitors, that's one thing. If they're going to be -- if they're going to be regular, full-time residents, in my opinion, I think it's going to have tremendous impact on this road and the ability to move on that roadway. You're not dealing with, in fact, in my opinion, a normal roadway. It is a very narrow, two-lane road that travels basically down through a residential area. Now, eventually, I'm sure somewhere down the road, fifteen years, whatever, I don't know, I don't even know if it's on the drawing board to have anything done to it, but somewhere down the road that road right now is a big connector road between Vanderbilt Beach Road and 1-75 because there is no interchange at Vanderbilt Beach Road. So people that want to access that eastern part, that's where they're getting off. That's my only concern and I expressed that to Mr. Hoover when I spoke to him and it's still a concern that I have. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I mean, this Village Walk, whatever it's going to be called -- wait a second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Island Walk. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Island Walk, or whatever it is, yes, is only going to have more of that, have more traffic. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, if they, if they want to get on 1-75, they're going to have to come down Vanderbilt Beach Road to the west, come up Oakes Boulevard and access 1-75 at that point. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me suggest we do this. I know we have speakers on this. Let me ask, is there any more information that the petitioner would like to give for the record? We can come back to the petitioner with questions and come back to staff with questions after the public speakers. I'd like to hear from the public on this also. MR. HOOVER: Yes. I would just like to get recognized as an expert in planning since I'm AICP planner. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I make a motion we recognize Mr. Hoover as an expert. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous vote of ayes.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: The first speaker, Theresa Iamurri. MS. IAMURRI: Ladies and gentlemen and commission, I have to commend you for your questions. A lot of the questions you asked I had -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me. We need your name for the record, please. MS. IAMURRI: Oh, I'm sorry. Theresa Iamurri. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. MS. IAMURRI: A lot of questions that you-all brought up about this project, I also had. I am concerned about the density. I'm a resident, along with many of my other -- I won't say "many", actually a few of my neighbors came with me today, as we all found out about it this morning, knowing this was coming up. My concern is, is going from agricultural, and I realize that they are allowed the PUD, but to go from four units to almost -- well, to six, or what they were looking at was almost six and a half, is a lot of units. And my concern is that the road is narrow right now. Baptist Church, so everyone knows too, for another reasoning of travel, the Baptist Church is on the corner of 18th and Oakes. That is used as the cut-off street. 18th is the cut-off for Laurel Oak. 16th goes to the Vineyards. All the buses turn around in that Baptist Church parking lot, so that's the divider for the school. So that's another problem. And again, there's a school -- it's actually a bus stop there as well, that the buses turn around. But this unit going in sets precedence for what may come in the future, for another development like this or coming that will want to do another number of units for that small road. And that's really what I'm going to hit on today, is that I'm concerned not only about how large this becomes and how quickly, but what will come behind it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ms. Iamurri, you hit on my exact planning concern, which is, what precedent do we set as we move northward toward the activity center with this project. Whenever somebody comes in a six units an acre, the guy next to the activity center says, well, he got six, I should get eight or I should get seven or, yes, so how the domino effect is is probably -- should be a large concern for this board. So I appreciate your bringing that up. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Ms. Iamurri, could I ask you one question? MS. IAMURRI: Yes. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: When -- I must have missed it. When you said you were own concerned about traffic on this small road, were you talking about 18th or Oakes? MS. IAMURRI: Actually, both, I have to say that there's some questions because of Island -- not so much Island Walk, but what's going to happen with Logan and 18th possibly at any point being connected through Logan. And then this development being on this end and all of a sudden 18th becoming another artery road, somehow, some way. That's a concern. Obviously that's way out, you know, hopefully way out in the future or may never come up, but that is a concern. MR. NORRIS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Next speaker. MR. FERNANDEZ: The next speaker is Barbara HooFer. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And is that our last registered public speaker? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. MS. HOOPER: Thank you. My name is Barbara HooFer. I live on 1705 Oakes Boulevard, which is -- my property is a hundred, within a hundred feet of this proposed development. I just really appreciate your concern and your comments and, like Mrs. Iamurri, most of my questions have been addressed, and she asked several of them and mentioned them. I agree. I'm concerned about the precedent that would be set should this development go in. I'm very, very concerned with the density and traffic that will be generated. The figures, I think, they are a little low myself, and I wasn't sure if those figures took into account, you know, homeowners, the ten trips, or does it include UPS and water delivery and repair people and service and that sort of -- those sort of trips that will also be necessary to, you know, take care of that kind of development. Even if they have city or county water you would still most likely want to have your water delivered. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just so you know, they do include averages. So that does include general maintenance type stuff, but we're going to talk more about those a little in a few minutes, I'm sure. MS. HOOPER: Okay. We do -- I also wanted to point out that we do have a unique neighborhood in Oakes Boulevard. My son is learning firsthand about county government this morning. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You're being coached from the rear, I guess, there. MS. HOOPER: One thing that hasn't been mentioned is, is that I have -- I have actually witnessed a car accident at 18th Avenue. At that point you're able, I think, to gain up speed from turning in Immokalee Road, and living at the one mile point, the traffic at that point is flying in either direction. And at my request Traffic has done two studies and has -- I don't know what the correct terminology -- but clocked cars traveling at 100 miles per hour. The average speed is fifty-five on that road. It is a forty-five mile an hour speed limit. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: On Oakes? MS. HOOPER: On Oakes Boulevard it's forty-five miles but the traffic study said that the average car, I guess, was going fifty-five miles per hour. And also on 18th there was a child hit waiting for the school bus in the last year and a half or so. I was there before the, you know, before the ambulance. And if there's 266 units, I don't know how many children would be attending school, but that will also increase children, you know, waiting at the bus stop, and, you know, I think these are real concerns. There was a few things that were said. It was talked about the quality of the project and that they would guarantee it would be a high quality substantial project. They talked about aesthetics and safe and convenient access. And I have a problem with some of these issues. Which probably wouldn't even need to be addressed if, if we were to know whether or not the project would go with the density. I guess I don't quite understand if you can even say yes, this is supposed to be urban but is it a particular -- is this a good use for this, you know. Going from nine homes to 266 is not an easy thing to see. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But I think the more realistic comparison is going from two or three an acre because it's designated urban/residential. MS. HOOPER: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So. MS. HOOPER: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So I understand the perception is living right next to it, but reality says this is going to be an urban type of development. So really the bonus is, I think -- as you alluded to earlier, Commissioner Constantine -- the bonus that we're talking about is really the heart of the matter here, can they have more than one unit per five acres. MS. HOOPER: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think that's where our decision -- that's the subjectivity of what we're going to be discussing and deciding today. MS. HOOPER: And I would like to just add, I never -- I rarely hear traffic from 1-75. If I do, it's generally a, you know, a motorcycle accelerating and an occasional truck, but on -- you know, on a day to day basis -- and I'm at my home all day -- I generate one trip a day at the most. You know, I don't hear a lot of traffic. I'm concerned that clearing that would, would increase my noise level. Just one second, please. I would just like to add, my son's not a registered voter but he's very concerned about the wildlife and he wanted me to bring that issue up to you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We promise we won't hurt any manatees. How's that? MS. HOOPER: Well, I think -- we're bird watchers. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Could I ask you one question? I just missed it, where your house is in proximity? Did you say '- MS. HOOPER: I'm 1705 Oakes Boulevard. 18th is three-quarters of a mile. I'm exactly one mile. So I'm a quarter mile south of the entrance to the project but I think that -- I'm right there. I mean, when I look out my backyard -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It'll be directly behind your property. MS. HOOPER: Yes. It's right there. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. No other public speakers, Mr. Fernandez? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are there questions for either staff or the petitioner at this time? Because Ms. Iamurri hit on something I discussed with the petitioner. And I'll just kind of give you the benefit of that discussion. And that was, I think realistically, if it's painted urban residential, we can expect three or four units an acre as a reasonable alternative there. We'd love to have a unit and a half an acre or a unit an acre, if at all possible. But it's usually environmental constraints that dictate that more than anything. But I think reasonably you can expect plus or minus three units an acre on these things. So what we're really talking about to me is more or less the density bonus on this project. Is it warranted? And from a compatibility standpoint, if you look at this parcel and you look at what's to the north, and we talked about this recently on Marco Island for commercial, and that's the domino effect. If you begin doing a stand-alone approval, knowing full well that the activity center north, there are two parcels in between, those parcels are going to come and request a much similar or higher amount of density, or higher density, you have to look at what that pattern is. What we know is the parcel just to the south can only get up to four units an acre. There is no density bonus afforded them because the density bend ends on this property. So we have four maximum to the south. We have sixteen maximum in the activity center, if they should choose to do some type of residential project instead of commercial. So, I look at this area as a transitioning area, and my question is, what is a logical transitional step? Is it four, is it five, is it six? And that's where I told the applicants that I have some discomfort with six units an acre, because we're only allowed to go up to seven, and that almost grants seven to the north. So I do have a problem with that. And I'm looking for a fair transitional application here, and I think it's somewhere between four and six. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree with you. I mean, I think ideally all of us would love to see it stay ag. but the Future Land Use Element allows the other to happen and really requires us to give that consideration. But, I guess, the question is, why would the board be motivated to grant the density bonus? And you're right. South they would be allowed up to four, but realistically, the lot directly to the south is being operated as ag., and Lot 2 to the south is being operated as ag. So they are both -- there are buildings on them, they're active agricultural. And that's not to say someone couldn't come and try to change that, but there's been some, some capital expended utilizing that as ag. So not only are they four or below, they would fall into the below category. They're low. And you're right. The domino theory really concerns me. As we look to the north, right now it's at zero. It's not being used. It's still ag. and someone needs to come in and ask for that. And I'm just concerned, as you said before, if we go at five and a half or six with this, then it becomes -- the guy next says, okay, I need seven or eight, and that's compatible. So I need some explanation, some motivation why we would want to grant any density bonus before I'm willing to go higher than four, because below it right now is considerably lower than four and above isn't used right now, isn't anything, and if we go four they're going to be hard-pressed to ask for anything too much higher in a fair transition. So I would look to the petitioner to give me some motivation why we'd want to do anything in a density loss. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask Mr. Bellows if the math is, at four units an acre it would be about 180 units and at five it would be 225, or -- MR. BELLOWS: If you look at the traffic study I did, at 4.6 units per acre it results in 204 units. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's -- let's try -- MR. BELLOWS: And that's under five percent of the Level Service C of Oakes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I did not close the public hearing. I want to make sure there are no questions left of the petitioner before we moved to something. Commissioner Constantine has asked a question, and that is, if the applicant has -- can state supportive reasons for why it should be more than four units an acre. Let's go ahead and do that. And I think we're going to need to close the public hearing and try and find a direction on this matter. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I really need some motivation here to grant anything over and above what the Future Land Use Element distinctly allows. MR. HOOVER: Okay. I can -- I guess I've been in the county long enough that I can relate where maybe the direction the county's going I guess in the future on density. And I can see where it came from in the past. We do have the guidelines of the comprehensive plan, and that hasn't been changed yet, so I believe that does support the project some. And I do realize you aren't granted a density bonus for the four units an acre automatically. One project Commissioner Constantine brought up, one key difference between this project and that project -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: The Davis project? MR. HOOVER: Right. The one on Davis and County Barn. That site had substantial wetlands. I believe it was probably fifty to seventy percent of the site. They had a problem fitting the units in there. This project has about six acres of wetlands, so it's about 1/7th, or fourteen percent of the site. I think there's a few things that we've done on the project. We've got a couple things going against the project, marketing-wise, talking to Mr. Quinby over the length of the petition process. One of those is the project does abut 75. We're caught between there and estates properties to the east, and more intensive uses to the north. The property owner to the south, there's actually a nine-acre parcel there that's undeveloped. And the structures he's putting on is the -- Mark Bell owns that, and he is actually -- he's talked to me twice in the last six months about re-zoning the nine acre parcel directly to the west of it. It actually goes east and west. And just to the other side of that he's added some other -- I'm going to say farm buildings, or some buildings where he keeps a snake farm operating. So, actually his intensity is on that but his intention, from what I gather, is he would like to fezone the northern parcel and see if he can get the four units per acre. The other marketing issues we have is, we've got a substantial cost on bringing in water, sewer and road improvements to the site that are significantly higher than other projects. Another marketing problem the site faces is that it's, it's in a unique location that makes it a little bit difficult to find. I think what happens when we get a certain -- we promised a lot of things to make a high quality project, the kind of project that fits in with the neighborhood as well as North Naples, things like tile roofs, we went to two stories, we've got a great buffer to the east so the neighbors don't have to see the project. I think what happens when we offer a lot of high quality things so we ensure that the neighborhood and the commissioners that we have a high quality project, we take the density below a certain level, now we've priced out the people that we targeted the project for in the first place. So the project, if you get below -- from what Mr. Quinby was telling me -- five and a half to 6 1/2 units an acre makes it a -- if you put in the right development standards that we have, you end up with a high quality coach home or villa project. If you drop the density significantly below that, now you've priced out the middle class and the upper middle class people, and now we can only market the project towards more affluent people. And I guess that's up to the board's direction, on which way they want to go. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I guess -- and I appreciate both you and Mr. Pires. I'm sure if you say it's going to be high quality and make commitments to do that then it would indeed be. But, in fairness, the marketing costs or marketing problems of a particular piece aren't necessarily reason for the board to support a piece, and individual uniqueness of piece -- I mean, if you have to end up marketing it a different way, that's -- there's still a different way to market it. I think what we need to deal with is to make sure we're not taking away the viability of the property. And from what you've just said is, this particular project, it might be harder to do at a lower density, but you'd have to go -- you still have the opportunity to go for a more affluent type customer. And so, I mean, if it's a question of marketing and to whom and what type project, that's really not a land use issue we can deal with. The marketing issues are separate. And frankly, if we can go with a lower density and go to an affluent customer, I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing. And so, I still haven't heard something that motivates me to grant a density bonus there, from a land use perspective. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me ask if there are specific questions of the petitioner from any members of the board at this point? Seeing none. Thank you, Mr. Hoover. I'm going to close the public hearing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is not an easy one, but I think we need to recognize the urban residential character or the nature as designated by the Future Land Use Plan, the fact that our staff has deemed that it is consistent with the Future Land Use Element, even at six units an acre, I assume it would be also be consistent at four or five. So is there a motion on this item? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, recognizing the Future Land Use Element and its allowances, I'm going to make a motion we approve PUD 97-5 at four units per acre, because I'm not sure, from a legal perspective, that Mr. Pires wouldn't be pursuing us elsewhere if we didn't allow something there, pursuing in court. And I think we need to do that. But recognizing the unique nature of the area, the fact that it has only one access through an existing neighborhood street, the fact that there is some limited transportation issues on Oakes Boulevard, and particularly recognizing the unique nature, that virtually all surrounding property is either ag. or estates, I'm going to say that we not grant any of the density bonus requested. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. There's a motion. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I need to put one more credit and one more reason for that on the record as well. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The fact that Mr. Hoover stipulated on the record that there are viable economic alternatives for the property if, you know, even with a lower density. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My take was going to be something in the area of five units an acre because of the intent of trying to further the density band concept, which is to encourage the development closest to the activity center first, without getting too far afield. I certainly don't have a problem with four, but I was leaning more towards five. We do have a motion on the floor. Is there a second on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The motion will fail for lack of a second. I would like to take the exact same reasoning and make a motion at five units per acre. COMHISSIONER BERRY: That allows how many units in? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The total number of units would be 220, I believe. It's 44 acres. COMHISSIONER BERRY: And had we allowed the other it would have been 294? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The original application was 294. The total number of units is important as to traffic, I think, but what we're trying to accomplish is a development scenario that will not negatively impact the neighbors. And I think it's either four or five units an acre, and -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The difference between the three scenarios is, they've asked for 266, he has suggested 220 and mine was 176, so -- 220. I'm sorry. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Yours was 220, Tim? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. And I'm basing -- the reason I'm saying five -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mine was 176. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- units an acre is, we do have a reason, if there's going to be development, to try and put it closer to the activity centers than further away. And it's to avoid the leap frog development so that people aren't dealing with pocket, high intensity pockets outside of the urban area or more cjuster-type developments becoming attractive. I know that's a tough concept to grasp if this is right behind you or if this is on your road. But we have to look at the overall development plans of the county, and we do have a growth management plan that says this is, is encouraged rather than discouraged. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There is a motion and a second. Is there further discussion on the motion? Seeing none. I'll call the question. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries 4-1, so PUD 97-5 is approved as presented, with the exception that the maximum density is at five units per acre. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And with the stipulation that Mr. Hoover had put on the record earlier. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: About the utilities? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- about the utilities? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. Well, anything stated on the record is there and will be complied with, so -- okay. Thank you to everyone. That was not -- those are not easy decisions. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we have a time frame on not only the density but the Future Land Use; do we have any idea when that's coming back to us? MR. CAUTERO: Mr. Cautero, for the record. Pursuant to the workshop that the board had with the planning commission, we talked about some of the issues that we were going to bring forward to you. And what the staff is doing now is working with a technical working group to receive as much input as possible. The long and short of it is that it would be -- we could have a report to you by the end of the year, maybe even sooner than that, then that would be ready if you're amenable for first cycle '98 amendment to the comprehensive plan. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me do this. I had hoped we could get possibly through and not have to take a lunch break, but it looks like we're going to extend more than an hour from now. So for the court reporter and everyone else, let's go ahead and take one hour for lunch. (Meeting recessed at 12:20 p.m. and resumed at 1:03 p.m.) Item #1282 - Continued to August 26, 1997 Item #12C1 RESOLUTION 97-312 RE PETITION AV-97-008 TO VACATE A 6' WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENT ALONG THE NORTHEAST PROPERTY LINE OF LOT 32 AND TO VACATE THE CONTIGUOUS 6' WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENT ALONG THE SOUTHWEST PROPERTY LINE OF LOT 33, "QUAIL WEST UNIT ONE, REPLAT" ACCORDING TO THE PLAT BOOK 21, PAGES 84 THROUGH 106 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND TO ACCEPT AS A REPLACEMENT EASEMENT A 15' WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENT THROUGH A PORTION OF SAID LOT 32 - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good afternoon. We're going to reconvene the Board of County Commissioners' meeting. At the time we took a recess for lunch, we just completed item 12.B.(1). 12.B.(2) has been continued, so we are at item 12.C.1 on our agenda. *** This is Petition AV 97-008. It is quasi-judicial, therefore we need to swear in our folks, the petitioners and any members of the public who are here to speak on that item. So all those individuals, if you would stand and raise your right hand, please. Madam Court Reporter? (Speakers sworn.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good afternoon, Mr. Mullet. MR. HULLER: Good afternoon, Board members. For the record, my name is Russ Mullet with Transportation Services Department. Item 12.C.(1) is a public hearing to consider Petition AV-97-008 for the vacation of a 12-foot drainage easement along Lots 32 and 33 of the plat Quail West Unit 1 Replat as recorded in Plat Book 21, Pages 84 through 106. The petitioner wants to build over the existing easement. He's relocating the easement and dedicating a new easement. The agent for the petitioner has identified a typo on the replacement easement legal description that has to be replaced. And I've got the new one for that. And we have reviewed it and it is correct. The resolution -- or letters of no objection were obtained from all pertinent user agencies. A resolution was prepared and approved by the County Attorney's office in accordance with Florida Statutes 177.101. Based on the replacement easement and the letters of no objection, staff recommends approval. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Two questions. The individual requesting this easement of vacation is the owner of Lot 33, is that correct, or do they own both 33 and 32? MR. HULLER: There is joint petitioners. The petitioner for Lot 33 is the one that's going to build the bigger house. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. What I'm asking you is, is Lot 32 vacant or is it built upon -- are we creating something where somebody is going to come back and ask for a variance due to this, due to this being moved and not being able to be built upon? MR. HULLER: The agent for the petitioner is here. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If I could get some clarification on this. What I want is, we're creating a larger building envelope for Lot 33 by doing this which I don't have any problem with. I just want to make sure we are not tightening in Lot 32 to the point this Board is going to receive a variance request in the future, which we probably wouldnwt be real happy about. MR. COLE: For the record, my name is W. Terry Cole, P.E., with Hole, Montes and Associates, and Iwm here representing Quail West, Ltd., who is the owner of Lot 32, and the Bravermans, who are the owners of Lot 33. Associated with this is also a lot line adjustment to shift the lot from the old area where the easementws being vacated to the southwest to then create a new lot line for Lot 32. And the new replacement drainage easement is being moved to that new lot line. And both parties, Quail West, Ltd., and the Bravermans, have agreed to relocating this drainage easement. And the new lot created from Lot 32 is in compliance with the PUD, and no further actions will be necessary by the Board in the future. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. If it's the Board's desire to approve this I think that's fine. I just would like a statement on the record by the motion maker that this does not create a situation in which variances are required for the development of Lot 32. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sounds like he said that if it's in compliance with all, everything in the PUD, it sounds like Lot 32 will meet the minimum lot size requirement. Is it from a practical perspective big enough to build a Quail West kind of house on Lot 32? MR. COLE: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Maybe that's good enough. I just want to make sure we didn't get a variance request in a year or two on this. We can hear it, but -- any further questions on this? Members of the public registered, Mr. HcNees? MR. HcNEES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We have a motion. Is there a second? COHMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Motion carries five-zero. Mr. Mullet, thank you very much. Item #12C2 RESOLUTION 97-313 RE PETITION CCSL-97-1A, BRETT D. MOORE, P.E., OF HUHISTON AND MOORE ENGINEERS REPRESENTING THE PELICAN BAY FOUNDATION, INC. REQUESTING A COASTAL CONSTRUCTION SETBACK LINE VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION CONSISTING OF A HANDICAPPED BEACH ACCESS RAMP, BOARDWALK AND BEACH STAIRS, IN-FILLING OPEN AREAS WITH DECKING, ROOF COVERINGS OVER DECKING, RESTAURANT EXPANSION AND ADDITION OF NEW DECKS, LOCATED AT THE PELICAN BAY NORTH BEACH FACILITY, PELICAN BAY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, IN SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST - ADOPTED Hove to item 12.C(2), Petition CCSL-97-A1. There is also a companion petition, CCSL-97-1B, both of which I think we can hear them concurrently but we'll need separate motions for each. This also is a quasi-judicial proceeding. Would all members of staff here to speak on this matter, plus the petitioners, and any members of the public, please stand and raise your right hands. Madam Court Reporter. (Speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ms. Burgeson, good afternoon. MS. BURGESON: Hi. For the record, Barbara Burgeson with Current Planning. I'm here to present Petitions CCSL 97-1A and 97-1B. The petitions are presented by Brett Moore, with Humiston and Moore Engineers, representing Pelican Bay Foundation. They are nearly identical petitions. They are on different parcels, that's why they were brought to you separately, with two different resolutions and two executive summaries. CCSL-97-1A is for the north beach facility. It's to construct a handicapped beach access ramp, boardwalk and beach stairs, in-filling of open areas with deck, some roof coverings over the decking, restaurant expansion and addition of some new decks. CCSL-97-1B is for the addition of handicapped beach access ramps, in-filling of areas with decking, roof covering of decking, restaurant expansion and addition of new decks. These properties, both of them under the considerations on the executive summary, will be mitigating for the removal of vegetation in the areas where they will be putting in new boardwalks and new decking. They will be avoiding or minimizing impacts to the Gopher tortoise burrows and the habitat that's out there on the property. Exotic vegetation will be removed in compliance with Collier County Land Development Code Section 3966. And both petitions are consistent with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan, Conservation and Coastal Element, Management Element with the exception of the attached 12 stipulations in each of the variances. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And these are private facilities, not for-profit commercial restaurants; is that correct? MS. BURGESON: They are private with the Pelican Bay foundation. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I think that's an important distinction here. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: These seem easy and appropriate to me, except where I have a question about both of them have a condition number 12 that says minor revisions, and I don't know what that means. MS. BURGESON: We put that in there -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What it says is: Minor revisions can be approved in writing by staff. MS. BURGESON: Right. A couple years ago, we had a CCSL variance that came in and it was, specifically included a fence, and the variance called out for a particular distance that that fence is set back from the variance line. The property owner on that single family home came back to us and they wanted to move the fence more landward of where it was. And because it was very specific in the resolution, the County Attorney's office -- we had to bring that back in as another variance. So this is just for very minor amendments. For instance, if they need to field adjust say the handicapped walk or any of the decking to avoid impacts to the Gopher tortoise or any of the vegetation out there, we would allow that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm comfortable with that on the record. I just want to have the parameters of that defined a little better. So that statement on the record is sufficient. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My question really is to the petitioner as to whether or not they agree to the stipulations contained in the staff report. Can I get somebody on the record to indicate that? MR. MOORE: Yes. Brett Moore with Humiston and Moore Engineers. We've reviewed all the stipulations and agree to them. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So you're not contesting anything in the staff recommendations. Do you have anything additional you feel you need to add? MR. MOORE: No, not at this time. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have any speakers, Mr. HcNees? MR. HcNEES: You have none. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve 12.C.(1). CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: 12.C(2), I believe it is. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sorry. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So we have CCSL-97-1A. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. Any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Item #12C3 RESOLUTION 97-314 RE PETITION CCSL-97-1B, BRETT D. HOORE, P.E., OF HUHISTON AND MOORE ENGINEERS REPRESENTING THE PELICAN BAY FOUNDATION, INC. REQUESTING A COASTAL CONSTRUCTION SETBACK LINE VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION CONSISTING OF A HANDICAPPED BEACH ACCESS RAMP, BOARDWALK AND BEACH STAIRS, IN-FILLING OPEN AREAS WITH DECKING, ROOF COVERINGS OVER DECKING, RESTAURANT EXPANSION AND ADDITION OF NEW DECKS, LOCATED AT THE PELICAN BAY SOUTH BEACH FACILITY, PELICAN BAY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, IN SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST - ADOPTED Next is item 12.C(3), Petitioner CCSL-97-1B. