Loading...
BCC Minutes 06/02/1998 RTRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, June 2, 1998 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 Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRPERSON: Barbara B. Berry Pamela S. Hac'Kie John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine Timothy L. Hancock Robert Fernandez, County Administrator David Weigel, County Attorney Item #3 AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning. I'd like to call to order the June 2nd meeting of the Board of Collier County Commissioners. We're pleased this morning to have with us the Reverend Grant Thigpen of New Hope Ministries for our invocation. If you'd please rise for the invocation and remain standing for the pledge. REVEREND THIGPEN: Let us pray. Father, this morning we come humbly before your throne of grace, but yet, Lord, we come very boldly, confident of your loving kindness and your mercy which endures forever. Lord, we thank you for the privilege of living in this great nation, this state, this county and this community. And now, Father, as our duly elected officials go about the necessary business of government, we ask that the Holy Spirit would guide our hearts and minds. Be with us this day, Lord. Help us accomplish your will. These things we ask, in Jesus' name, Araen. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Reverend Thigpen. Mr. Fernandez, do we have any changes to the agenda this morning, please? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chairman. First item is to add item 5(C)(2), presentation by Donna Fiala, representing the East Naples Civic Association, of a check for $17,000 to support the Davis Boulevard Phase I median beautification project. Staff request. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excuse me, Mr. Fernandez, am I -- I don't see a 5(C)(1). Oh, I'm sorry, never mind. Thank you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But now he does, so -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My vision just got instantly better. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's amazing. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay, the next is item 16(A)(1), an addition. This is a final acceptance of water and sewer facilities for Partridge Point, Phase II. The item was part of the printed agenda package. The title was inadvertently removed from the agenda index, so you have the backup for this item. Next is to add item 16(A)(5), a request to approve a preliminary work authorization for Forrest Glen Golf Course. Staff request. And finally, to delete item 16(B)(1), report on the status of the groundwater monitoring program at the Naples landfill. Staff request. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Any other items? MR. FERNANDEZ: No other items. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie, any changes? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No changes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We could remove 16(D)(1), hear that on a regular agenda. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: 16(D) (1). COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Save us a trip. What is that? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The agreement with Candito for our subway downstairs. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, good. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And that moves to where? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: 8 (D)(1). CHAIRPERSON BERRY: 8(D)(1). HR. FERNANDEZ: That would be item (D)(1) under 8. 8(D)(1). CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just heard on the way in this morning that we had an attack in Golden Gate of an elderly woman by three pit bulls. Mr. Fernandez, are you aware of that? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That was last night, uh-huh. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like to, under Board of County Commissioners, request a single direction through Mr. Fernandez to Animal Control maybe to deal with the issue, specifically that breed of dog. So if I could add that under Board of Commissioners, please. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I believe this is -- it took place out in the Estates off Della Drive. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just heard about it -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and I think that there are -- well, we can talk about the item -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Sure. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- if it's the board's pleasure, but I'd like to add under Board of Commissioners and go through Animal Control on this. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. That would be 10(A) -- or 10 (B) (1) ? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: 10(B). CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Or 10(B). COHMISSIONER NORRIS: 10(B). COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that's all. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I have nothing to add or -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion that we accept the agenda and consent agenda, the changes as noted. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to approve the agenda and consent agenda. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Item #5A1 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF JUNE 6-11, 1998 AS NATIONAL HOMEOWNERSHIP WEEK - ADOPTED Moving on then to proclamations. Commissioner Mac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, it's my pleasure to get to read a proclamation this morning for National Homeownership Week. And I'd like to ask Sam Goodman, vice chair of the Affordable Housing Commission, to step forward. If you would, just come stand up here while I read it. Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County supports homeownership opportunities for all citizens of Collier County; and Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County works cooperatively with other public and private sector organizations to create an adequate supply of decent, safe, sanitary and affordable housing for all citizens of Collier County; and Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County recognizes that the United States is one of the first countries in the world to make homeownership a reality for a majority of its people. Thanks to effective cooperation between industry and government, the doors of homeownership have been opened to millions of families over the last six decades. Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of June 6 through 13, 1998 be designated as national homeownership week. Done and ordered this 2nd day of June, 1998. Board of County Commissioners, Barbara B. Berry, Chairman. I'd like to move acceptance of this proclamation. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. (Applause.) Item #5A2 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF HAY 31 - JUNE 6, 1998 AS NATIONAL SHALL BUSINESS WEEK - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Our next proclamation is from Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, one of this board's top priorities has repeatedly been stated as economic development, so it's my pleasure to do a proclamation on national small business week, the backbone of our economy. We have with us Neil Dotrill, special guest from the Economic Development Council; also Suzanne Specht, from Florida Gulf Coast University Small Business Development Center; and Tony Ferrari, service corps of retired executives, our SCORE program. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Christopher is kind of a small business in himself, isn't he? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, he's big business. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He's big business. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: He's filling in for Dan? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: He's important business. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the proclamation reads as follows: Whereas, each year since 1963 the President of the United States has designated a week as National Small Business Week in recognition of the small business community's contributions to the American economy and society; and Whereas, the U.S. Small Business Administration, in partnership with public and private sector small business supporters, sponsors special activities honoring the nation's entrepreneurs at the local, state and national levels; and Whereas, the U.S. Small Business Administration has backed over 49,400 loans to American's small businesses; made 2,700 investments through its venture capital program; provided 50,000 loans to disaster victims for residential, personal property and business losses; extended management and technical assistance to nearly 900,000 small businesses through its Service Corps of Retired Executives -- SCORE -- volunteers, and Small Business Development Center locations; and assumed a leadership role in the President's -- or the Republicans' -- Welfare-to-Work initiative by encouraging entrepreneurship and linking small businesses with potential employees; and Whereas, the Economic Development Council of Collier County, through the public/private partnership for economic prosperity with the Collier County Board of County Commissioners, the Small Business Development Center and the Service Corps for Retired Executives strives to provide economic opportunities for entrepreneurs through business expansion and new business development for small businesses; and Whereas, the Economic Development Council of Collier County will continue to build and strengthen partnerships with the U.S. Small Business Administration, SCORE, Florida Gulf Coast University Small Business Development Center, Enterprise Florida, and other public and private sector organizations. Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of HAy 31 through June 6, this week, 1998, be designated as national small business week, and do hereby encourage all citizens to salute and to use small businesses and their employees for -- thank them for their contribution to our community. Done and ordered this 2nd day of June, 1998. Board of County Commissioners, Barbara B. Berry, Chairman. Madam Chairman, I'd like to move approval of this proclamation. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Third. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. (Applause.) MR. DORRILL: He thought Leo Ochs was the President of the United States. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Something Mrs. Ochs would be very unhappy to find out. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much. Item #5B EHPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock, I believe you have some service awards this morning. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, it's my pleasure to recognize those employees achieving a minimum of five years' service and beyond this morning. The first person I'd like to recognize, from our parks and recreation department with five years' service, Ms. Janice Elliott. (Applause.) COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Becoming known as Mrs. Basketball. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Janet. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Also recognizing for -- this morning for 10 years of service, Ms. Rhonda Augustyn, with the library. Rhonda? (Applause.) COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Our next service award this morning is someone who is hoping the county adopts a trade-up award, because he has -- he had 12 and a half years' service, left Collier County for a short period, is now receiving his second award for 10 years. So for a cumulative 22 and a half, receiving his second 10 year award, Mr. John Matron, with stormwater. (Applause.) COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And finally, this morning, representing the first half of his career with Collier County in road and bridge, 25 years, Robert Costnet. Robert? (Applause.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you very much. Item #5C1 PRESENTATION OF A PLAQUE TO LIEUTENANT HICHAEL GOGUEN FOR EHS PARAMEDIC OF THE YEAR And this morning I have the pleasure of presenting a plaque to Lieutenant Michael Goguen for EHS paramedic of the year. Would you please come forward? (Applause.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Michael, if you'd turn around and face the camera, I'm going to read a little bit about you and some of your things that you've done. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Some of it's factual, even. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, there might even be some truth here. In 1991, Lieutenant Michael Goguen began his career with Collier County Emergency Medical Services as an EHT. During the next year, Lieutenant Goguen completed paramedic school, and soon was placed in training for a paramedic position. In 1994, Lieutenant Goguen successfully completed his training and met all the requirements to work as a paramedic. Lieutenant Goguen has since been promoted to the position of Lieutenant and currently serves as a field training officer working with new colleagues. Lieutenant Goguen's professionalism is seen in the numerous thank-you notes he has received from his patients. His dedication and commitment to world-class patient care and service lead his colleagues to select him as the 1998 paramedic of the year. I would like to congratulate Lieutenant Goguen and present him at this time with a plaque. Lieutenant, congratulations and thank you. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a distinguished group to be the best of. MR. GOGUEN: I just wanted to thank everybody for coming out today. This is a big thrill for me. It was voted on by my peers and that means a lot to me. I wanted to thank the Commissioners for all you've done for EMS, and once again, thank all my colleagues and everyone who's helped and supported me over the years. Jorge Aguilera, Tom MaGuire, Chief Flagg, Helen Ortega, and everyone else who's helped and supported me over the years. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. (Applause.) Item #5C2 PRESENTATION BY DONNA FIALA, REPRESENTING THE EAST NAPLES CIVIC ASSOCIATION, OF A CHECK IN THE AMOUNT OF $17,000 TO SUPPORT THE DAVIS BLVD. PHASE I MEDIAN HEAUTIFICATION PROJECT you? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Moving on then to Ms. Fiala. Where are COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we like getting checks, Donna. MR. ILSCHNER: Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Ilschner. MR. ILSCHNER: I added this item to the agenda this morning. My name is Ed Ilschner, public works administrator, Collier County. I wanted to have the opportunity to report to you that Phase I beautification on Davis Boulevard is now complete except for some minor movement of a few plants. And also to present to you this morning Ms. Donna Fiala of the East Naples Civic Association, who would like to make a presentation to you in support of that project. Donna. MS. FIALA: Thank you. Thank you so much. Well, our dream has come true. Four years ago we dreamt of having landscaped median on Davis Boulevard. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Show it to them. MS. FIALA: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Here, I'll hold it and you can go talk on the microphone -- MS. FIALA: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- okay? MS. FIALA: Oh, can I? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Sure. MS. FIALA: Thank you. Four years ago we dreamt of landscaping Davis Boulevard. I have to say, Commissioner Norris and Commissioner Mac'Kie were right there by our sides the whole time helping us. We wrote all the residents and businesses along that corridor, and everybody made pledges, you know, from $5 to $1,500, and when we called them in on their pledges about a half a year ago, they all sent them in right away. So here's the $17,000, and thanks to everyone. It looks beautiful. (Applause.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: On behalf of the Board of Commissioners, Donna, thank you. And for all the residents out there and participants in this, thank you very much. And I know that this is the first of many good things to happen in that area, so thank you very much. MS. FIALA: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Unfortunately it's not made out to me, so I don't believe I can cash this. Item #SA1 COHHUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION REPORT REGARDING DENSITY REDUCTION, TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS, AND CjustERING - APPROVED WITH CHANGES Okay, moving on then to item 8(A)(1), community development and environmental services division report on density reduction and transfer of development rights and cjustering. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Getting all these fine technical upgrades now and the microphone falls off. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Maybe use the microphone from the wall, Barbara. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: The good news is, Barbara, people can see you really well that you're embarrassed now. Visual clarity is fantastic. Looks like that mike that Wink Martindale used to use for Matchgame PM. MS. CACCHIONE: Good morning -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Barb. MS. CACCHIONE: I think I'd better go with a different name this morning. For the record, my name's Barbara Cacchione with your long-range comprehensive planning staff. And what I'd like to go over this morning is really the direction you gave us on April 14th. And the direction you gave us was to look at reducing density in the urban area by reducing properties that are over 100 acres and 200 acres in size to -- from four units to three units, and also, from four units to two units per acre under the density rating system. You also asked us to look at the density band, reducing that from three units per acre to two units per acre; the activity centers from 16 units per acre to 12 units per acre. Also to look at the concept of how we could work traditional neighborhood design into the Land Development Code in order to retain the density of four units per acre. And also, to look at criteria within the sunset section of our Land Development Code. Within the rural area we looked at three options: One is along major roadways to allow that density to remain at one unit per five acres, while reducing the balance of the ag. rural area to one per 20. And two other options which involve transfer of development rights. There were several assumptions you also asked us to consider: One is that we do not change the urban residential fringe from one and a half units per acre, and that's the area east of 951 and south of 1-75. Also, to keep the area between the urban boundary and Golden Gate Estates at one unit per five acres. And to do an economic analysis, upon direction, once the board tells us exactly how they'd like to proceed here. Probably the best way to look at the density reductions is on table one of your executive summary on page five. The first thing we did is looked at properties that were over 100 acres in size. And we took two density reductions. We went from four to three and four to two units per acres. And what that did is reduce the density by 3,865 units. And then of course that doubles when you go to two units per acre of 7,730 units. The next step we did is looked at those properties that were over 200 acres in size. And of course then the number of dwelling units drops again when you just look at those larger properties. And that was 2,048 units going from four to three, and going from four to two, that would double to 4,096. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Excuse me, Barbara, urban area again. Let's just define that for people that may be watching this and maybe not clear on what we're talking about, please. MS. CACCHIONE: Certainly. The urban area, as you will see, is identified as yellow on this future land use map. It extends one mile east of 951 and follows to the coast. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry, Barbara, I think those are in the wrong place for the cameras to pick them up at all for anyone who's watching on TV. So let's go ahead and go through this item, but we may want to be more careful about where we place these exhibits so people at home can see them on the cameras we've installed. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Maybe you want to move them so they could get them on there. MS. CACCHIONE: I also have two smaller ones, if we would like to use the visualizer. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. We've got it, let's use it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: People -- it would be very useful. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: There's a camera right there that they can put that on. MR. FERNANDEZ: Right in front of me. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There is so much community interest in these concepts -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, there is. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- and people don't really have the picture in their head of what areas we're talking about, so it's worth the moment, I think. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That little box right there has a camera in it that they were looking at right there. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: New equipment, paid for not with tax money. Just thought I'd '- MS. CACCHIONE: I think they're going to get someone to help me with this. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Fine, go ahead. MS. CACCHIONE: I'll just continue on. Within the ag. rural area, the first map you can see -- oh, excuse me, the density bands went from three to two in the urban area, and that reduced it 3,649 units, and the activity centers from 16 to 12 reduced it by 1,500. I should note that staff did not allocate any density to activity centers when we looked at the road plan, and we did not give any density for the density bands. So those were not factored at all into our analysis in terms of allocating any density for those. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And the density band refers to? MS. CACCHIONE: The density band would refer to those areas identified east of Airport Road that will have a one-mile band around those activity centers, which are east of Airport Road. And the activity centers are at the major intersections. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. MS. CACCHIONE: The next area we looked at was the agricultural rural area. And the first thing we looked at was the direction by the board to look at identifying those areas on either side of major roadways in the rural area. And those are identified as blue on the map to my left. And to keep that density at one unit per five acres in those areas and to go to one unit per 20 acres outside of there, that would result in a net reduction of about 17,745 units. The next two options involve transfer of development rights. The first option with the transfer of development rights would be to reduce density in the ag. rural area to one per 20 and transfer all of that density, or a portion of that density, whichever would be purchased by developers to develop within, to the Immokalee urban area. And that would result in a reduction of almost 28,000 units in the ag. rural area. The final option was to look at a one-mile band around Immokalee for a transfer zone, and that would reduce the units by 21,000, approximately. On table two, at the bottom, which is on page six of your executive summary, compares the previous direction when we were before you in terms of the density reduction and the items that we presented to you last time with the reductions that we see today. And when we discussed this last time, we were looking at about 58,000 units. That also assumed -- which is not written here. That also assumed a reduction in the urban residential fringe. And under the scenario presented to you today, it's approximately 35,600 units. So it's a little bit less of a reduction. In -- with that scenario, there would still be the need for -- the potential need for flyovers within the county and grade separated intersections. Under the first scenario, when we were here before, I think that there were 15 that we looked at, and I think under this scenario it would be somewhere in between that. We did not run the model again, but since the density reduction is less, we would assume it would be at least 15, or something more than that. The next item that we looked at was cjustering. And those recommendations we have presented to you twice before, and are pretty much the same today, which requires a 70 percent preservation of open space. It does require cjustering in the ag. rural area, and it requires 50 percent of that area natural areas. And those are pretty much the same as you have seen before. The one real difference, and would also cause an amendment to the Land Development Code and to the future land use element would be for that area west of Golden Gate Estates, we could look at some potential central water and sewer. For the area east of Golden Gate Estates, we would look at well and septic tank. The amendments to the Land Development Code that you had asked us to look at in terms of the sunset criteria, probably the main criteria that would focus the density reductions would be if you do reduce the density rating system, that is your key for really looking at every PUD that comes before you. And if that density that is lower -- if you lower it from four to three or four to two, is compatible -- is consistent, then the compatibility issue would follow that, basically, so that once you change your comp. plan, you really can set that into your sunset criteria, and that will be the guiding force in whether, as you look at these individual PUD's, whether that consistent density which is lower is also compatible. The other items you can look at are reduced traffic impacts, reduced infrastructure impacts. And then we could also add a provision for traditional neighborhood design, that if you do provide interconnectivity and you do provide convenience commercial within your PUD, that may be a way to retain your current density. So if you modify your PUD to fit in more with what's around you, and also to interconnect around you, you may be able to retain your density. The amendments to the comp. plan that would be necessary, we would need to follow with these recommendations. We would need to amend the future land use element, the density rating system, the agricultural rural designation. We would need to put cjustering criteria into the plan. We would also need to amend the water and sewer sub-elements to provide for some ability for central services on the outskirts of the urban area. Today we're looking for direction from the board in terms of how they'd like us to proceed with the amendments to the plan, and I'm here to answer any questions you may have. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: October, '95 I first raised the idea of lowering densities, and last year Commissioner Hancock came with some very specific recommendations. And during both those discussions and several others we've had on this topic, what you've come up with here is very nearly exactly what I hoped to see, what I had in mind, so my compliments to you and to the staff. Nearly 36,000 fewer units equates to roughly 87,500 fewer people than would otherwise be here. And all the things you just ran through at the conclusion there, the less traffic, less impacts in all kinds of ways. And I know everyone on this board is very cognizant, very aware of property rights and very careful about that, but that's not the issue here. I think when we're looking at protecting the community and looking at the long-range good, I don't think I've ever gone to any group who said what we want is 400,000 people and 20 flyovers and the scenario that we had facing us before. So I appreciate the work you've done. I would like to suggest that we go ahead almost as outlined here. There may be some minor adjustments, but very close to what you've outlined here in the first couple of pages of the executive summary, because I think it is exactly what our public has been asking us for. And it was interesting, we just had our grand opening for Sugden Park a couple of weeks ago, and I think it was Commissioner Norris who had said this both then and when we first did the Sugden Park proposal, was that's an item that 20 years from now nobody will remember our names or who did it, but they will say some commission some time had a lot of foresight in doing the right thing. And I see this as similar only to a much higher degree. If we can make some changes in our county ordinances to effect 100,000, roughly, fewer people than would otherwise be here, that's something that 20 years from now and 30 years from now, regardless of whether they know who did it or not, they're going to be very, very thankful that it was done. So compliments to you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Barb, you and your staff did a terrific job, taking what was a laundry list of recommendations and putting numbers to them. This really isn't about just numbers. We see the result in numbers, and we will feel the result in lessened impacts to the community, to the environment, to the roadway system, to just about everything. There are some things that I want to kind of throw out there that are a little different than your recommendations that I think were more consistent with the motion that was made. And I do want to point out, there are two things that we need to be cognizant of. I have an ad hoc committee working on traditional neighborhood design standards. That committee will be producing one or two test products. In other words, it will be -- we'll take an actual land mass and design a TND neighborhood. That design we will then float to the public to say is this the character of development we're looking for in the future, what are the reduced impacts from this kind of design, and if that is all favorable, we will then try to move ahead with some type of ordinance that will not just allow but promote that type of development. Because in addition to lowering the number of units that can be built in Collier County, if we can improve the design, if we can improve the roadway system, if we can lessen the impacts that occur externally from a development, then that one house that used to have impact "X" will maybe have 70 percent of that impact or 50 percent of that impact. And it's a way of getting where we want to go in a different manner. So I think what we're seeing here is we're seeing things occurring on several fronts that when they combine together is going to have a tremendous impact, not tomorrow in this community, maybe not next week, but certainly next year and for sure 10 years from now. And that's key and that's important. I think we tend to bash a little bit previous, you know, commissions for, you know, not doing this earlier. But I think in honesty, we're the first commission that is looking 20 years out and seeing the impacts of those decisions. Ten years ago these impacts were not as, you know -- not in the front of -- or at the extent of the vision of the commissioners at that time. We're talking 30 or 40 years out, and that's a tough time frame to look at. But we're seeing 20 years from now something that we don't want as a community, and this board is reacting and responding to that in a positive manner. The things I'd like to see is the one to five to one to 20 in the rural ag. areas, that is the big nut here. That is the single biggest chunk and the single biggest liability that gave me concern out there. So I definitely want to see that remain a part. I think the logic, even though it produces a funny-looking map, the logic for allowing one to five within one mile of the public roadway system out there still stands as good logic. I think someone who is more than a mile from that roadway that had little or no access, no infrastructure or no plans for infrastructure to their lands, has a tough time arguing that it was intended to be residential in nature. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a question. I assume if we make that change, we'll do it with existing roadways or something that if someone opts to then put in a four-lane roadway on their own, it wouldn't suddenly qualify. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My intent is that it would be as shown here by our planning staff. MS. CACCHIONE: With that scenario, the one factor -- and I know that there's a point where we will get into a lot more information on each one of these items that you direct us to do. We did look at the pattern of ownership. And the pattern of ownership is such there that the property owner that owns close to the road also owns above that. They own large tracts. Therews probably fewer than -- of the tracts larger than 20 acres, therews probably fewer than 40 owners in that area. So that very often a property owner that owns property along one of these corridors is part of a larger tract. So I donwt know that that particular tract carries a lot more weight just being adjacent to that roadway than the overall tract. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I appreciate that. I think the logic still stands, and thatws part of what we have to look at as we move ahead. And of course wewll have those discussions in detail and have to make a clear record for these decisions when we come to finally adopt them. As much as itws attractive to look at the four units to two in the urban area, I think four to three is where -- you know, for projects over 200 acres, is where I find the greatest deal of comfort, and thatws strictly from a design standpoint. You start getting under 200 acres, your ability to mitigate that reduction through design is much tougher. So I think four to three is where I'm most comfortable. Although it's attractive and enticing to go further, that's where I think from a design standpoint, from a practical standpoint we have the greatest chance of success. I had one other point. Yeah, just four to three at 200 acres. I don't want to eliminate density bands, because I think if you look at -- if we're going to have activity centers, you look at the property owner immediately behind that activity center, and four units an acre or three units an acre next to a commercial shopping center. I don't think if they -- if someone came in and wanted to do commercial next to three units an acre of high intensity, we wouldn't deem that compatible. So to put it in our plan that it is would probably be a bad idea. So I'm comfortable again reducing the density band from three to two units an acre, and much like the activity center, 16 to 12, those are two things I would like to keep in there, rather than eliminating the density band or eliminating the activity center concept -- activity center residential portion. So I'd like to see those reductions occur, but not elimination of those two. And those are the points that I'm comfortable with and that are contained in the staff report. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just a couple things. I thought that -- first of all, this wasn't one of my points, but on the question of four to two, Tim, because you know that I value your input on this, I thought that what we were building, actual build-out, was more like 2.2 instead of three. Even though four was what was permitted, I thought that what was actually coming on the ground in Collier County was 2.2 instead of three or four. And so that was making me think that the reduction from four to two was a safe place to go. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The larger projects are -- and the average is going to be a little higher than this, actually. But what we're seeing today is about two and a half units an acre. It kind of falls right in that middle between the two. What I'm also trying not to do is push this thing to a point that we trigger, you know, spending tax dollars in court more to a point than actually having a real effect on the long-term growth of this community. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Maybe we ought to go to two and a half or something instead of -- you know, if two and a half -- because I was really attracted to the twos. I'm sure you were. And so I'm still open and thinking about that one. I would just, for brevity sake, which will shock you anyway, but to ditto the two of your comments about this being the right thing to do, and say I just had two questions: One was I was concerned that there is not enough encouragement for traditional neighborhood design, but I'm willing to wait, Commissioner Hancock, for what's coming out of your committee. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What we're going to do, and I'll just bring you up to speed on -- we have been studying and reviewing all of the different TND's in the State of Florida. There's some such as Hale Plantation that are just fantastic -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- but they're large-scale projects. What we're trying to do is take that large-scale approach and determine how a one or 200-acre parcel could do the same thing and how they could integrate together over time to create that kind of a traditional neighborhood. Because what we have left in the urban area is not 2,000-acre parcels, it's smaller pieces, and they've got to integrate. So we're going to be doing test projects, and then we'll go out to a town hall meeting to see if the community is comfortable with that, and then of course bring it to this board, you know, to see if we wanted to direct staff to proceed with developing those standards. So that's the approach we're taking right now. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The interesting thing, too, is how -- it's kind of a smaller version of that, but how Divosta has successfully used that as a marketing tool. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Divosta is actually doing a TND&D on the East Coast, a true traditional neighborhood design on the East Coast. So they're -- one of their representatives is actually a part of the ad hoc committee because they're making it work financially. And that's the key. If you make it work financially -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There's two pieces to it, I would say, you know, just for a little bit of input on that issue -- because it's probably the issue that I care most about, because now density reductions looks like it's going to be moving in the right direction -- is that -- is that in addition to separate small traditional neighborhoods, that the goal be to somehow integrate our urban area into a traditional neighborhood. And I know that that's wishful thinking, because there's a lot of backing up we can't do, but -- but I wanted to -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You and I share that same goal. The pieces that remain, I would like to see them developed in such a way that they integrate together and create that as an -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- overall picture. And we have two land mass areas in the urban area that that remains as an option. And believe me, those are -- those are a focus of mine. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But we're crawling before we walk at this point. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The only other point that I had was a concern about there being density bonuses in CREW land. Last time we talked about this, we were told that was a mistake on the map. But I think it's still there. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Immokalee Road heading out? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: east/west? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're talking about the area along Right. The bend up there, as it turns back No, Nancy Payton's telling me I'm telling it wrong, so you might just want to get with her. MS. CACCHIONE: It's actually within the density band surrounding Immokalee -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Immokalee area. MS. CACCHIONE: -- and some other areas as well. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are those lands acquired by CREW or -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Targeted. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- targeted? COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Targeted for acquisition. So what we're doing is -- is putting density bonus in areas that are environmentally sensitive. You're not targeted just for no good reason, they're targeted because they're such an environmentally significant -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think those are the things that in fine tuning get worked on. Because we also have the Camp Keais Strand out there, which is an important waterway, important water management, in addition to being an environmental string north and south. So I think those are the things that as we look at the specific comp. plan amendments on these things, that those areas can be pulled out. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Nothing could be, you know, dumber, frankly, than for us to encourage denset development in environmentally sensitive lands. We couldn't be wanting to do that. I mean, surely we aren't even considering that. So please, glitch that out of this somehow. I thought we had done that last time. MS. CACCHIONE: If the board directs us to do that, what we can do is modify those areas, and instead of maybe just the bands, if that's the option you choose to go with, rather than the transfer of development rights, we can look to exclude the major slough areas such as Camp Keais and the Okaloacoochee, and also around Corkscrew, and reduce those areas in density to one per 20, because their development potential will be limited anyway through the permitting process, and then direct more the one per five in those other areas that would be more likely to develop anyway. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Obviously none of us are interested in developing the most sensitive areas. I would just caution those areas that are targeted by a private organization. We need to be careful as we walk the legal tightrope here, so I agree, we need to tweak that in the process, but we need to be a little careful. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Agreed. It's only a good place to look. Not that we should necessarily take the CREW map and impose it, but because CREW has done so much work to identify environmentally sensitive lands, that's a good benchmark. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Maybe we target those areas for TDR to give incentive for preservation. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Absolutely. There's a great idea. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, I mean maybe, you know, if we're talking about not adversely affecting the property owner without due process, yet we want to set those areas aside for preservation, maybe we look more at TDR's. We leave them at one to five with TDR potential, otherwise they go to one to 20. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tim, I'll be honest, I was thinking that that would be too much to ask for at this point. But if we could go ahead and ask staff to be looking at environmentally sensitive lands that we know we don't want to encourage development in and have them potentially be centers for TDR's, that's -- that is definitely the way we ought to go. MS. CACCHIONE: I believe -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we need to be specific and targeted in those areas -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- we're talking about, but I can -- I can -- you know, I'm willing to discuss that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, one last question. I'm sorry. I know I said it was my last one, but I thought of one more that I didn't ask. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, kids. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Where are we proposing one to 20? MS. CACCHIONE: One per 20 would be -- and I'll go to the map -- would be this area identified in black. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the already green acquired, all that, that has what kind of density on it? I mean, it's irrelevant, but we've certainly -- if we're playing this good game of trying to make our population fear number lower, then we certainly ought to have that in a one to 100, or something. MS. CACCHIONE: I do have a note in your executive summary at the top of page two, and what it basically says is there's a lot of other acreage that we might want to look at density reductions, and particularly the conservation area is a key one. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No one would fight us on that one. MS. CACCHIONE: And for the most part, that's why I didn't put those numbers in here, because in fact we're not going to see density in there. But it really makes the most sense to also look at all those areas for density reduction that is the same at one per 20. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I assume when we do our build-out numbers and all, we're assuming that no one is building condominiums in the national park. MS. CACCHIONE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: When we do the build-out numbers, those are counted as zero already? MS. CACCHIONE: We did not factor those in. The build-out numbers -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MS. CACCHIONE: -- represent your urban area, for the most part. We did an analysis of basically your urban area, and that was it. That's what we provided to you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Those ought to be one to 100. MS. CACCHIONE: But that's another 182,000 acres in that whole other area. And I think we should -- we would come back with that reduction as well. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, Mr. Norris, it's time for the senior citizens to speak. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second senior? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Second senior, behind me. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm catching you, anyway. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Daily. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I just want to echo a lot of the comments that have already been made about the work staff's done here. This is what we've been trying to accomplish for some time now. The -- one of the questions that's getting a lot of discussion this morning is whether to go from four to two or four to three in the urban area. Unfortunately, the urban area doesn't contain a lot of land that's targeted for this reduction in the first place, so there's not going to be a major impact. As Commissioner Hancock said, that the big impact is in the area outside the urban area. And for some of the other reasons legally and so forth that have been discussed briefly, or alluded to this morning, my support is for the reduction from four to three in the urban area. As I pointed out in the last discussion that the board had on the subject, I'm not a supporter of having transfer of density rights into the urban area, or even near the urban area. That -- if you recall, the discussion that we had last time, that's when it was proposed that perhaps we could accomplish what we were trying to accomplish by going to the Immokalee area with the transfer of density. And the discussion that was just ensuing concerning some of those environmentally sensitive lands that may have inadvertently been placed wrong here in this particular map and the transfer of density rights suggestion concerning those, I would assume that those are also going to the Immokalee area and not the urban area? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, absolutely. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Is that the intent? Okay, then I'm fairly comfortable with the whole process and look forward to determining exactly where we're going here this morning. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I too, I'm comfortable with the four to three, the TDR to the Immokalee area. Personally, I don't think it's realistic. Just a thought. I think it's, you know, wishful thinking, maybe looks good on paper, but I don't think it's realistic. Thirdly, again, I certainly want to see the economic impact on what we're doing, once we give this direction. I just think we ought to know that. I don't think you just take part of the picture and look at it. I think we need to look at the whole thing. Let's see, that will be interpreted that I am in -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Who cares? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- favor of -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Who cares? We can't be worried with that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think you're right. I mean, in 1998 it's not realistic, but in 2008 or 2015 -- when we consider how much has changed in the last 15 years here, and you better than any of us know that -- it's hard to say how that will alter out here. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Tim, I guess what I'm basing mine on is that until such time that you have -- how do I say this nicely? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: A strong economic base. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, that too, but also a roadway that is a better roadway to that area, I believe that you're fighting an uphill battle. It doesn't make it attractive to -- you know, to develop over in that area. And I think the transportation -- I think the roadway has a big impact on that particular area. Other than that, as far as the area itself, that's -- to me, that's not the big problem, but the biggest problem is it's not attractive from the roadway standpoint of getting from point A to point B. So that's what I'm basing my statement on primarily. And knowing that in the long-range plan there's no plan to do anything about that roadway. And, you know, it's a very costly venture. You're looking at some 30, 35 miles of roadway over there, depending on which way you go. So it's something that is going to be a very costly venture, and, you know, it looks nice to look at it here on paper and say some of these things, but reality is quite another thing. That's not to say that a board in 10 years may not find additional dollars to do something about it, but that's a problem, as I see it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask a question of staff? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Sure. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It appears we have a pretty good consensus here what direction we want to head. What are the steps and what is the time line before we can implement this and make it a reality? MS. CACCHIONE: Our normal amendment process that we go through, we're in right now. And we would be coming back to you in October to the Planning Commission and to the board with transmittal hearings. Subsequent to that, it takes about three months, four months, to get through the review process, and we should be looking for adoption within Hatch, April of next year. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Question for staff. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm still stuck on the issue of whether two to three, going from four to three or from four to two. And if the -- if in fact the number in Collier County is that we are building, our current urban is two and a half. Is that true? MS. CACCHIONE: It's probably a little bit higher than that. It's probably around three, three and a half. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Wow. What if we excluded the high-rises on the beach that we don't have capacity for anymore anyway? MS. CACCHIONE: We could certainly look at all of that for you and provide you a list of what every project is in terms of gross density -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just wonder '- MS. CACCHIONE: -- we could have that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- if two and a half might be the right number instead of three. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll tell you what I'd be willing to do. When I first brought this forward, actually 3.1 was the number I had suggested. And where I came up with that number was what the actual impacts would be for us, most importantly, how many homes fewer and how many people fewer and so on. But I also at the time had talked with Mr. Weigel and with our staff and with some others about when we get into the legal issues and when we get into trying to realistically apply that to -- obviously your Quail Wests of the world are developing at that low density. But where you have some of your other places that average people like me live -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We also need Poinciana Village, River Reach. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- then we don't want to just be at what the average is when the average is skewed by some of those high projects. I mean, it would be wonderful if we could, but I think we may price some of the middle class folks out. That's actually where I'd come up with the 3.1 at the time was trying to plug into the market as far as what that did to cost of homes as well. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Very valid point. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think everybody would love to have fewer people. I just -- what the impact is -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: To the economic impact that Barbara's been talking about. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's my point in terms -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's a very -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- of cost of a home. Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry, I don't disagree with looking at the economic impact. I think you'd be foolish to say that's not a good idea. But if we move ahead with the traditional neighborhood design, as I hope we will at some point, I'm hoping to have something to this board within three or four months in a preliminary status. First I want to go to the public and then the board. If we do that, that gives the opportunity to create things like apartments over shops and a mix of housing that right now we don't have in Collier County. So we start looking at if we are going to in essence narrow the scope in one respect and broaden it in another, the net housing impact is going to be positive for a variety of product and cost of product and whatnot. So I'm looking forward to that, and that maybe being an offset for some of the concerns that are being raised for what we're doing here. But one of the concerns I've heard -- I know Commissioner Constantine it was also addressed to you -- and letters with individuals saying this is just a bad idea. You are going to, you know, price people out of homes and whatnot and so forth. And the reality is, in the days of spec zoning, which we'll just refer to as, let's say, the decade called the Eighties. All you -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The spec decade. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- had -- yeah, the spec decade. But all you had to do was pop in with an application and an application fee and get the maximum density allowable at the time. There just wasn't a concern over what that aggregate effect was going to be, you know, that the future was too far away in the Eighties for those making those decisions. So there were a lot of spec PUD's that are out there. There's over 80,000 units in PUD's right now that haven't been built. So as we look at how to really affect the long-term picture of this community, what we're doing is we are taking those units that have not been zoned yet, the parcels that have not been zoned, and saying we're going to limit the liability of those parcels overstressing our infrastructure. Now, somebody who speaks today, if you don't think what we're doing is a good idea, you tell me how we're going to provide that infrastructure. You tell me how much we're going to have to charge in impact fees to pay for the infrastructure to achieve the units that could be achieved today. And if you've got the answer to that, you're the magic man and congratulations, or the magic woman and congratulations, because no one else can find it. The result of staying on this course is truly going to be to price people out of the affordability for homes by raising impact fees to nearly doubling what they are today. And you want to talk about the impact of someone in an $80,000 home? Tack on two grand in impact fees to that individual. So what we're doing here is one part of it. The other part is the sunsetting of PUD's. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's the big one. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: We're not going to fix 80,000 units out there in a month or a year. But over time, as these things come in, if we change the standard now, as Ms. Cacchione said earlier, we can create the situation where those PUD's will have to comply with this new standard and reduce that liability even further. And in the end, what we'll have is an economically viable community that everyone's proud to live in. That's the goal as I hear from everyone up here; not to affect one industry, or not to affect the environmental situation, but simply to create a community that we can be proud of that is economically viable. And I think we have an opportunity to do that today if we will just proceed, but proceed with caution and concern. When we talk about whether it's three units or two units an acre, we're talking about 3,000 units difference. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm not concerned about the number of units as much as I am -- what I was thinking ahead about, Tim, was the whole PUD sunsetting. How can we gather some more of those in -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- as we go forward with PUD sunset? That's what I want to look for. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Understood. I see where you're going now. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The other thing on some of those PUD's is they were approved at numbers even higher than before. So for them it won't be four to three, it may be six to three, or seven to three or eight to three. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Twelve to three. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, any other questions for staff? Mr. Fernandez, do we have any public speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, we do, Madam Chairman. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Probably not. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Surprise. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We can go ahead, maybe, and move these boards now so we could see the speakers. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I can see them. MR. FERNANDEZ: First speaker is Nancy Payton, and then the second speaker is Ellen Lindblad. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If Mr. Lindblad would move forward so he's -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Ellen. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Ellen? I'm sorry. Excuse me, I thought he said Allen. Ellen, just move up -- well, you're fine. MS. PAYTON: Good morning. My name is Nancy Payton and I'm representing the Florida Wildlife Federation. The Florida Wildlife Federation supports reducing densities on Collier County's rural and agriculturally zoned lands, but we find the proposal under discussion today to be unacceptable because it has yet to include the county's unique natural resources in the planning process. Although the discussion that just ensued tells me that that may change, nevertheless, I'm going to stick to the script. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Regardless of the current situation, you prepared it and you're going to argue it. MS. PAYTON: Yes, because there may be some points here that you hadn't thought about, yeah. For example, the one-mile receiving area encircling Immokalee includes lands targeted for acquisition by the CREW Trust; it involves wetlands identified on the future land use map as areas of environmental concern. These wetlands are important habitat for listed species, including wood storks, and may contain wading bird rookeries. It invades the Big Cypress area of critical state concern, and it contains Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission's strategic habitat conservation areas for Florida panther, black bear, wood stork, Audubon's crested caracara, limpkin and the American swallow-tailed kite. The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, in their 1994 publication, Closing the Gaps in Florida's Wildlife Habitat Conservation System, classifies the area northwest of the Big Cypress National Preserve as, I quote, one of the most important wildlife areas remaining in Florida, unquote. A comment about TDR's. That was a pretty good discussion, because we did have TDR's on ST lands, and it was about three or four years ago that the commission changed that. And that was taking TDR's on ST land and putting them in the urban area. So it's kind of come a circle here. The density bands along 846 and 858 impact strategic habitat conservation areas, impact priority one panther habitat, as identified in the Florida Panther Habitat Preservation Plan, and trisect two important flowways: The Okaloacoochee Slough in the Big Cypress area of critical state concern, and the Camp Keais Strand, a CREW Trust acquisition area. Lee County and the South Florida Water Management District are currently undertaking programs to purchase developed lands and areas affected by the 1995 Bonita area floods. Water Management District representative Chip Merriam recently stated that, and I quote, the cost to fix just the Imperial River portion of our problems is 36 million dollars. And the majority of that fix is land acquisition. Camp Keais Strand is historically part of the Estero Basin, hooked to the Bonita problem. And restoring that natural watershed is a key factor in alleviating future flooding in the Bonita area. The message is clear, commissioners, plan now for our natural resources, or pay later. In closing, we again request that an environmental component be immediately included in this planning process. We ask that development be guided away from important wetlands and flowways such as the Camp Keais Strand, CREW lands, and the Big Cypress area of critical state concern. We ask that important wildlife habitat be respected and protected. We ask that cjustering only be considered to protect native habitat and low intensity agriculture, not to facilitate golf courses. We recommend that the current zoning be split into rural zone and an agriculturally zoned area. We ask that the state's 13 indicators of sprawl be consulted, particularly with those bands of linear development. And lastly, and as always, we oppose extending central water and sewer beyond the current urban surface areas. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there anything in what we're discussing today, Ms. Cacchione, that considers extending water and sewer beyond the urban area? MS. CACCHIONE: I think for the area which is west of Golden Gate Estates. So the area between the urban area and west of Golden Gate Estates we would provide for some ability to do central water and sewer in those areas. East of the Estates it would be well and septic only. And we would require cjustering in both areas. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why are we thinking about -- this -- you know, this is -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine. If you -- can you picture that on a map? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's the hole in the donut, right? It's the Twin Eagles area, it's the same o1' same o1' COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe I'm not understanding it. MS. CACCHIONE: It would be basically this area in this location and in this location, so it would be in between these areas. Now, remember, much of this area in here is being purchased under Belle Heade. And as we develop the criteria, we may want to make some modifications to that. But remember that, you know, we also have Orange Tree, which has a package plant, and in this area it may make more sense to hook up to a system or to the county system than to do well and septic in that area. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But Barb, that's the -- that is the issue that this county went nuts over about expanding the urban boundary. That is expanding the urban boundary, once you start putting water -- urban services outside in that area. I want to be very, very careful about that. MS. CACCHIONE: But along with that, we would require the cjustering, the 70 percent preservation of natural area -- 70 percent preservation of open space areas, 50 percent of that being natural areas. And that is the criteria that the board had directed us to work with the Conservancy on, and that is the process we're going through right now. So it would be a combination of factors that you would see, and you can't kind of just look at one item in isolation, which is the water and sewer. If you've got a line running down that road, it would make more sense to hook up than to do well and septic along with the cjustering. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hac'Kie, I agree. And if you recall during the Twin Eagles discussion, I was not enthusiastic about water and sewer out there. But if you do recall a discussion with the Conservancy folks and all, it was a balancing act of a number of different things. And I think the gain of the 70 percent set-aside of that property may offset some of those impacts. The point we're trying to do, and I agree wholeheartedly, is not extend that urban area. And I think some of those requirements, like making sure 70 percent of the physical land is set aside, accomplishes a great deal of that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There may be some circumstances under which it would be worth it. The environmental tradeoffs would be so significant that it would be worth allowing water and sewer. But that's -- we're yet to see what those are. MS. CACCHIONE: Right. And before you see the final proposal, we will work with the Conservancy, with all the environmental groups and the property owners in that location, because there may be some modifications that will make sense from that perspective that we can also bring to you that may modify some of these proposals but will make a lot more sense as well, once we take all these factors into consideration, which we have not done yet. We haven't gone through that step yet. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No decisions today about allowing water and sewer, and no -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, let's -- my concern is, and you mentioned it earlier. You said fearmonger. The idea that an eight-inch water main is an urban -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's an urban service. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's take the Estates. Now, let's run an eight-inch water main down somebody's street. What did we just do to change the character of that community? How is it all of a sudden -- how is it all of a sudden urban because they can turn their tap on and get water out of an eight-inch water main instead of the well? The truth is, its impacts to the balance of the community are identical, its density is identical, its character of development is identical. Here's the difference: When you put a water main down the street, people may be more -- it would be more attractive -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Exactly. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- for people to build, okay? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Exactly. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If the density's one unit per five acres, and ultimately there's a build-out of that area of let's -- you know, of 1,000 units, whether there's an eight-inch water main there or not, the ultimate build-out is still 1,000 units. The idea of not extending water or sewer to people outside the urban area is simply a physical restriction on growth saying, you know, we don't want you to build on your land so we're not going to give you water and sewer to make it attractive. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How about we'd like for that growth to proceed much more slowly than it does in the urban area, which is why we have an urban line? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My point is, if we were to say today or six months from now that these areas may be potential areas for water and sewer expansion, if you look at the economics, you're going to have to have a customer base in that area that's pretty significant before you can run it in the first place. We're talking no nearer than 10 and more like 20 or more years away before something like that is feasible in either of those areas. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But be careful that we're not doing what they did in the Eighties that we think is stupid. I think this is the place where we could make the Eighties mistake is if we say it might be okay to put urban services outside the boundary. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, you say urban services. You know, I disagree that an eight-inch water main makes an area -- turns an area from rural to urban. That just fails a logic test. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I just don't even think it's common sense. You're going to tell me that an eight-inch water main is not prefer -- is not preferable when you have a sewer -- or you have a septic tank out there, that when the people that are already living there -- and if you-all haven't been out there to see what's going on, you need to go check it out. People are already out there, folks. And I'll tell you, that eight-inch water main isn't going to make a difference one way or the other. I'll tell you right now that that septic tank, when their yards are sitting there under six to eight inches of water and they can't flush their toilets, that sewer line makes one heck of a lot of difference. And don't tell me about the environment at that point. I'm also a product of rural America. I know about septic tanks, okay? So don't sit there and tell me I wish to God we could have did central sewer. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just want -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I mean, it just -- it just defies logic in my mind how everybody can be so environmentally sensitive and then turn around and say, oh, but don't you put in central water and central sewer. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, Commissioner Mac'Kie -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I just -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- I think if it were done in a vacuum, you're absolutely right. And that -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- was the discussion we had a year or two ago -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I agree. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just want to be careful. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- but when it's done in concert with a number of restrictions, I think we're okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There may be circumstances under which it's permissible. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I agree. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And we'll see those as we go forward. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And Pam -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I'll leave it at that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- I would say the same thing. If we weren't talking about the one per five or the one per 20, or whatever, that's a different situation. We are talking about that. But for anybody to come up and tell me that they would rather have a septic tank put down in their backyard, you're crazy. You're flat out nuts. I'm sorry, I just -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: How do you feel about it? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How do you feel about that? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I'm telling you, because this is -- it's an absolutely ridiculous argument, you know? And down here particularly, when there's no runoff. You don't have a hill, okay? I mean, it's different. When you live up in the Midwest and the Northeast, whatever, you've got hills and you can locate septic tanks. Down here it's right there with you, along with your well. Oh, it's just great. And I think it's just absolutely insane. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Maybe the point there is, though, that -- you just made the case for why a requirement of septic discourages accelerated growth. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Has it? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't think so. You need to go take a look on what's east of 951. I mean, come on, folks, let's get reality here __ COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: When you add the assessment -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- it's already out there. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: When you add the assessment to the property value, you'll discourage some growth right there. But my point is, we're not making a decision and all of a sudden tomorrow -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- there's going to be a backhoe out there tomorrow. All we're saying is that these areas are areas we need to review further to determine the level of service in the areas of water and sewer. And I know that's not going to make Nancy Payton happy, it's not going to make the Florida Audubon Society happy, but, you know, tough, they don't live out there. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I would like to -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Actually, I think -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- continue this argument, but I -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- think there's public speakers -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We do. Thank you, Nancy. COHHISSIONER NORRIS: -- here to give us their opinion as well. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Ellen Lindblad and then Brad Cornell. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many speakers do we have on the item? MR. FERNANDEZ: Seven total. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think I'll withhold my comments until they're all done. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'll try. MS. LINDBLAD: Good morning. I'm Ellen Lindblad, director of the CREW Land and Water Trust. And you've really addressed some of my issues. The first one was, when I looked at the map yesterday afternoon, when I first saw it, I noticed right away that the receiving area did include part of the CREW boundaries. And not only is it the CREW boundaries, but it's part of Lake Trafford, which already has a lot of environmental problems. So I think that should have stuck out right away. And I think this plan has a lot of potential, but it needs to be done in a responsible, well thought-out manner, and not just by drawing lines on a map without verifying the types of lands that are inside or adjacent to those lines. I would urge you to have staff take the time to research in depth the receiving areas, noting environmentally sensitive lands within or adjacent to the areas being looked at before drawing those lines on the map. Then see if it looks like it would be a reasonable plan like -- to put together. A lot of thought and research needs to be put into this ahead of time, without arbitrarily putting lines on maps. And I would also say, I think if you could do a general map that would show everything; show where your sewer lines are now, show the areas that, you know, maybe you're thinking of increasing those sewer lines, show all the environmentally sensitive areas, and then when you're looking at transferring development rights in those receiving areas, you can see right away how close they are to environmentally sensitive areas. You can see that strip along -- if you're talking about a mile-wide strip that goes along Immokalee Road or any of the major roads, you can see how that joins up to environmentally sensitive lands. And if there's areas along those strips that maybe should be taken out of that. Let a map be the picture for you, and let it tell the whole story. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Brad Cornell, and then Ty Agoston. MR. CORNELL: Good morning, commissioners, I'm Brad Cornell, for the record. I'm here on behalf of the Collier County Audubon Society. And I want to congratulate you on what is a very good discussion. I think this is something that everyone has been thinking about, as you've already said, and we're encouraged to hear the direction that you're going. I think that it's still preliminary, and I would look forward to, as you're calling it, the fine tuning, but there are a lot of elements that need to be incorporated into this process. If I could run down a couple points that I would include in those elements. We need to plan for better treatment of our important natural systems. Commissioner Constantine's efforts to identify open space and green space is a very important part of this conceivably, that such an identification of these lands would show both rural and urban areas that need protection, both for environmental reasons and for our citizens' benefit. Extension of water and sewer, as we've been talking about, we believe would effectively extend the urban boundary, where you put it. And we -- you've had that discussion. We do not support that, and we're going to be following that issue. Lowering urban density puts -- in general I think puts more pressure on rural and ag. areas for that development. If you accept or if the given is that people are going to come anyway, and if you're not going to put them in the urban area, that raises the pressure on the ag. rural areas, and then we have to ask ourselves what it is that we want to protect in ag. and rural. Ag. Might be one thing. We want to protect agriculture. We don't want to lose those ag.; lands. And certainly there are natural systems we don't want to lose. Cjustering is a valuable tool in urban areas, and that's where I've been more familiar in the reading that I've done with its application to protect natural systems within urban areas, but there's a great potential for harm to rural areas if it's not done correctly. In particular, I'm thinking of bear and panther habitat, wide-ranging species, which could suffer from the application of cjustering if it's not done correctly in the correct areas. This is especially true if you allow golf courses in open space areas on developments in rural areas, which is the way it is now, you do allow that. Transfer of development rights, the concept might work, but receiving areas are hard to find in rural and ag. lands. Why not explore perhaps cross-county -- this is pie in the sky, but I'll say it anyway. Why not explore cross-county TDR's? Look at Lehigh Acres or Cape Coral. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, we'll send 'em to them, we just don't want 'em sending them to us. MR. CORNELL: Well, that's what I'm talking about. That's what I'm talking about. Because there are great impacts to those large areas up there, and there could be -- if you could acquire and amass some large parcels, you could conceivably make an attractive receiving area for developers. So if you could coordinate the cooperation with Lee commission and others. Something to think about. Also, I want to note what's already been said, that the Immokalee receiving area is not entirely appropriate as drawn. There are -- as we've already seen, there's some natural systems and habitat areas that are particularly east and south of there, and perhaps moving -- maybe a solution would be to move more of that area north. I don't know, we'd have to look at that more. But it does need to be adjusted. The traditional neighborhood design concept is a great idea -- and this is my own personal interest in this, not Audubon's -- and I do hope that you go further with this, Commissioner Hancock. It's -- this is something that really is going to benefit all of us here in the urban area. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And, maybe something you can help us with, Brad, as we get to a point that we look at the environmental perimeter concept of TND, it may be something that you would like to be involved with. MR. CORNELL: I would very much like to. And if I can just throw this out: Perhaps mixed use might give us a little bit of a solution to affordable housing. You add residential above commercial and you've got -- you know, maybe not everybody wants to live there, but students, single people. You know, there's a lot of precedent for that in other places. And I would just summarize by saying that our main concerns with this density discussion that we're having this morning is that our vital natural systems, both urban and rural, be protected better, because what we're doing is applying broad brush strokes to the entire county. We're not making it sensitive or it's not a smart application, if you will. I'm not -- I don't mean that in a derogatory sense, I mean that in the sense that, you know, it's not sensitive to the area that it's being applied to. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Ty Agoston, and then David Guggenheim. MR. AGOSTON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Ty Agoston, and I am a member of that unattractive and apparently focused effort to make it less attractive Golden Gate Estates. It appears to me that socialism is alive and well in America and it's moving into Collier County. Central planning, which has failed in most of the areas that I'm familiar with in Europe, is now getting more and more emphasized in this county. And I'm not quite sure whether you can cite any source that would give you that strength of belief that you are simply smarter than all the other people who have tried central planning. There are many, many areas that bothers me about this entire subject that you're covering. And some of them, like the prohibition for water and sewer that Ms. Berry so eloquently addressed, I have no need to comment on. What I do have a problem with, for example, is your direction of going from one dwelling from five acres to one dwelling to 20 acres, with the directive to that homeowner or property owner to leave his land -- I think the term is fallow -- that he cannot -- natural, that he cannot use it. I wonder if you'd consider reducing his taxes, being that you are in a sense forcing the property owner to forfeit the use of his property. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That would happen, Ty. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Through appraisals. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely, through the appraisal process. If his density goes down, his property value is going to go down, and therefore, his taxes will go down. MR. AGOSTON: Well, is that -- is that -- is that really why you're sitting up there for is to reduce the property value of my property? Or are you -- again, going back to central planning, you feel that you are qualified to make some future judgments for some future property owners that -- well, as the density goes down, the values will go down? You know, I'm -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ty? MR. AGOSTON: -- I have a -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ty? I need to correct one thing, when you said we're going to prohibit people from using their land. If it's zoned agricultural, clearly they'll be able to continue to use it in an agricultural manner. We're not going to prohibit that -- the use that it is zoned for. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And they're taxed at an agricultural rate. MR. AGOSTON: If the person owns a 20-acre lot that currently he could build four homes on, and you're going to force him to only build one home and do not allow him to use the -- or to leave the rest of the land natural, obviously you in some way give -- reconstruct -- constrict his ability to use the property. We have a tendency to condemn developers as something evil. And, you know, to my mind -- and I was never a developer, thank God, and I make my living out of the stock market. But to my mind, a developer represents people. You don't move -- at least none of you, at least as far as I know, know how to lay a brick or frame a home or whatever. Developers represent the people, because they represent the demand for the living space. The panther comes to mind because it happens to come up very often. As I understand, and I have read some material on the subject, there are no longer any Florida panthers. At the same time, the argument runs that we have to preserve environmentally sensitive land. Under the environmentally sensitive of course becomes the panther preserve. There are no more panthers. We import Texans. And if we run out of Texans, we can probably import it from somewhere else. Let me just say as a final point that I am one of the stream of people here who get paid to address you? I'm not. I'm just an individual who essentially tries to protect the potential living for my children and grandchildren in the area. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is David Guggenheim and then Robert Duane. MR. GUGGENHEIH: Good morning, Chairman Berry, commissioners. For the record, David Guggenheim, president and CEO of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. I think this process is very important, and I think the long-term view that we've heard discussion on this morning is critical at this point, because we truly are at a crossroads. Although you have stated in the past that this is not -- this effort we're involved in now is not specifically for the benefit of the environment, the fact is that it does have the great potential to benefit the environment in significant ways, and that's why we're so excited about continuing our work with you to make this process work. Regarding the most recent changes that have been brought back to you, I'm at a bit of a disadvantage, having just received the agenda packet yesterday and, as you know, have been involved in some other high visibility issues of late, and I do again want to express my thanks to this board for your support on that. Based on a very quick review of what we've seen so far, I think we're very much moving in the right direction. We're grateful to see many of the elements that we originally developed with Twin Eagles still live on in this effort, including the cjustering criteria preservation of 50 percent of land area, for example. Obviously there are some concerns. I don't want to be repetitious of the concerns that we've heard this morning, but just briefly, a few quick points. As Ellen Lindblad pointed out, we must be mindful of the CREW boundaries, present and future, and particularly in the vicinity of Lake Trafford. The one-mile band of one on five density around the road corridors has a potential to be problematic because as we know and we've discussed, the one on five is not enough to discourage Twin Eagles' style development out that corridor, so we want to be concerned about possibly ending up with a crisscross pattern of that kind of development over key environmentally sensitive areas. Camp Keais Strand, Okaloacoochee Slough, in particular. I would even include north Belle Heade in an area that we should consider reducing density to one on 20, at a minimum to discourage that kind of density. We might consider those blue areas as sending areas, as optional sending areas, so that you could optionally send your development rights elsewhere. Because right now, I don't think they're classified as any kind of sending area. I think the discussion we heard on environmentally sensitive lands is a very good one. We need to be creative and think of ways that we can incent people, property owners voluntarily to do the right thing, as far as the environment's concerned. And if that dovetails well with this TDR plan, that makes a lot of sense. I think this is something that is a work in progress still. We need to look at some of these issues more carefully. We hope to continue and be involved in the process. We're here to help in any way we can, and applaud your efforts on this, so thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Robert Duane and then Bruce Anderson. MR. DUANE: Good morning, Robert Duane for the record. This may be a point of clarification as much as anything else, but Commissioner Hancock, you brought up the threshold 100 versus 200 acres for the reduction of density, and I wanted to mirror your thoughts on that matter. From a planning point of view, the larger properties I think are much better able to absorb density reductions. And typically they'll almost always have one or more golf courses. And as you know, you need about 120 to 140 acres to develop a golf course, where properties that are closer to that 100-acre threshold I think would be clearly at a disadvantage from going from four to three. Because the density of four, you're really looking at more or less, you know, a typical single-family subdivision, not a lot much different than Lakewood here. So I'm just here supporting your 200-acre proposal and I hope that other members of the board are of the same mind. Thank you, sir. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, I did receive one other registration after the board had begun its discussion of this item, so we'll not hear that one. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We'll let them speak. MR. FERNANDEZ: Whit Ward. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Whit, you know better. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think he was late. MR. WARD: I was late, you're absolutely right. Good morning, commissioners. My name is Whit Ward, I represent the Collier Building Industry Association. We have been working with you and your staff on these proposals, and we would certainly pledge our best efforts in working -- continuing to work with you in the future. A couple of points that I would like you to consider: I think concurrent with this plan to reduce density should be an economic development plan. And I'll tell you a couple of things that I think we should consider in the economic development plan. First we need to provide -- make sure that we provide for housing for our workers. The workers that I'm talking about are people out of college, young families. We need to provide for housing for them. I remember, it hasn't been -- doesn't seem like that many years, anyway, when I was young and I had small children at home, and I didn't want to live over a store. I wanted -- I wanted a home in a residential neighborhood with a front yard and a backyard and a swing set and a picnic table and a place for my children to play. That's what I wanted. And I wanted to be able to afford that on my salary, whether or not my wife worked. And that's -- those are the things that are important to us, and those are the things we need to make sure that we can provide. We also -- I didn't want to rent a home either, I wanted to own my own home. I bought my home and I owned my home and I was proud of that. And we need to make sure that our working people, our teachers, our firemen, our policemen, our young professionals that are just out of college, we need to make sure that they have -- that they can afford a home and it matches the description that I described to you. The second item and on more of a long-range basis, we -- this county, we've been talking about build-out now for some time. When this county starts to wind down in our development, we're going to lose one of the three legs of the economic stool that hold up this county. And we need to know that now. Our land use attorneys are going to be -- the land use attorneys here may be retired, but our children who go to the University of Florida and come back to practice law are going to need something to do. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: They'll have to write wills. MR. WARD: They may, if they can afford a place to live. But they COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that a self-projection for your own? MR. WARD: But the -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Estate planning. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Dang right it is. Learning some estate planning law myself. MR. WARD: But the community planners, the engineers, the construction workers, the bankers, we need to consider the economic impact that this is -- and again, we're out 30 years, but we're looking at our build-out, we're looking at overpasses, and we're looking at things like that. We need to be -- as part of this plan, we need to be looking at the impact that this -- these reduction -- this reduction in jobs is going to have now on our economy. A couple of things that I want to just point out to you quickly. If you look at the high density, the urban areas in Florida, as you know, the very large majority of our people live near the coastline. Those who don't live near the coastline live near an attractor of some sort. Disney World, 1-75, 1-95, I-4, deep water port, something -- some kind of an attractor. There is no attractor that I know of in Immokalee. I don't believe, unless somebody can show me different, you can put all of the density that you want around Immokalee, and people aren't going to move there just because you put -- allow density. Transfer of development rights is not a bad idea in many cases. I just want to point out to you that unless we come up with an attractor to draw people to Immokalee -- as Commissioner Berry so aptly pointed out, there's no transportation system out there. Even if you ran a road out there, people are not going to move out there. There has to be some attractor to draw them to Immokalee. The -- one other quickly, and then I'll move on. We need to consider what the cost of the urban rural sprawl is going to be on our roads, on our systems. The farther apart we put our homes, the more roadway we need between those homes to get to them. And finally, the one last thing I would like, Commissioner Hancock, for you to look at when you're looking at traditional neighborhood designs, what density does it take a traditional neighborhood design to work, because if you're going to have to walk, you need to be close together. I thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you very much. MR. FERNANDEZ: You have no other speakers, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No other speakers. Commissioner Constantine? COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, just a quick comment on Mr. Ward's thoughts. And as far as the attractor, I mean, I think back when I first came to Collier County. I have always lived in Golden Gate, but at the time, there -- I think Foxfire was the nearest development. And you can tell how long people have lived in Collier County, and if they've been here a while they'll say to me, you live way out in Golden Gate? And if they haven't been here very long, it doesn't seem that far. Because nowadays you have Santa Barbara, which didn't exist at the time, and you have communities interconnecting all the way out. And we have communities well beyond. You go up on 951, you'll get the new Vanderbilt Country Club going in, you go out Immokalee Road, you've got Twin Eagles. You've got all these things going well, well beyond. And so I think while it is very hard to envision right now that there will be a demand way out in Immokalee, as all that fills in, it's not going to seem like way out there anymore. Golden Gate was way out somewhere when I first came here, and the community grew and all of a sudden that was central in the community. We did our landfill study, and we looked and found the central point in the coming years is going to be 951 and Pine Ridge of all collections. And if you looked even just 10 years ago at that, you would -- Pine Ridge was just being extended 10 years ago. So I think it's -- while it's very hard to picture now, it's not that hard to picture 15 years out that as all that fills in in between, it becomes far more attractive. So there are certain things that have to happen, and you mentioned the transportation network. Obvious example, going right back to my Golden Gate again, it used to be there were two ways to get there, and neither were particularly convenient, or certainly one of them wasn't very convenient. And as those roadways became more convenient, then it became easier to put communities in there and build the community up and put communities in between. And so I think we -- over time that same thing will likely happen for the Immokalee community, but to suggest that it will never happen I think is probably shortsighted, particularly considering our history here at Collier County. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And just to add to that, looking at the economic development incentives that exist out there with the tax-free zone, you know, free trade zone, the other opportunities for real industrial -- clean industrial development out there, I think that there is going to be an attractor, and it's already started. It started with Main Street and it's going forward now with the free trade zone and other economic development incentives. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like to go ahead and -- has the public hearing been closed? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. Close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask a question before you form a motion? Could I just one -- ask quick? And maybe this can't happen, but I know you had said October would be when we'd take our first vote. Is that a concrete time line? I know when we traditionally do our fall hearings -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We can do 'em. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there a manner to do that, if we choose, sooner? MS. CACCHIONE: Yes. Basically we can run -- the board has the option of running two cycles per year, if you'd like to do this in a separate cycle. The one aspect that may be ongoing would be the -- while it is being reviewed by DCA -- is the understanding that we'd like to do of the sprawl issues and looking at those indicators. And we've talked to an expert that we think might be good at handling some of this within the price range as we've talked about. And also, to look at the economic impact. Those things can be ongoing, even though while this is being reviewed by DCA. So if you do want to fast track this, we can. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't want to rush it to the point of making an error; however, if there is a way for us to do this sooner than October and fast track it, as you say, I don't know about the rest of the board, I'd prefer to. It's something we've been working on for two and a half years now, and if we can do this last step in a couple of months instead of six months -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, it's something that if we throw it in with all the other growth management plan amendments, it could stand alone and may very well be better served by doing that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Couple of quick comments, and then I'm going to go ahead, and you may want to take out your pen and paper, I'm going to do another one of my famous eight-point motions or something here. The Immokalee attractor, ironically, was initiated by the board, economic development, incubator facility. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: These are things that if we can broaden the economic base of Immokalee, one of the main reasons -- one of the problems we have out there is that even if you get the businesses there, where are people going to live? So it is a long-term piece-by-piece approach that I think the Immokalee community deserves and wants. But anything we do here today needs to be, you know, taken out to that community and reviewed by that community to determine if it indeed meets their goals and expectations of where they live. Today I heard from at least one, really two people, the classic environmental approach. This action we're taking today is going to ensure that thousands of acres will be impacted less environmentally than they could today. All of these areas that are designated one to 20 right now could have one to five. If you could get it permitted, you could build one house per five units in the Camp Keais Strand. What we're doing today -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Big if. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, impossible if. But what we're doing today has -- and Dave Guggenheim said it and I thank him for that. What we're doing today does have, whether it be intended or not, a very positive environmental effect. And what we heard today is well, that's just not enough, we need to -- we've got to go further. I don't think we ever want to rest on our laurels, but let's at least recognize when something is done for the betterment of whether it be the environmental community or not. Let's at least recognize that. I do believe there's some tweaking we can do here, but what we're doing today crosses all lines, environmental, development, economic, and I think puts us all at a much better standing 20 or 30 years from now than where we are today. To simply lower density in the urban area, it's said that that would be pushing people out into the rural ag. area. Well, if we weren't lowering density in the rural ag. area, you'd be right. But if you lower everything, you're not going to have that pop. When you squeeze here, it's not going to pop out out here, because the density opportunities out there are even less than they were before. So I don't think that's much of a valid argument. And Mr. Agoston, I have to say, I think we're smart enough to recognize when we're trying to shove seven pounds in a five-pound bag. And that's what we have. We can't fit it all in, so we're going to have to -- you know, we're going to have to get it down closer to five pounds. So it's not socialism, it's just simply common sense. The two are not the same. I'd like to go ahead and make a motion to give staff direction to proceed with the following: One is to reduce the urban density from four units to three for all projects -- or all parcels over 200 acres in size. The second is to reduce the density band bonuses from three to two units an acre. The third is to reduce the maximum density within an activity center from 16 to 12 units an acre. No change in the urban fringe. To reduce the rural agricultural densities from one unit per five to one unit per 20 acres. The rural ag. areas west of the Estates would remain at one unit per five acres. This next one, there's some tweaking that needs to be done, but I still think legally, the surrounding roadways in the rural ag. as depicted in the map at one unit per five acres, I understand Mr. Guggenheim's comments, and with additional regulations and restrictions, we might be able to make that work. I still think that's a good, sound idea from a legal standpoint, and I want to leave that in. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't under -- would you say that one again? I'm sorry, I just didn't follow that -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The one per five is the map you have in your packet that shows along the arterial roadways? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This one? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. With the exception of -- and I have a point to address some of the environmental issues in just a second. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But I still think from a legal standpoint, somebody who bought that land adjacent to that roadway has a reasonable right of expectation, and I think legally we have a responsibility to maintain that. To alter the TDR's to Immokalee in such a way that the Immokalee community has had input and determines that it is in their best interest as a community that the TDR's be accepted in either the manner proposed or another manner. So I'm going to ask that we kind of back burner that one, looking for community input from Immokalee, and ask our staff to initiate that as -- you know, as time allows. The next point is to look at one of two things: Transfer of development rights for the Okaloacoochee Slough, Camp Keais Strand and current targeted CREW lands, or just simply reducing those areas to one per 20. So as you look where that one per five band would cross the Camp Keais Strand, the portion that is the Camp Keais Strand would only be allowed at one unit per 20 acres, again, trying to just mirror what environmentally isn't going to happen there anyway. I mean --COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's the one point is when you mentioned at one per five, you laughed and said as if you could get permitted anyway. And I think regardless of whether we have that at one to five or one to 20 -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Or one to one. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- or one to one -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Or five to one. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- it's not going to get permitted. So I appreciate where you're trying to go with that, but it's not going to make a big difference anyway, because it's not going to get built. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think nothing we're going to do here today is going to either supersede or circumvent environmental regulations in the first place in these areas that are already targeted and identified and so forth as environmentally sensitive. This is really not going to affect them. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not trying to go to the term of environmentally sensitive, because everyone -- that's a subjective term. If you see a red cockaded woodpecker fly over your house, somebody may tell you your house is environmentally sensitive. So what I am saying, though, is we do recognize there are specific areas, and I named them specifically -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would you say them again, please? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The Okaloacoochee Slough, the Camp Keais Strand and the current targeted CREW lands. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The CREW has an acquisition map, is that what you mean? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think those need to at least be recognized for -- if for no other reason, for water management. And if you're not an environmentalist, at least for water management. So I think there's a dual purpose there. But I would like to see our staff at least recognize those on the map either as an area of TDR, or leave them at one per 20, don't allow one per five in any of those areas. It's -- obviously more tweaking will occur, but at least it brings them to the table. Ask that our housing projection and economic impact study through Mr. Mihalic be initiated. I think we do want to look at what does this do to the housing demand and need in the future and what economic impact it may have. And Mr. Mihalic is the man with the background and the knowledge to probably initiate that and help us get that