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Hr. Chairman, I'll make a motion that we approve staff recommendations for CCSL-97-1B. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion and second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Motion carries five-zero. Ms. Burgeson, thank you very much. Item #12C4 ORDINANCE 97-35 RE ORDINANCE ENABLING CODE ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL TO ISSUE CITATIONS FOR CODE VIOLATIONS - ADOPTED We are to item 12.C(4), approval of an ordinance enabling Code Enforcement personnel to issue citations for code violations. Ms. Sullivan, good afternoon. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'll just come right out and say I thought you could do this already. MS. SULLIVAN: No, we can't. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Want you to be able to. MS. SULLIVAN: All right. This is a -- the citation, proposed citation ordinance is a supplemental tool for Code Enforcement. It is an additional tool in addition to the court procedure and the Code Enforcement Board. Basically, the way it works is, you give a person notice of violation and if they don't clear it by the time allowed, you can issue them a citation, which is like a ticket. They have 30 days in which to either request a court hearing or pay the fine. So what we were hoping that this would do is, would dispose of uncontested cases and keep them out of the Code Enforcement Board and the court system. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My question is, right now if you're cited, you have, is it 30 days? MS. SULLIVAN: No. By statute under the citation procedure, you have 30 days after I give you a ticket to request a court hearing if you want to contest it. If you don't want to contest it, then you pay the fine. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What I want to make sure here is that we are still giving someone who has been cited incorrectly, if that's the case, proper time to address that citation without having to pay $100 and then ask for it back. MS. SULLIVAN: No. When you do the notice of violation you have to give a reasonable time to correct at the beginning. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This isn't changing that time? MS. SULLIVAN: No. This doesn't change anything, none of the other procedures or anything. It's just a supplement. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Do we have questions of Ms. Sullivan on this? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's pretty cut and dried. It's just for those who are less than cooperative with our Code Enforcement folks, and the current procedure gives us one more stick on the other end to work with. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Again, these are citations issued by Code Enforcement personnel, not by our citizen volunteers, is that right? MS. SULLIVAN: That is correct. And there is a training procedure by statute that everyone that issues these citations will have to be trained. I have included in the ordinance Gary Morocco from the Department of Revenue because of the problems people are having with the garbage cans and trash, and we thought it would be beneficial to have him to be able to do this, too. I am also asking the Sheriff's office if they would like to have anybody in on the training, so that if we go out and try to give a notice of violation to someone and they won't sign, the Sheriff could do that and then, you know, penalize them if they don't sign, which we don't have the power to do. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Could I ask Ms. Sullivan, would you just kind of go through that citation procedure for the people in television land so they can kind of get an idea? Turn the board around, if you want to. We've had a chance to look at it. MS. SULLIVAN: Okay. This is the average scenario, really. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Turn it around, so you can -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, you can block us. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Go ahead, it's fine. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's not terribly important. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COHMISSIONER BERRY: while you block us. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER BERRY: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Put it right in front of me. We could promise not to whisper up here I'm not, I'm whispering. You're going to whisper? Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Back to the issue at hand. MS. SULLIVAN: Okay. The way this works is if I find a violation, I will give the person a written notice of violation. They will have a reasonable time to comply, which runs generally three to seven days. If they have not complied say at seven days and we go back on the eighth day, then we will give them a citation. They have the option in that document to request a court hearing within 30 days or pay a $100 fine on the first offense. One of the good things about this is, if you go back the second time and it recurs, you don't have to give the person a reasonable time to comply on the second, if it's the same violation. For example, litter on the same property, abandoned vehicle on the same property, means they are just doing the same thing again. And you can not give them reasonable time, you just go ahead and give them the second citation, which would be $250. And then on the third offense, it would be you issue them a citation and it would be $400. The reason for that is that if the person does not request a court hearing or if the person does not pay, in other words, the person ignores me, then the Clerk of Courts can enter a judgment in the amount of $500 against the person. So people are not likely to ignore on this procedure. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This makes a lot of sense in the areas where we've got people that are just basically ignoring things and abusing the system. My concern is something like a property owner -- and I have a couple of these, I think in Imperial is one that we have dealt with on indigent property, where the folks live out of town they're only here for a few months out of the year and they've been cited for litter. And even if you have somebody coming in and mowing once a month or quarterly, whatever, to keep the weed area down to comply with that part of the code, generally there's not a service that picks up litter on your property that somebody else deposits there. So what I'm concerned is they get cited the first time, they call and have somebody clean up the site. They get cited the second time and now they don't get that notification, they just automatically get a citation. Am I reading that correctly? MS. SULLIVAN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I have a problem with that. I have a problem because people who don't live here and own the property, I think there are some things that happen outside of their control. They are not allowed to fence the property in many of these planned developments, so they can't keep people out of it by fencing. So without having an opportunity to be noticed of the violation and correct it, I think we're only saving seven days the second time around. But there seems to be an issue of fairness there. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's not only, I don't think, an issue of fairness; I think it's an issue of compliance. And I'm going to give our code enforcers or code enforcement officers the benefit of the doubt in using a little bit of discretion there. Just like when an officer pulls you over you can get a ticket for going 66 in a 65, but they use a little discretion there and know what common sense, you know, works and what doesn't. And I think really the catalyst for this whole thing and what Ms. Sullivan is trying to achieve is, there are repeat violators who, under the current system, just keep pushing it to that edge every time. You've always got 30 days, you've always got a time frame. And we need to have some mechanism by a way to make sure that they do comply or, if not, that they are punished more aggressively than the law allows. So I think we need to deliver a policy message, perhaps, to our Code Enforcement officers, but I for one have some confidence that they will do that with some discretion. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, that's the purpose of my bringing it up, is I didn't want, you know, one size doesn't fit all. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, that's a good point. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So I just want to know that that discretion is something that's necessarily within the control of the property owners taken into consideration, unlike someone who keeps throwing stuff out by the curb -- washing machine one week and a dryer the next and whatever -- and leaving it there, I have a real problem with that. I mean that's wanton, that's just crazy. So I agree with you. I just want to make sure that discretion is there, and that Code Enforcement officers continue to use it as well as they have in the past. MS. SULLIVAN: Well, at any time when someone's issued a citation they can ask for a court hearing and they can challenge it in a situation like this. Also, this has nothing to do with any other process. I can give somebody a citation on the first offense and then take them to court or the Code Enforcement Board on the second offense. So there is a lot of leeway, discretionary leeway here. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I just wanted to make sure that we're not tightening everything in that doesn't necessarily apply. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Speakers? MR. HcNEES: You have five, Mr. Chairman. Your first would be Glenn Wilt, who will be followed by Nettie Phillips. MS. SULLIVAN: Mr. Chairman, if I may, Ramiro would like to bring up a couple legal points here that we discovered that may need be to fixed. MR. HANALICH: Just very quickly. These are rather minor overall, but a couple things I'd like, if the Board wants to consider approval is, on page 7 of the ordinance under Section 8, civil infractions, I just would ask the Board's permission to, in the last, in line 14, to insert the words: "Each day each violation shall continue beyond the time period for corrections stated in the .... and the words added would be: "In the written warning notice," would be added there, in addition to "citation". COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So any citation or written warning notice? MR. HANALICH: Right. The words "written warning notice" would be added there. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. HANALICH: Page 11, a typo there, at line 8 at the bottom where it says, "as set forth by resolution." It should say, "as set forth by this ordinance." CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. HANALICH: And the last thing is on page 8 of the ordinance, lines 1 through 14 there basically describe the way in which the citations and the warning notices will be given to the violators. What I'd like to do is to have permission of the Board to amend that language merely to state in paragraph 2 there, that this citation or warning notice can be delivered by, as it presently states, "any Code Enforcement officer," but also by the sheriff or other law enforcement officer. This tracks authority that we have in Chapter 162, particularly if it's an out of county owner is one of the reasons for that. And to also include in there, "by certified mail return receipt requested." COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. HANALICH: Finally, the part of paragraph 2 that deals with notifying businesses, merely to add that the warning notice or citation can also be served on the registered agent for the business. The reason for all of this is that in talking with Mr. Wilt from the code volunteers and Ms. Sullivan, they have indicated that sometimes you have problems with unimproved property that is owned by people that are out of county or out of state. We are trying to maximize our ability to notify them. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. HANALICH: That's all. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any questions on those changes? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What was his name, for the record. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And your name would be -- I don't think you gave your name. MR. HANALICH: Excuse me. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't think you gave your name for the record. MR. HANALICH: Oh, I'm sorry. Ramiro Hanalich. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thanks, Ramiro. Let's go ahead and go to speakers, Mr. HcNees. We have Mr. Wilt first, followed by -- MR. HcNEES: Followed by Nettie Phillips. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. WILT: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Glenn Wilt, I live in Golden Gate and I'm here representing the Golden Gate Volunteers. Hopefully, we'll get good approval today in support of this action. We've been working on it for a year, year and a half. It's another tool for Code Enforcement, the registered Code Enforcement agents with the county, to resolve compliance with some of our problems throughout the county. In my unofficial type survey that I keep running all the time, the citation authority, as far as I'm concerned, won't involve 80 percent of the people whose violations are notified. 80 percent of the people when they're notified there is a situation, they handle it; they correct it. It's the other difficult people that, the reason I worked on this ordinance and worked with them, is to hit the person where it hurts them, and that's the pocketbook, gets their attention. You're all familiar with the Code Enforcement Board. It takes time and delay and administrative expenses to get the item to the Code Enforcement Board. And from my knowledge of the Code Enforcement operation and Enforcement Board operation -- I don't know all of it -- but if it's corrected days before we get there, 90 days later there is no offense. And they start all over -- as Commissioner Hancock mentioned -- they start all over their cycle again, another 60, 90 days. I think this will reach that group of people that we're trying to get to. Again I say this is just another tool the Code Enforcement people can use to correct some of the code violations throughout the county. I ask for your support on it, and I thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Glenn. MR. HcNEES: Your next speaker is Nettie Phillips, followed by Sherrie Barnett. MS. PHILLIPS: Okay. For the Board and for the record, my name is Nettie Phillips. I rise in opposition to this new mechanism because we already have a mechanism for, of compliance to the problems. We already have due process of law, and I don't see why we need to keep creating more law and more law. Yesterday I had the pleasure of talking with people from Ireland and Canada. And we were talking about the difference between those countries and this country where we thought we had freedom. And they said in this country what's wrong with the people? You guys have no freedom, you have more regulations than you can shake a stick at. I mean they cannot believe, they can't do some things there, but they come over here and they say it is impossible to deal with our regulations, we have so many regulations. We already have a due process of law, we already have the mechanisms in to go through this process. And in a lot of these instances the places that you're going to be dealing with this, in the nonincorporated areas, like in the Estates and other areas, a lot of the people moved out to these areas because they were poor people in the first place. They didn't move to Port Royal, they didn't move to Naples beach, et cetera. And this is just going to put some burdens on some of those people that just can barely make it from day to day. I realize there's problems. I have problems; people throw garbage in my yard and I mean on the streets. Are we going to have the county go out and meet this compliance every day, this new compliance? Are we going to cite them every day because they're in violation of all of this garbage and stuff thrown in the streets, which is county property? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. MS. PHILLIPS: We're going to cite them every day? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What good are laws if you can't enforce them? MS. PHILLIPS: Well, we already have laws -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct. MS. PHILLIPS: We don't need any more laws, so we don't really need any more ordinances. And the two that wasn't even put on here that was asked for was arrest powers and armed guards. I mean, we really don't need a police state. We have already enough laws on the books. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think that's an exaggeration, Mrs. Phillips. MS. PHILLIPS: I don't think so. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But you're certainly entitled to your opinion. MS. PHILLIPS: Correct; right. But we already have a vehicle to do this thing. It's also a startup of $15,000 plus just to start this process, for a process that we already have. We already have due process of law, why not stick to it? We don't need more. MR. HcNEES: Sherrie Barnett, followed by Cheryle Newman. MS. BARNETT: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Sherrie Barnett for the record. I'm here as a let's go ahead and do this. Unlike Nettie, I disagree in that yes, we do have due process, but apparently it's not working. I've been with the Code Enforcement volunteers for about two years now and I've written the same people as notices for the Code Enforcement people to go back through, probably 15 to 20 times. In a particular instance, I've asked -- Code Enforcement has gone and checked a semi that keeps parking in the same area over and over and over again. They'll move it in the compliance time, so therefore, it's no longer a violation. Once it's cleared, they move it back. So the reason we are asking for this to be passed is so that if we hit them in the pocketbook with $100 and they know the next time it's going to be $250 if they don't comply and leave it in compliance, then there might be a little bit of an understanding that this is a serious position that people are taking in the community. I do agree that, Nettie, we do have due process of law, but sometimes laws needs to be tweaked in order to get people to pay attention to them, and I think that that's what this is. MR. HcNEES: Cheryle Newman, and your final speaker is Maria Tuff. MS. NEWMAN: Good afternoon, commissioners. Cheryle Newman for the record. Pretty much what Sherrie said. I'm also a volunteer in Golden Gate and I believe about a year ago, pretty much a year ago, the commercial vehicle ordinance was revised, brought up-to-date so it was a little bit more enforceable by the Code Enforcement people. And these are the same people that are being written up on a weekly basis every two weeks. They move them, they wait until after it's been abated, and then they're back again. It's frustrating for the volunteers; it's time consuming for the inspectors themselves. And I think that this ordinance should be passed today. Thank you very much. MR. HcNEES: Maria Tuff, and one more registered, A1 Perkins. MS. TUFF: Hi. For the record, my name is Maria Tuff and I'm president of the Golden Gate Area Civic Association, and I want to come before you today on behalf of the association to ask your support for the citation authority ordinance or proposal. Golden Gate is one of the fastest growing areas in the county and with that growth comes some challenges, one of them being code enforcement, and I think as some of them have reiterated, it has been a problem and this will be a way for us to help curb it. The civic association has made code enforcement a high priority as you also indicated on your pre-budget worksheets you filled out a number of months ago. The citation proposal for repeat and recurring violators is of great importance to Golden Gate. I'm a code volunteer and many of the others here today are, and it is frustrating to write somebody, and as Sherrie and Cheryle said, go back and write them again the next month after they've moved it and brought it back, or whatever the case may be. If the investigators can give immediate citations to repeat or recurring violators, much wasted time can be cut out of the process. Most violations are abated, but how long does it take? They are abated and then they become violations again usually. We could have faster response time, which is one of the civic association's goals, and expenses could be cut by avoiding Code Enforcement Board costs for many of the violators because they would choose to pay a lesser fine than go to Code Enforcement and possibly pay up to a $500 fine. So I'm asking your support for the citation authority proposal. I believe it will help better our community and Collier County as a whole. MR. McNEES: And A1 Perkins is your final speaker. MR. PERKINS: Good afternoon, commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, people at home. I'm opposed to this, first of all, without the ordinance and the additions and the changes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Name, please? MR. PERKINS: A1 Perkins. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Who are you representing? MR. PERKINS: Belle Meade Groups and myself, primarily, and all the working guys out there that can't make this meeting, and the ones that drive pickup trucks with ladders on them, and the ones that have toys in their front yards and the ones that have bicycles and boats and campers in their side yards. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Didn't we stop that no toys in the front yard ordinance? MS. SULLIVAN: Not yet. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Just checking. MR. PERKINS: The next thing you're going to need is a breathing license. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Very selective, though. MR. PERKINS: First of all, you need to know that I am totally against the Golden Gate Gestapo walking up and down streets, picking up and filing violations, which we are paying for to have the people go out and see. Now, I have read the violations. I have 700 of the violations, people, 700. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Personally? MR. PERKINS: Personally. Right. I bought them from you guys, the commission, via the inspection people. When I saw nothing but campers, boats, commercial vehicles, but what really ticked me off about this is I have about an inch of violations talking about weeds. We don't have -- our inspectors don't have anything better to do than go inspect weeds? We're talking about Golden Gate primarily, because some of these people live outside of Golden Gate, yet they are harassing Golden Gate citizens. Now there's got to be a better way to do what we need to do, as far as make the middle of the road here. When I see a guy with a boat in his back yard and two Waverunners in his front yard, I say, good for you, Jack, because you work all day long every day, seven days a week to pay the lousy taxes that these people put on you, and what moments you have left, you have a good time with it. That's very important, because that is what the hell this State is all about. It is about beaches, swimming, good time, boats, campers, the whole five yards. And you are picking on Golden Gate particularly because that is where the poor people live. That's where the working slobs live. That's where I live, right adjacent to it. Get off their back. When you talk about taking it to court who's going to pay for this? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: A1, talk to us; don't talk to her. MR. PERKINS: All right. Who's going to pay for this? When you go to court, do you think it's going to be for free? Do you people know lawyers want to get $200 an hour, plus everything they pile on top of this. They make phone calls back and forth and talk about all kinds of stuff, right, at 150 bucks an hour, up to 200. Ask me how I know. Right. $15,000 going in; three to seven days. How many truck violations? Just because you have a few people who would like to depress a real estate market in Golden Gate for personal profit, you better take a good long look at what they do and how they do it. Wake up, people. Don't pass this stuff. We have stuff in process. And the way I read this thing, if our code enforcement people are incompetent at the present time, something needs to be done there. But I think they're chasing their tails all over because they're trying to please this little group from Golden Gate. Thank you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, interestingly, I almost, on the way up, took the opportunity, while A1 was on the way to the podium, to say people from Golden Gate don't need a commendation from me. But I really, really do, I think, commend you. You've been the leaders in this whole endeavor in the county, and East Naples is starting to follow your lead and a lot of parts of the community are following your lead, and we appreciate it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Essentially what we have is -- and it's no different in Naples Park -- we have people who care about their neighborhoods -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Imagine that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- who want their property values not to suffer because their neighbor ignores the codes and ordinances we have in place. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's the irony. Al's saying someone's trying to depress the market. I can't think of any way better to depress the real estate market than to ignore codes, allow violations. It doesn't even make sense. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No, Mr. Perkins, have a seat. MR. PERKINS: If it was their neighbor filing a complaint I would buy that. DEPUTY SHERIFF: Sir, sit down or I'll take you to jail. MR. PERKINS: I'll see you in court, too. DEPUTY SHERIFF: Well, that's what I'm here for. Mr. Chairman, is it okay for him to remain or you want him out? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If he stands up one more time, let's remove him. DEPUTY SHERIFF: That's my job. I'll be glad to see you in court, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, officer. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm one of those slobs, as A1 puts it, that works and lives in Golden Gate and the Code Enforcement idea was my idea, A1. It's nobody with a secret agenda, it's no Gestapo, it's nothing else. All those weeds that you say don't matter, if you live next door to them, they matter a lot. Now, when you have any other violation, then it matters a lot. And the community taking pride in itself, having literally dozens and dozens and dozens of volunteers -- I think they've got about five dozen volunteers that do this regularly, and then a handful that do it beyond that -- I think is going far and above taking pride in your community. It's actually getting active and making sure your community is the best it can be. So I don't think you could be further off base. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have a concern when you start talking about, to quote you, I think your words were, "the poor slobs that work and -- live and work in Golden Gate." I don't care where you live, I don't care how much money you make, you don't have to be having garbage and living with garbage and things like that. I don't care. That has no influence at all. Your economic level doesn't mean that you have to live with code enforcement violations that everybody in the neighborhood or surrounding areas have to put up with. And I would resent that. You don't have to make a lot of money. And I know people who make very little money and the places that they maintain are absolutely spotless. So to use economics as a sense of this allows you to have and violate certain things, A1, I can't buy that, either. That's wrong and you know that's wrong. That is a wrong thing and a wrong assessment. And if I were people who lived out in Golden Gate, I would be very resentful for having somebody tag me because I live in Golden Gate, number one, I'm poor, and I can't clean my place up. And I don't think this is it. This is a group of people that have come forward and said hey, we want to raise standards, we know there's rules out there and we want people to abide by them. And I applaud them for doing that, but I don't think anybody is going out and you know, just shopping around for all these kinds of things. Most of the violations, from what I have heard, are pretty darn obvious. So anyway, that's my two cents' worth. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Any other speakers? Close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we approve the citation ordinance. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five-zero. I'm going to take this opportunity to pass on a little information. Anyone who thinks that they are going to walk into this meeting and run roughshod over other people, over this Board, over anyone who has taken the time out of their day to be here, is sadly mistaken. We have issues to discuss, issues that are important. I ask you politely to stay on task, stay on the issues, and help us do our jobs. But if you are going to do other than that, you will be removed from the meeting, period. If there's any questions about that, 774-8390 is my phone number, and I welcome the phone calls. But there's a decorum here and you will respect it. I don't care who you are, I don't care what you represent. Item #12C5 RESOLUTION 97-315 RE PETITION AV-97-013 TO VACATE ALL PUBLIC ROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND UTILITIES EASEMENTS AND DEDICATIONS WITHIN THAT PORTION OF CHAMPIONSHIP DRIVE (F/D/A MARRIOTT CLUB DRIVE) LYING EAST OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT PUMP STATION; FIDDLER'S CREEK PARKWAY (F/K/A TOURNAMENT BOULEVARD); CLUB CENTER BOULEVARD (F/K/A CHAMPIONSHIP DRIVE), AS SHOWN ON THE MARCO SHORES UNIT 30 GOLF COURSE PLAT; AND THAT CERTAIN 60 FOOT ROADWAY EASEMENT RECORDED AT O.R. BOO 1557, PAGE 2335, ET SEQ; ALL LOCATED IN SECTIONS 14 & 15, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - ADOPTED Next item is 12.C(5), Petition AV-97-013, petition to vacate all public rights of way and utilities easements within that portion of Championship Drive. This is the Fiddler's Creek property. Mr. Bobanick, good afternoon. MR. BOBANICK: Afternoon. For the record, my name is Dave Bobanick, Interim Transportation Director. Item 12.C(5) is a public hearing to consider vacation of a portion of the road rights of way on the plat of Marco Shores Unit 30 golf course as recorded in Plat Book 17, Pages 98 to 103, and the vacation of a 60-foot road easement recorded in O.R. Book 1557, Page 2335. Location. The Fiddler's Creek development is located on the east side of State Road 951, two miles south of U.S. 41. Existing use. Championship Drive, Tournament Boulevard and Marriott Club Drive are county maintained roads and provide access to the Marriott Golf Course. The proposed vacation allows for realignment of Championship Drive via future plats to 30 feet south of Fiddler's Creek north boundary line and the construction of a guard house. Letters of no objection have been received from the following user agencies. Public Works Division on behalf of the Collier County Water and Sewer District, the Engineering Review Section of the Development Services Division, the Current Planning Section of the Development Service Division, Public Works Division Stormwater Management Section, Florida Power and Light, Sprint Florida, Time Warner Cable, Sheriff's Office, Collier County Sheriff's Office -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Bobanick, if I could ask you to place your finger on that part of your presentation, what I did not do is I did not swear in all members of staff and public on this item. I need to do that. I apologize and we're going to include your existing testimony in that. But would all members of our staff, members of the public, petitioners and so forth here to speak on this item, please stand and raise your right hand. There are still two people wearing suits that are not standing. (Laughter) Okay. Madam Court Reporter? (Speakers sworn.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Mr. Bobanick, please continue. MR. BOBANICK: Continuing with the letters of no objection, we received from the Sheriff's Office, the East Naples Fire Control District, City National Bank of Florida and Parcel Z, Inc. The Transportation Services Department has reviewed the petition and has listened to recent objections from adjacent Pelican Lakes RV development. Staff has no objection to the vacation, subject to the following stipulations, and Russ has a handout for you now. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Mr. Bobanick, I understand that the parties have been discussing right up until just prior to this public hearing; is that correct? MR. BOBANICK: Yes. Right here. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Have you been party to that or is this representative of that? MR. BOBANICK: This is representative of what we were able to put together yesterday afternoon. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Let me ask, just so we don't go into an area that we might have to come back and redo is, I understand that the parties have been working on trying to find a solution themselves. MR. BOBANICK: That's what I understand, yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Maybe it would be appropriate if we could get an outline of that, if it has occurred, so that we can -- MR. BOBANICK: That would be fine. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- make our comments pertinent to that -- MR. BOBANICK: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- that particular idea. Is there a representative of either the petitioner or Pelican Lakes that can explain to this Board what -- what have we arrived at if there is an agreement at this stage? I know we have Mr. Farquhar (phonetic) and Mr. Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. For the record, my name's Bruce Anderson on behalf of the petitioner. And I put up here a graphic which I've provided a copy to Mr. Bobanick, Mr. Mullet, that depicts a replacement public easement that we will be granting to take the place of the diagonal easement that was granted by separate written instrument. This replacement easement, which is shown here in the pink area, is of the same distance. It's also the same 60-foot width from our property line. And this will enable the adjoining property owner to access, to continue to access its property in a manner they're comfortable with. And the platted rights of way that are also the subject of this vacation petition, all portions that we are requesting to have vacated are located entirely on our property. And I would note also that this vacation petition is entirely consistent with the Fiddler's Creek Planned Unit Development Ordinance that was previously approved by the Board, which provides that the roadways will be maintained by the Fiddler's Creek Homeowners' Association or the Fiddler's Creek Community Development District. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As I understand it, the roadways that are in the application that are being vacated remain the same, but there is a, I guess now a new area to be platted for the purpose of access for the property to the north? MR. ANDERSON: Well, it's going to be granted by separate written instrument. It's a replacement for another written instrument document. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: We are also realigning Championship Drive. And again, this alignment of Championship Drive is reflected in the current approved Fiddler's Creek PUD Master Plan, so it's something that has been before this Board before. And we really view this vacation process as kind of a ministerial act necessary to effectuate the prior PUD ordinance. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: For clarity, I think I need two things. I need Mr. Farquhar to, if he is representing what is it, the Pelican Lakes PUD, to explain to us if, in fact, there is an agreement upon this concept -- and I think thatws the first thing we need. MR. FARQUHAR: John Farquhar, on behalf of the Pelican Bay property which is immediately to the north of Fiddlerws Creek. We, with the changes which they have made today, and a separate agreement which we have reached with the Fiddlerws Creek interests, at this point support their petition for vacation. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Farquhar, you said Pelican Bay. I think you meant Pelican Lakes. MR. FARQUHAR: Iwm sorry. I meant Pelican Lakes. I represent Pelican Lakes. Itws just immediately to the north. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Because the homeownersw association of Pelican Bay just got real excited. MR. FARQUHAR: They probably didn't like that when we agreed to this. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Calling in. MR. FARQUHAR: Yes. We at this point support it. We have reached an agreement with them. Their revised design is acceptable to us, with the other stipulations that we've made between ourselves. CHAIRNLAN HANCOCK: The last element is, Mr. Bobanick, the scenario shown up on the Board here, do you have any transportation concerns about that type of alignment? MR. BOBANICK: No. It meets all of the concerns that we had requested as a part of the petition. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Do we need to enter -- Mr. Weigel, we don't really need to enter their agreement, per se, into this action today, since we have it on the record that they have arrived at a mutual agreement from both parties. We don't need anything to muddy the record here, do we? MR. WEIGEL: We certainly don't need to muddy the record. But the record should reflect and you should be able to make a determination, if you're going forward with this vacation, that this is a public benefit. And I would like for the record to have, either by staff or someone, to describe for the Board and to the public on the record, what the purported public benefit is of the proposed vacation action. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. What should be now referenced as Exhibit 2(b), the amended statement of general public benefit resulting from the vacation. Mr. Bobanick, has the proposal here today affected any of the elements of the amended statement of general public benefit you just distributed to us? MR. BOBANICK: No. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is this the staff's recommendation to us on what is the public benefit? MR. BOBANICK: The staff has reviewed it and is agreeable with it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: Just one little housekeeping matter on that diagonal easement that was granted by separate written instrument. It has an automatic termination clause. And as part of your vacation process today just to clear up any lingering doubt that might be there, we would like for you-all to make a finding that this alternate easement, public easement that we're granting, satisfies the automatic termination provisions of that document. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So it's requested any motion, if there's a motion to approve, incorporate that? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir, please. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Bobanick, with what's been stated so far, do you feel the need that anything else needs to be on the record from a county staff perspective, assuming we entered Exhibit 2(b) for the record? MR. BOBANICK: Yes. We would request that the resolution be revised to include the public benefit. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We'll provide a copy to the court reporter for that. Do we have -- let me ask, are there any other members of the Board team that's here today that feel the need to put anything on the record at this point? Seeing none, do we have public speakers? MR. HcNEES: You had two speakers register representing Pelican Lakes, Emilio Robau and Mary Marnell. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do either of you wish to speak at this time? I have an indication of no from the audience. We will close the public hearing. Is there a motion by the Board? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I make a motion to approve the staff recommendation, including the Exhibit 2(b) with regard to the public purpose. And there was another thing I was supposed to include. Oh, yes, the finding that this substitution of right-of-way is sufficient to trigger the elimination of the document -- I should properly reference the O.R. Book and Page. Do you have that, Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Practically memorized. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Insufficiency would trigger the termination clause. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: In the document and -- MR. ANDERSON: 1557. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: 2335? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, ma'am. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: At 1557, 2335. It's a substitution of a public right of way, which is what's described in the document. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. There is a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Did we leave out anything? Okay. Seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five-zero. To both parties, thank you very much. This could have been a very long, boring discussion. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Too many suits in the room. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Item #12C6 APPLICATION SUBHITTED BY HEDIAONE ENTERPRISES, INC., FOR THE RENEWAL OF A CABLE FRANCHISE - APPROVED The next item on our agenda, item 12.C.6, of which Commissioner Constantine has stated he is abstaining from the vote. (Commissioner Constantine is absent from the hearing room.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to consider application submitted by MediaOne for renewal of a cable franchise. This was continued from last week's agenda due to, or at the request of, the petitioner. Mrs. Merritt, good afternoon. MS. MERRITT: Good afternoon. For the record, Jean Merritt, Office of Franchise Administration. You have for your consideration today an application for renewal for a cable franchise from MediaOne. You have also received previously a proposed franchise agreement. The one you are receiving today is the final version. The differences in the agreements are very slight and are only concerned with the correction of technical errors. This agreement is a result of a cooperative effort between staff and the company. The atmosphere has been at all times one of mutual respect and consensus has been reached by good faith and honest, successful attempts to communicate with each other. The agreement is for 15 years. However, the contract calls for a performance review every four years, and at that time, if both parties agree, modifications may be made to the contract. Given the upgrades and the rebuilding that the company is assuming, as well as investing in a considerable financial commitment, we believe the 15 year term is warranted. And at the same time, the four year review process will allow us to react to any problems or changes that may occur as a result of rapid technological changes in the field. The agreement sets aside two channels for government use. One is available now, and the other one will be made available no later than September, 1999. The county will make the second channel available to the Collier County School System. In addition, MediaOne will make a one time cash donation of $145,000 to the county for a Board room enhancement media system that will greatly improve our efforts in televising these meetings, as well as other meetings taking place in the Board room. The cost of the donation will not be passed on to the customer. The agreement also speaks to customer service standards. As a matter of fact, Mediaone has always responded very quickly to customer complaints. In a recent survey conducted for the county by an independent firm, 83 percent of those responding found MediaOne's basic services either fair, excellent or good; 100 percent of those responding indicated that the company had never missed an appointment to resolve a cable problem. Those are high marks. In addition, the most important benefit of the company's new rebuilding and upgrading efforts will be to enhance the company's offerings, thus giving its subscribers more channels and more choices. We are pleased that MediaOne will complete these efforts by 1999. One area the franchise agreement does not speak to, the rates for cable service. This is simply because the county in reality does not have authority or any significant latitude in this area. The Federal Communications Commission, the FCC, signed an agreement with MediaOne's predecessor, Continental Cablevision. This agreement, known as the social contract, effectively controls the company's rates and other allowable charges, as well as sets the actual raises the company can impose. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ms. Merritt, that's a very important point that I think our public doesn't really understand. This Board does not control, through this contract or any other means, the rates of what is deemed basic cable service. That is an agreement between the federal branch, the FCC, and the service provider; is that correct? MS. MERRITT: That's absolutely correct, Mr. Chairman. In other words, the county has absolutely no control over the rates established by MediaOne. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. MS. MERRITT: The proposed franchise agreement allows for county inspection of books and records, dictates audits and insurance requirements, provides for the use and protection of confidential information and requires an emergency alert system adhering to federal and Florida standards. The company is paid a $5,000 renewal fee, as required by the Collier County Code, Chapter 30, and will continue to pay the 5 percent franchise fees quarterly. The County Attorney's Office has looked at the agreement carefully and has signed off on it. Staff believes we have a viable, fair and responsible franchise agreement and recommends approval. Mr. Kevin G. Coleman will speak for MediaOne, and after his brief remarks, we'll be happy to respond to any questions. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let's go ahead and hold those questions until we hear from Mr. Coleman. Mr. McNees, do we have speakers on this? MR. McNEES: You have three after Mr. Coleman. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. COLEMAN: Good afternoon, commissioners. For the record, Kevin Coleman of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, representing MediaOne and their request for a franchise renewal. Also here today is Mr. Jim deSalle, the Acting General Manager of MediaOne Southwest Florida. I'd like to first compliment Ms. Merritt and your franchise administration department. They've worked hard over the past several months, and in fact, close to over a year in negotiating this contract. Your staff has at all times negotiated what we believe fairly and in a professional manner. They represented the county well, and Mrs. Merritt's a very tough negotiator. MediaOne agrees with the terms of your proposed cable franchise agreement. It's a nonexclusive franchise agreement, want you to understand that, and it's the draft of I believe July 29, 1997, which was recently changed. Those changes are ministerial in nature on technical points and don't change the business terms, if you will. We agreed to the significant and substantial obligations set forth in the franchise draft and MediaOne is committed to complying with those terms. Given Ms. Merritt's presentation, I don't see the need for a formal presentation on our part. We again urge your approval of the franchise renewal and we'd be happy to answer any questions you have. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: On the area of disclosure, I have met with Mr. Coleman and MediaOne, plus I have received correspondence, both fax and letter. Regarding this matter, I'll base my decision on the information presented here today. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Ditto. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ditto. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So will I. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Questions for either Ms. Merritt or Mr. Coleman? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just can't pass up an opportunity to say one thing, and that is good luck to the gentleman who I met who has taken over at MediaOne. And you've got some big shoes to fill with Ken Fuchs. He's been a big player and done a great, a lot of good service for this community. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed. A couple things I discussed with Ms. Merritt that I think would be helpful. As we had our meeting with MediaOne representatives -- was that yesterday? MS. MERRITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Boy. The one item is any increases in rates. I requested from MediaOne that if there is an increase in rates that the ratepayer be notified why the increase occurs. Under FCC regulation, they are required to do that. All we ask for is a little more of a plain-speak explanation. Something that says FCC regulation, blah, blah, blah, and you know, it doesn't really mean anything to the average ratepayer. So they have agreed to try to help do something there. I appreciate that commitment. Although it's really not a contract commitment, it came up in the course of the discussion. I wanted to mention that today because that's one of the concerns we hear sometimes, is why did my rate go up and people say I have no idea, and I think we can do better work there. The second thing is that I understand the contract -- Ms. Merritt, correct me if I'm wrong -- the way this contract indicates is when -- is it 1999 that the second government channel will come on line? MS. MERRITT: On or before. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: On or before. When that happens, the Board of County Commissioners will continue programming on one channel. That second channel will be granted to the school board, which I think is very important to them and shows a degree of cooperation and thoroughness on Ms. Merritt's part, to make sure that's available. In the meantime, we'll continue to work out any scheduling issues with the school board to make sure they have as much access as they need, because right now we're not experiencing a lot of conflict, or any conflict that I'm aware of. But should we, I have all the confidence in Ms. Merritt to handle that scheduling. The third element is one of the City of Naples, and they have a separate contract with MediaOne; is that correct? MS. MERRITT: That is correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So any access they require will not have to come through our two channels? MS. MERRITT: No. At the present time we are allowing them to use Channel 54 for their Council meetings -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MS. MERRITT: -- and that is all. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And no reason why we wouldn't continue doing that. MS. HERRITT: Not at this time. I believe that that is in the best interests of the county citizens, as well as the city. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the city residents are affected by this franchise. So I would just assume we say that we continue to commit to their Council meetings being on the Board of County Commissioners' government channel. I think that's important to do. Commissioner Berry. COHMISSIONER BERRY: A couple of quick questions. I did speak to Mr. Coleman about some of these concerns. It has to do with the channel that would be dedicated to the school system. With the event of Florida Gulf Coast University coming on line and a concern about having a channel available for courses to be offered via television, it's imperative that they have this channel, a channel set aside. And I'm concerned about the 1999 time frame, with the new university coming on line and just exactly where the school system's going to come in on this. Because it's my understanding there's a great deal of interest to be able to offer these courses fairly soon. I don't know that they are going to do it this first semester. They may well be doing that. But I think we need to be aware of that. And also the impact this may have on our current Channel 54 at this time. But certainly, that there be a channel set aside, you know, as soon as possible. And I hope that we don't take that full time out here to 1999 to have this channel set aside. MS. HERRITT: If I could just respond to that, Commissioner. The truth is that was one of the sticking points. I was not very happy with that. But on the other hand, there are no available channels and until the upgrades and the revamping of the system, there just simply won't be. I did manage to get the language in there that if it comes on before 1999 -- because the original language said it would not be available until 1999 -- I believe that the company is committed to upgrading its system before that. That is the date they must have it done. So we hope that a channel will be available sooner. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think there are two things we can do there. One is, and I didn't know this, but in order to add a channel you have to drop one until the upgrade occurs. MS. HERRITT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So which channel are you going to knock out and who are you going to upset by doing that. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I've got a few suggestions. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, I do, too. But -- (Laughter.) COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: One suggestion realistically might be that we offer as much time as possible. Maybe we have just City Council and, God forbid, County Commission meetings once, and the balance of Channel 54 available. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, that's where I was going is that we can offer Gulf Coast University whatever unused time we are not using, or prioritize their needs versus showing a parks and rec program that can be shown at a different time of the day. COHMISSIONER BERRY: And Mr. Buchholz is here from the school system, and I would offer to him as well and say to the school system that perhaps some of the other programming, in light of this information, that in light of some of the other programming that is now being put on Channel 54 from the school perspective, that perhaps we make sure that Florida Gulf Coast has a priority, in addition to the school needs, the current needs that are used by the schools within the district. But that Florida Gulf Coast comes in line right behind that, as opposed to some of the satellite things that are brought in kind of -- and I hate to use the word "filler"; many times they are educational in their nature -- but they are not quite as high a priority as perhaps the Florida Gulf Coast University classes -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Fifteen minutes on the lunch menu. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah. That's not -- yeah, I agree. But anyway, those are some things that do need to be worked out. And I just want the spirit of cooperation to be able to continue this working with the school system. And particularly, there's another item -- MR. COLEMAN: Commissioner Berry, can I respond -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Sure. Absolutely. MR. COLEMAN: -- to that real quickly. Three points. As soon as a franchise is approved, MediaOne will begin its rebuild, so we're not going to delay on that. And I've been assured by the company that if it gets done earlier, they will do that. Number two, Channel 54 is being used approximately about 40 percent of the time for government access. Gulf Coast University has its own channel; it's Channel 3, FGCU. So there's a medium for them to present these shows, as well. So I don't want you to think that our sole access is Channel 54 because that's not accurate. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. Well, but I don't know -- and maybe they can work on this -- but I just want to make sure that these classes are going to be available for access into Collier County, for students to be able to have this in their home and take a class from Florida Gulf Coast. I mean, that was one of the big things when Florida Gulf Coast came on, this was a big selling point, that they would be able to project into Collier County and have this kind of access. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner, I don't disagree, but I'm absent a request from Florida Gulf Coast University for additional access. I have yet to receive one. So what I'm assuming is that they have made the necessary preparations, otherwise, with all the attention this franchise agreement has gotten, I would expect at least a letter from Dr. McTarnigan or a call to Ms. Merritt. So I think what Mr. Coleman hit on may be the point. They may already be planning on using Channel 3 for some of that. But there is really an absence of request on their part. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I understand. But I think, too, that perhaps this coming -- I guess maybe I'm a little -- I hate to say it -- maybe I'm a little ahead here. It's not looking at this instant, but it's -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No, don't do that. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I know. But it's looking at what's going to happen when that university gets up and running on full scale. That's my big concern, to make sure we keep this in mind. Probably right at this point in time that's the least of their concerns as they get the university up and get their first freshman class in there. So it's not a big thing at this moment, but it may be in six months, it may certainly be in a year. MR. COLEMAN: We can understand that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I suggest we task Ms. Merritt with making sure that door stays open and reporting back to us on any material changes to the programming for that purpose. MS. MERRITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I think that would probably be the greatest we could do in that area. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have one other item that I -- Ms. MERRITT: I would like to say one thing, commissioners, excuse me. But I do want to make sure, that Dr. Buchholz is here from the Collier County School System and I want to make sure that everyone understands that we have a very good cooperative arrangement. We trade each other's times quite a bit, when it's more appropriate for them to have something in the evening, and obviously, we get some of their time during the day. So we've had a very good relationship, and that will continue. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Next point, Commissioner Berry. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Another concern that I had -- and this has been something that has, in many different areas has been brought to my attention in terms of access to different meetings. And I think we do a lot of televising down here of the different groups that meet here in the commission chambers, be it the MPO, be it the planning commission, commission meetings, obviously, and other groups. I'm just kind of bringing this to the Board's attention in light of this contract, that perhaps any group that uses this Board room, be it a committee that is set forth certainly by county government. Example: minority or Hispanic affairs and the black affairs, and so If they hold a meeting in this room, that those groups, that those meetings be televised, that we make it a point to televise those meetings. That a schedule be worked out such that this is available over the airwaves. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think this is a little different than your first point. I think you're a little late on this because we just went through the budget discussions which involved Ms. Merritt's department and some reductions there. COMHISSIONER BERRY: I understand. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- and Ms. Tuff's -- Ms. Tuff's, I'm sorry -- Ms. Arnold's time, about what it takes to have someone back there. And until we get a fixed camera in this room which you can turn it on and off maybe that's the way to go and those meetings can be taped and played at a later time. I think that's probably a better approach. But we've kind of gone through that budget cycle, so we may have to look at that next year. COMHISSIONER BERRY: Okay. Well, I think this is a concern and certainly a concern to different groups in the community that feel perhaps they don't have, quote, access to government. That maybe this might answer some of those questions. And to follow up on this and maybe take it one step further, in the future -- certainly not now, but in the future -- if a group has this room for a meeting that a letter be sent to them, if you wish to have your meeting televised -- and certainly, I don't think that this should be a cost to county government -- but if they wish to hold a meeting in this room and wish to have it televised, that there be a cost associated to the group and we'll be happy to televise their meeting, you know, for the general public to view. But that is a step beyond. But I just want this as something that perhaps in the future we might want to take a look at. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think for Board-appointed committees that's an option. But we're kind of getting into the public access TV issue. COMHISSIONER BERRY: I understand; I understand. I know that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. COLEMAN: Just from a legal standpoint, Commissioner Berry, we need to -- under the contract you have two channels, and the government access channel, you can do whatever you want, you can tell whoever group uses it. The concern is if you get close to the public access channel, you begin to lose control of who you can keep on and who you can't keep on. And that might be something that's okay with you. But there are legal ramifications about creating a public access channel and then based on the content of those shows, yanking it. There is a case from Kansas City involving the KKK that the court basically held once you open it up, you can't yank it back off. COMHISSIONER BERRY: And I don't think it's wise for this commission to become the, quote, censor board, and be put in that particular position, and I agree with that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There's another side to that which is that the ratepayer then would have to pay for the maintenance and operation of the studio for the public access. In other words, it isn't just making a tape and plugging into a VCR. Studios have to be made available for the production of shows for anyone and everyone who wants them. And in the end, the ratepayer has to pay for the cost of that studio production. So you've got everyone in their cable bill paying for something that may or may not be representative of the community. COMHISSIONER BERRY: All I was talking about is if there is a meeting, a public meeting held in this particular room where there would be access to camera, et cetera, that if they desire to have that put out over the airwaves by paying, you know, if it's a private organization or whatever, that they would pay for it. And depending on, you know, I don't think that -- I'll go out here on a limb -- I don't think we probably rent this room out or it doesn't go out to subversive -- I'm sure there's criteria for use of this facility. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm not really sure about that. Let me suggest that you -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: I may be getting into some dangerous territory here. I probably have clear up over my ears, but that's not the first time. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The garden militia is now planning their next meeting here. MR. McNEES: Staff would understand that this point is, there is a clear distinction between televising as much as possible of what are your meetings and what are your major advisory board meetings, as much as we have the resources to do so. We don't in any way interpret that as meaning we need to turn this room into a public access TV studio and be able to ask $50. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right. Nor am I. I'm not indicating that at all. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. McNEES: I think there's a clear distinction. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If that is not happening as you would like, I'd suggest you work with Mr. Fernandez and through Ms. Merritt's department and see if there is some correction we can make to it; because I agree, that's important. Are there further questions for Mr. Coleman or Ms. Herritt before we go to public speakers? Seeing none, let's go ahead and go to speakers, Mr. HcNees. MR. HcNEES: Your first speaker is Bernice Nussbaum, followed by Harilyn Bell. MS. NUSSBAUH: My name is Bernice Nussbaum. I've been a full time resident of Marco Island for 25 years. I'm here today about the long-term renewal of the franchise for Continental Cablevision or MediaOne as it's now known. On June 22, 1996, I wrote the following letter to the editors of both the Marco Island Eagle and the Naples Daily News which was published, and which reads in part as follows: If you live in a condominium on Marco Island, Naples or North Naples and are serviced by Continental Cablevision, you might have discovered that your FH radio is now all static. The real truth is we no longer have FH radio from Cablevision. Continental has pulled the plug on us and did this ignoble deed after our snowbirds left and at the beginning of the hurricane season. When I asked Ken Fuchs of Continental why this was done, I learned that FH radio was given to us for free. The FCC says that you cannot charge for this, and they now can use the FH frequency for more profitable other TV programs. He said further that a survey was taken and that not enough people listened to FH radio. We checked around and did not find anyone that had seen this survey. In fact, the management of our building and 50 other buildings in both Marco and Naples, did not see the survey, either. Many of us are particularly interested in the classical music program of 90.10. Again, he said not enough people listen to these programs. I said if you underestimate classical music lovers in this area, who do you think goes to Philharmonic performances? I was further told by him that we could use a TV antenna. When we stopped at the store -- we had purchased our TV, radio and VCR recently -- we were told that with an antenna, we could not get 90.10 clearly. We don't get it clearly. Mr. Fuchs also suggested that we take their new service which has all types of music for 9.95 a month and the frequency used is probably the very one that they took away from us. So what do we really have now? MediaOne is up for a 15 year renewal and there is no offer to bring cable radio back. On Marco Island we have a company called Marco Island Cable which is supplying cablevision for less money and cable radio to the beachfront condominiums. They expect to have service to condos on Collier Boulevard by November. However, where I live we cannot avail ourselves of this service because we still have two years on our contract with Continental. In a burgeoning area such as this and one of the largest growing communities in this country, it is laughable that we do not have FH radio on cable, as we have for so many years that I've lived here. Another example of HediaOne's high-handedness is they offer the History Channel along with ESPN2 and Sci-Fi. Offering these three as a package is ludicrous. Why would a person that just wants the History Channel have to buy two other channels that they are not interested in. Who goes shopping anywhere to buy three things in order to get one thing they want? As long as MediaOne wants their franchise renewed, the commissioners should insist that MediaOne give cable radio back to us. This would make a big percentage of your constituents very happy and certainly plenty of the snowbirds that went away and didn't know about all this. If you don't press for this, Marco Islanders will note this lack of interest or neglect on your part and one thing like this may be enough to compel the island into incorporation. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm not sure if that's a threat, but what the heck? MS. NUSSBAUM: No, I didn't mean it as a threat. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, I'm not sure it would be a threat either way. (Laughter.) But anyway, you used to receive a service from what is now MediaOne that was cable radio; correct? MS. NUSSBAUH: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And they eliminated that to provide or make room for other things; is that the crux of '- MS. NUSSBAUH: Yes, they did. But they took away cable radio from all the people that are really in this area. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't live in a condo on the beach and I have never received cable radio, so this is new to me. I didn't even know it was available or provided in any given '- MS. NUSSBAUH: Well, it was. It was. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Can you get these radio stations on a regular radio? MS. NUSSBAUH: No. And you get it, you don't get stereo on it and it sounds flat and when you bought all this nice equipment, who needs this mono sort of sound. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Unfortunately, we're into an area that we have a difficult time again regulating, due to FCC regulations, as Ms. Herritt would probably tell you. For us to dictate what their programming must be or should be, I don't know that we have that authority, do we, Ms. Herritt? MS. HERRITT: No, we do not. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Again, only the FCC can affect the programming choices. And I guess the problem is that cable is not a utility. We can regulate certain utilities, like water and sewer, but we cannot tell MediaOne you must provide cable radio or we're not going to renew this contract. I don't believe we have that authority. Ms. Herritt, am I correct? MS. HERRITT: That is correct. It's a business decision the company made and we don't get involved in their business decisions. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Kind of like Burger King taking the Whopper off the menu. To tell them we're not going to fezone a piece of property to build another Burger King unless they put the Whopper back on the menu, people would laugh at. And this is very much the same thing, as I understand it. MS. NUSSBAUH: Yes. But this is something we had for over 24 years here, before they came in with all their big plans and what they are going to do for us. And that's not fair. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I guess the strongest measures you could send to them would be to cancel your Cablevision, and get an individual dish. MS. NUSSBAUH: Well, that's hard to do in a condo. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I understand. But if enough of you do it, maybe the message will get through. But this is really a consumer issue that we don't have authority. And unfortunately -- I'd like to give you your cable radio stations back, but we don't have the authority to dictate that. MS. NUSSBAUH: Well, they are going to find out that other companies are going to -- after four years from now, they'll probably find that they are going to be out on Marco Island. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I hope that means they give you back what you're asking for. MS. NUSSBAUH: I hope so. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. HcNEES: The next speaker is Harilyn Bell, followed by Nettie Phillips. MS. BELL: My name is Harilyn Bell, a citizen of Collier County. Thomas Jefferson once said if a nation expects to be ignorant and free it expects something that cannot be. I have written each of you regarding PEG, which means public education and government access cable television. Three separate entities, as provided for under the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1934 and subsequent Acts. Upon request by our commission, these channels are to be provided for by the cable company at little or no expense to these entities. The renewal franchise -- and I state renewal franchise -- being considered today includes one government access channel with a second government access channel added at a later date, which may, which the government will share with education. This may be in violation of the telecommunications act since education is entitled to its own direct channel. There is no provision for a public access channel in the renewal franchise being considered today. My letters requested public access, but you responded with the weak argument that public access will bring nudity, pornography and obscenities to our community. It is already here. You can turn on your television at any time and turn to filth. The Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 directs the FCC to promulgate regulations to enable a cable operator to prohibit the use on its system of channel capacity of public education or government access for programming which contains obscene materials, sexually explicit conduct or materials, soliciting or promoting unlawful conduct. Jean Herritt's letter dated June llth states: Frankly, very few citizens have indicated any interest in public access; to which I responded, very few citizens are aware of the fact that this type of media communication is available to them. I believe the Telecommunications Act places the burden of enlightenment of the public regarding the availability of public access on the shoulders of the cable company and/or the county. Both the commission and the cable companies have been silent on this issue. The citizens of Collier County are restricted to one newspaper and one radio talk station. We deserve more. Public access will allow our citizens and viable community organizations, such as American Legion, Eagle Forum, Taxpayers Action Group, Kiwanis, et cetera, and many more, to present their views and agendas, and provide a vehicle for educating our citizens with information not presently being provided. Suppressing our request for public access television is in violation of our right to free speech. The federal government made provision for local PEG programming in exchange for the benefits enjoyed by the cable companies for running their cabling, et cetera, over public lands. This is the cable company's way of compensating the public. The expense of public access is borne by the cable company, who can well afford it. According to the newspaper, MediaOne has 150,000 subscribers in this area, a very lucrative monthly income. Paragraph twelve-one-two states that MediaOne is to make a one time donation of $145,000 for the sole purpose of purchasing television production related equipment to be used at the sole discretion of the county. $145,000 is a drop in the bucket in relation to the amount of income received by MediaOne. This amount should be five times that. Ms. Merritt's letter of June 17th states: The present Ordinance 88-90 as amended says that the term of a franchise cannot exceed 10 years. Therefore, the 15 year renewal being considered today, which is an extension of an already 30-year-old contract, does not appear to be in compliance with Ordinance 88-90, nor the guidelines of the Telecommunications Act. Considering our present rate of advancement in telecommunications, no contract should extend beyond three years, allowing for changes and advancement into the next century. If the commission is not prepared to include public access in their franchise of MediaOne today and subsequently Time Warner, I request they extend the existing contracts for a period of 120 days to enable both cable companies and the county to advise the public of their right to public access, which should be included in these franchise contracts. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. McNEES: Nettie Phillips is your next speaker, followed by Wayne Gaston. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: How many speakers after Mr. Gaston? MR. McNEES: One more. MS. PHILLIPS: For the record, my name is Nettie Phillips. And I support everything Mrs. Bell just explained to the commissioners. And I, too, am supportive of a public access channel and I know many, many people and they aren't even aware that it's even, you know, that we can even have a public access channel. They can't come to the meetings and they don't have the time to research and read up and see just what all is available. It takes a lot of time and a lot of research. So I support everything she said, and I support a public access channel by the cable company and for them to bear the expense, as well. Thank you. MR. McNEES: William Gaston, followed by A1 Perkins. MR. GASTON: For the record William Gaston, President, Marco Island Cable. I'm here this afternoon to offer my support for the proposed franchise agreement between MediaOne Enterprises -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Now, there's a twist, Mr. Gaston. MR. GASTON: -- but -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay (laughing). MR. GASTON: -- MediaOne Enterprises and Collier County, with the following two minor modifications to the proposed franchise agreement. I have some copies of what I'm saying today if you want to pass them around. A new item to be added to Section 15, Remedies, the section to read, the grantee is found by a court of competent jurisdiction or the Federal Communications Commission to have engaged in anti-competitive or predatory pricing practices. There's a little bit more bookkeeping further on down. My concern is -- and I have seen no instance since MediaOne has taken over in this matter that there have been any anti-competitive pricing policies since they have taken over. However, it is a subject close to the survival of Marco Island Cable and I can see no particular reason why it can't be added to their franchise agreement at this particular point. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Did you provide this to Ms. Merritt and to MediaOne in advance of this meeting? MR. GASTON: No. It was discussed with Ms. Merritt prior to this meeting. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just one question. I don't know much about this area of the law, but isn't this already the law, Mr. Weigel? I mean, is it something that should be in a contract or can't we rely on the law to -- I mean, it's already you can't do predatory pricing or anti-competitive practices. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's my concern. The reason for my question was -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why do it? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I mean, why are we being asked to make a change that really warrants legal review at the llth hour to a document, when -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think the law already covers it; right? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We could have had legal review of this if it had been given to our County Attorney earlier. MR. GASTON: Please keep in mind this document has been changing on a continuing basis is my understanding. That it has been changing from time to time. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And never included these? MR. GASTON: And it never included this. Secondly, the document provides remedies, but it doesn't say anything about this. It says essentially the FCC could find this, but you can't do anything about it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, do you have an answer for Commissioner Mac'Kie's question as to whether or not these are already illegal acts and could they be -- could it affect an agreement with MediaOne and this Board? MR. WEIGEL: Well, I'll try to defer if I can to Ms. Merritt and Tom Palmet of our office, who worked with this daily. MS. MERRITT: I feel that we have adequate protection under the present law. But I would like for Mr. Coleman to also respond to this, please. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Tell you what. Let's hear from Mr. Palmet first, and then we'll hear from Mr. Coleman if necessary. MR. PALHER: Yes, commissioners. I believe that this is covered by a more general provision, which is violating general legal requirements on the franchisee. Although it's not spelled out with this specificity, it's included in violation of laws because anti-competitive practices or predatory pricing practices are against federal and state laws. And I think we can give this remedy under a more general provision about having to comply with laws that apply to this entity. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Palmet, is Mr. Gaston in current litigation with the cable provider on issues, that you know of, on issues such as this? MR. PALMER: No. There are no anti-competitive or predatory pricing issues in those cases. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Coleman, do you need to add anything to that? MR. COLEMAN: Briefly, commissioners. Kevin Coleman for the record. Section 9.4 of the ordinance for the proposed franchise obligates us to comply with all applicable federal, local and state laws. So as a result, if we don't, we would technically be in breach of the franchise agreement, which is covered in Section 15.1.1. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So it's there already? MR. COLEMAN: Correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So if a court of competent jurisdiction finds that you have violated federal law, we basically have a reason to say this contract has been breached, it's null and void and either negotiate a new one or terminate it entirely. MR. COLEMAN: Or pursue other remedies that you have. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Pursue other remedies. MR. COLEMAN: Correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All right. MR. McNEES: Your final speaker is A1 Perkins. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. PERKINS: Back again, commissioners. A1 Perkins, Belle Meade Group. Mrs. Bell said most all of it. I want to reiterate the fact that -- I have a copy of her letter -- franchise cannot exceed 10 years. It can be shortened. But a few points of interest, maybe. U.S. West owns MediaOne. They also are extensive stockholders of Time Warner. You got 150,000 customers and if you take $35, which is an average, they are turning a cash flow of about five million bucks a month. With a 20 percent profit margin on there, it would be at least a million dollars. Now, needless to say, that's pretty nice for their stockholders and they're taking it out of here. I support public access TV because I'd like to take it and have everybody in this community know exactly what's going on and who's doing it and who's doing it to you and what's it costing you. Because most of the things that I see taking place is keep it a secret; what you don't know you'll never miss it out of your wallet. I want to read to you just a short piece from the FCC. Direct at the FCC, okay. Establishes a price or rate for equipment used by subscribers to receive the basic service. Basic service. Now, that basic service in Time Warner -- I don't know about MediaOne because I couldn't get the information -- is from channel 2 to channel 13. They are to identify costs attributed to the franchise requirements to support public, educational and governmental channels. That has to be on the bill. But when it gets right down to it, requires the cable operator to offer its subscribers the basic service tier, which minimum rates shall apply, to which subscribers are required to access to all other tiers of service, mandates that basic service tier include -- basic service tier include -- public education and government access. Now, if you don't have this meeting somewhere between 2 and 13 you're in violation of the federal law. If you don't have CSPAN, which happens to be the congressional, you're in violation of federal law. If you don't have the Senate, which now is on channel 51 in Time Warner, you're in violation of federal law. Now, about six weeks ago or so, you took and brought forth an ordinance that wasn't acceptable, and you sent those people back to take and revamp another ordinance. Not forthcoming. But a contract with Marco Cable did come forth. Now, what I see in this whole mess is a flagrant violation of federal law and the option of taking the consumer over the coals for profit. Just to hit on the obscenity. This is federal regulations. Mrs. Bell did her homework. She made it a point to go out of her way to read you the law pertaining to obscenity, nudity and anything else. Now, when it comes down to Time Warner, I still can hear some of that rap music that says kill a cop. And I don't like that and I won't promote, I won't stand for that, okay. We have the control to be able to take and have public access television provided by the TV companies to let the people of this entire community know, because right at this moment, Immokalee is not getting this signal, Everglades is not getting this signal, half of the Estates is not getting this signal. And you wonder why the people aren't here. Because they are not being informed. They don't have the time, they don't have the money to sit here all damn day to take and try to fight and try to bring up something on this thing. Something else that hasn't been addressed; it's been skimmed over. They talk about the equipment. Not once have I heard about the new digital equipment which requires digital cameras and the whole five yards. It wasn't being addressed. Now we're talking about, if you want to get down to the old Beta, which is in their contract, okay, that's because of the time frame, 90 minutes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. I find it incredibly ironic that the same folks who stand up and scream about how they don't trust the federal government, all of a sudden embrace the federal standards of obscenity and nudity. I just think that's ironic. They're the same standards that bring you the lyrics on the rap CDs that you hate. So COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What I liked best was the passionate argument about how we need to provide public access TV so everybody could be heard without question followed by the clarification that if it was rap music, of course, we don't want that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Which is a libel. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I like the way you can argue both sides of an issue. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that our last public speaker? MR. McNEES: Yes, it was. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm going to close the public hearing. Ms. Merritt, if I could ask you. First of all, you've done yeoman's work on this, and on behalf of the Board, thank you. I think you've done a very, very good job in difficult circumstances. The last time we negotiated a contract like this, I don't think we had nearly the attention put to it that you have, and I don't think Mr. Coleman was joking when he complained about your arm twisting. So I appreciate that. It has put together a contract that I think provides a base level to the consumer that they can understand, which is probably the most important thing. MS. MERRITT: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We, in adopting this, if we adopt it today, is there anything else that needs to be contained in that motion other than the approval of the existing contract? MS. MERRITT: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The contract we have before us, has it met all legal review, Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: It has. I just note that, for the record, there will be a slight change. Obviously, if the Board approves this today, rather than reflect the 29th of July, it will reflect the date of approval. The signature page would appear to be changed in regard to the signatory on behalf of MediaOne. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve the contract in accordance with Mr. Weigel's slight adjustments. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We have a motion and second. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries four-zero, Commissioner Constantine abstaining. Item #12C7 RESOLUTION 97-316 RE PETITION CCSL-97-2, WILLIAM L. HOOVER, AICP, OF HOOVER PLANNING SHOPPE REPRESENTING THE VANDERBILT BEACH MOTEL, REQUESTING A COASTAL CONSTRUCTION SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION TO ENCLOSE THE FIRST FLOOR OF AN EXISTING STRUCTURE FOR TWO MEETING ROOMS (ONE WITH A BAR), MOTEL OFFICES, STORAGE AND RESTROOMS, LOCATED AT THE VANDERBILT BEACH MOTEL, LOT 4, BLOCKA, CONNERS VANDERBILT BEACH ESTATES - ADOPTED We are to item 12.C.7, Petition CCSL 97-2, Bill Hoover, AICP. Yes, ma'am. Oh, it's 3 o'clock, isn't it? Let's go ahead and let's take five minutes and we'll reconvene. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Reconvene the Board of County Commissioners hearing. We have one item left, and that would be the agenda lottery loser, who got the last position today, Petition CCSL 97-2. Mr. Hoover, as the petitioner -- and this is a coastal construction line setback. I need to do two things. One is, would Ms. Burgeson and all members here to speak on this item, please stand and raise your right hand. Madam Court Reporter, would you swear them in, please. (Speakers sworn.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ms. Burgeson, if you would, please, lead us through this. MS. BURGESON: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I have had discussions with the petitioner on this matter, but will base my decision on the information presented here today. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: As have I. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, me, too. COMHISSIONER BERRY: Me, also. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You're on. MS. BURGESON: For the record, Barbara Burgeson with Current Planning. I'm presenting Petition CCSL 97-2, William Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planning Shoppe, representing the Vanderbilt Beach Motel. They are requesting a coastal construction setback line variance to allow for construction to enclose the first floor of an existing structure to construct two meeting rooms, motel offices, storage and restrooms. This is all located in the Vanderbilt Beach Motel located at 9225 Gulf Shore Drive North. In the considerations, the petitioner proposes to enclose the first floor of one of the three buildings that currently exist on this parcel. The improvements to the building are all seaward of the county's CCSL, but landward of the existing structures and improvements. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me, Ms. Burgeson. I've been out there. Just to kind of put this in a nutshell, this is an existing building. MS. BURGESON: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: They want to enclose the underneath of a second story for the purpose of meeting space only, no rooms, no habitable -- MS. BURGESON: Nothing habitable; right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Same footprint, it's not going out beyond the existing structure at all. MS. BURGESON: Yes. That's right. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Seems like a real simple petition. I mean, I don't need a big staff presentation. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything in that. If I am, tell me, otherwise -- MS. BURGESON: I have one more sentence. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MS. BURGESON: That it's consistent with the LDC and the Growth Management Plan. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There we go. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So if I'm going to stop you, stop you earlier is the point. MS. BURGESON: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. I know we have people on this, but this really is, in my opinion, a no brainer. Does anyone wish to hear from the petitioner. COHMISSIONER BERRY: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sorry you had to sit here all day for that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Job well done, Mr. Hoover. Keep it up. Item #13A1 - This item has been deleted We are to item 14; 13 has been deleted. 14, Board of County Commissioners, communication. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Not a thing, thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Norris? Hs. Hac'Kie. Item #10B RESOLUTION 97-317 APPOINTING ALAN NEUHAN HERMAN SPOONER TO THE IHMOKALEE ENTERPRISE ZONE - ADOPTED; EXTENSION OFFICER TO BECOME EX-OFFICIO HEHEBER AND TO READVERTISE FOR RESIDENT FOR COHMITTEE COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 10.B? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, yes. Mr. Norris reminded me that we left 10.B. off. We had tabled 10.B. I need a motion to untable. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to remove the item from the table. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor? Okay, the item has been untabled. Do we have a determination on whether or not Ms. Blanton, by serving on this committee, is in violation of any other county ordinance with their policy? MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. David Weigel, County Attorney. It appears that there's a conflict with a policy under the Human Resources Policies and Procedures which provides under page 0050 under Code of Ethics part of the policy. It says no county employee shall serve on the Board of County Commissioners' advisory boards or committees to reduce any perceptions of conflict of interest by the public. I note that she has been on this particular committee for two years. This would have been a reappointment. She had been appointed and the reappointment was under a resident category, and it appears that, therefore, there is an actual conflict, perhaps not intended, but an ongoing conflict with the policy. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, with that in mind, I'll amend my motion that is now back on the table to approve the other two names included there, and then direct staff to pursue whatever other things that we need to do to fill the one remaining vacancy. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Why don't we take the motion for appointment and then try and give staff direction to be clear on this item, if that's acceptable to the Board? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Splendid idea. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine. Second. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, we have a motion and second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have those two appointments made. On discussion with Mr. Weigel at our break, and Mr. Cautero, that we have two options here. One is to readvertize for a resident if that was the actual intent. The second is we do have members of the county that serve on boards, but only because certain positions are indicated, such as code enforcement investigator. I mean, that's -- but when we approved that ordinance, we anticipated a county member to serve on it. My problem is when we approved this ordinance it said resident and I don't think someone who is either in full or part paid by county dollars was anticipated. So I think we have a decision to make whether or not we are going to continue with the resident category, or whether Ms. Blanton, her background and experience is so important that we want to change the category to extension agent. And I think we need that recommendation from the committee. Mr. Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The other thing is, it may be useful to look up the records on her last appointment because, I couldn't swear to it, but it just seems to me that we waived that particular policy in this particular instance because of her specific position and what she brought to that committee. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Or was this one of those where we didn't actually advertise two years ago? We had just taken the recommendations and so on. I think that was the difference two years ago. If you remember, there were a couple committees, like the economic, the different ones where the names just appeared here. And we either approved them or didn't approve them, but hadn't done advertising. We actually changed that policy in the last year or two. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Was this advertised? MS. FILSON: The one for today was advertised. The previous one was brought to you already made up in a resolution and an ordinance at the same time, and approved. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me ask if this is sufficient direction for the Board. That we ask the committee to review whether or not that position should be filled by a resident of Immokalee or an extension office individual. That would make a difference, I think, and I would like to have their recommendation on that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Me, too. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Once we have that, we can either amend the ordinance or make the appropriate appointment. What I'm concerned about is they'll say well, we don't want to hurt Mrs. Blanton's feelings so they're going to say well, we want to keep her on. That's not what I'm looking for. It seems to me it ought to be a resident, would be my opinion. But let's ask the committee first and foremost and we can go from there. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And if we're going to amend the ordinance, we may want to amend the ordinance to reflect that an extension county employee -- county extension office employee would be an ex-officio member of the committee. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That would probably be the best of all worlds. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You could probably establish a seat that way. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Actually, I like the idea of coming back with just adding that, as an ex-officio member of the committee -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agreed. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And then we'll readvertise for the resident position. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Perfect. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that acceptable as direction? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Uh-huh. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I can support that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Between Ms. Filson and Mr. Cautero, we can accomplish that. We need to get someone to fill the resident category. So we'll readvertise and ask the committee's input on going out and getting people that are willing to serve on that. That's usually helpful, too, if you would contact the chairman of that committee. Item #14A DISCUSSION BY COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE RE VENDORS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED With that, I know we heard from Commissioner Mac'Kie. Commissioner Norris, did you have anything? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing further. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry? COMHISSIONER BERRY: Nothing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Had any of you received any telephone calls in the last few days from any of the vendor proposers regarding the transportation disadvantaged? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: No, I haven't. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just, there was Mr. Batten's column in the newspaper the other day, and I thought in my best Paul Harvey I would very briefly share with you the rest of the story. Mr. Batten alludes to the fact I cut off the presentation by one of the proposers. That's true. After 18 minutes I did cut off one of the proposers. I had given each one 10 minutes time limit for their presentation. So after 18, I did cut him off. And the irony -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But that's not what the paper said. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, that's hard to believe. The irony is the gist of his column seemed to say, now we'll never know whether or not they had a public transportation alternative to go with this. Well, the fact is, they had a 500 page written proposal which was due about a month ago. Never once in that 500 page written proposal did it mention that. Ironically, one of the other vendors did mention it. Now, after all of them are public, then the suggestion apparently was going to come up in the written proposal. But there was every opportunity, obviously, in the first 18 minutes of their 10 minute presentation and also in their 500 page proposal, to suggest that. So I don't want anybody to think that we're trying to hold back anyone's suggestions or anything else. Every opportunity was available. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, that decision will come to the Board of Commissioners, too, won't it? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Actually, it will come to the MPO this coming Friday. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Perhaps the final point I need to make to put it in perspective is, the oral presentation was worth 4 points on a 110 point scale. The vendor who was cut off was 43 points behind the leading vendor and 41 points behind the other vendor. So even if there was some egregious action on my part, which there certainly wasn't, they weren't in the ballpark, anyway. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Did the other vendor stay to the 10 minute time frame? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Actually, they were the first ones, so we let them all have the same amount of time. They all went 18 at that point. Most of them didn't opt to use that, because apparently they hadn't prepared for that long. But in fairness to all of them, we said they could all use the same amount of time. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you for the rest of the story. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's all I had. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't have anything. Mr. Weigel. Item #15A COUNTY ATTORNEY RE THE FIFTH NATIONAL COURT TECHNOLOGY CONFERENCE IN DETROIT IN SEPTEMBER HR. WEIGEL: Yes, thank you. Briefly. You had approved travel that I had talked to you about June 24th to Williamsburg, to a model modern technology courtroom. And my request has been amended slightly. And I thank you for the approval at that time. But Judge Brousseau had brought to my attention something that he thinks is a better and a more comprehensive program, and I agree. It's the Fifth National Court Technology Conference. It's in mid-September. It is in Detroit. Judge Brousseau has indicated that I may lodge with him and save accommodations. But I would be looking for your approval because that's required in my contract if I were to travel outside the state. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You're not going to lobby any county issues with the Judge while you're up there, are you? MR. WEIGEL: I won't hurt our cause, I can assure you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Any questions of Mr. Weigel on that? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Great idea. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Enjoy. Mr. HcNees? MR. HcNEES: No, sir. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Enjoy Detroit. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ms. Filson, can we go home? MS. FILSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. ***** Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner Norris and carried unanimously, with the exception of Item #16C2 which is 4/1 (Commissioner Constantine opposing) that the following items be approved and/or adopted under the Consent Agenda: ***** Item #16A1 RESOLUTION 97-306 RE PETITION AV-97-010, APPROVE FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF QUAIL WEST UNIT ONE, REPLAT BLOCK B, AND APPROVE THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF THE PREVIOUSLY RECORDED PLAT OF QUAIL WEST UNIT ONE REPLAT - WITH CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT, PERFORMANCE BOND AS SECURITY & STIPULATIONS Item #16A2 FINAL PLAT OF TARPON COVE REPLAT - WITH CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT, LETTER OF CREDIT AS SECURITY & STIPULATIONS Item #16A3 RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF SAPPHIRE LAKES, UNIT 4A - WITH CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE & ESCROW AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS Item #16A4 QUIT CLAIM DEED RELEASING THE COUNTY'S INTEREST IN A TEMPORARY DRAINAGE EASEMENT WITHIN THE VILLAGE WALK DEVELOPMENT Item #16A5 BUDGET AMENDMENT(S) RECOGNIZING ADDITIONAL REVENUE IN FUND 111 FOR HAPPING WORK Item #16A6 RESOLUTION 97-307 RE FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "VILLAGE WALK, PHASE ONE" Item #16A7 RESOLUTION 97-308 RE FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "VILLAGE WALK, PHASE TWO" Item #16A8 EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE SOUTH CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Item #16A9 BUDGET AMENDMENT, IN THE A_MOUNT OF $75,400.00, TO RECOGNIZE ADDITIONAL REVENUES FOR FIRE PLANS REVIEW TO BE COLLECTED AND PAID TO THE NORTH NAPLES FIRE DISTRICT Item #16B1 BUDGET AMENDMENT TO INCREASE PURCHASE ORDERS FOR SOLID WASTE COLLECTION IN FRANCHISE SERVICE AREAS ONE AND TWO, TO COMPLETE THE 1997 FISCAL YEAR Item #1682 AWARD CONTRACT, IN THE A_MOUNT OF $145,000.00, TO CONSTRUCT SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT BACKWASH RETENTION POND MODIFICATIONS, BID NO. 97-2676, TO MITCHELL & STARK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. Item #16C1 AWARD BID NO. 97-2666, IN THE A_MOUNT OF $352,490.00, TO MITCHELL BUILDING CONTRACTORS, INC., FOR THE RESTORATION OF THE HISTORIC EVERGLADES LAUNDRY BUILDING IN EVERGLADES CITY AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN CONTRACT DOCUMENTS WITH THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SOLICITED Item #16C2 TWO (2) FEE SIMPLE DEEDS FOR THE DONATION OF THE PROPERTY FOR A DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES FACILITY (COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE OPPOSED) Item #16C3 AWARD BID #97-2700 FOR EMERGENCY ELECTRICAL REPAIR SERVICES TO PHELPS ELECTRIC, INC., FOR ALL COUNTY PARK FACILITIES Item #16D1 AWARD BID NO. 97-2683 FOR SPRINKLER PARTS AND RELATED ITEMS TO CENTURY RAIN AID AS PRIMARY VENDOR AND HYATT SPRINKLER SUPPLIES, INC., AS SECONDARY VENDOR Item #16D2 AWARD BID NO. 97-2680 FOR TEMPORARY CLERICAL SERVICE TO ACCUSTAFF, KELLY SERVICES AND MANPOWER Item #16D3 SOLE SOURCE AGREEMENT WITH LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR MAINTENANCE OF TELEPHONE SWITCHING EQUIPMENT IN THE ANNUAL A_MOUNT OF $62,598.76 Item #16D4 RENEW CONTRACT #94-2268, WITH VARIOUS VENDORS LISTED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, FOR THE PURCHASE OF AUTOMOBILES AND LIGHT TRUCKS Item #16El AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO APPROVE CONSENT AND EMERGENCY AGENDA ITEMS DURING THE BOARD'S ABSENCE Item #16E2 COMPENSATION A_MOUNT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998 AS CONTAINED IN THE AGREEMENT WITH GARY L. HOYER, P.A., TO PROVIDE FOR CURRENT CONTRACT MANAGER SERVICES FOR THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION Item #16E3 BUDGET AMENDMENT TO COVER UNANTICIPATED COSTS IN THE COUNTY ADHINISTRATOR'S ADMINISTRATION COST CENTER Item #16E4 BUDGET AMENDMENT NOS. 97-332, 97-344, 97-357, 97-367 AND 97-374 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 on the miscellaneous correspondence. Item #1611 SATISFACTION OF FINAL JUDGHENT IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED BILLUPS VS. COLLIER COUNTY AND TO AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO ACCEPT RECEIPT OF PAYMENT AND TO EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY SETTLEMENT DOCUMENTS - IN THE A_MOUNT OF $3,400.00 There being no further business for the good of the County· the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:30 p.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 presented or as corrected · as TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE· INC. BY ELIZABETH M. BROOKS· RPR AND KAYE GRAY, RPR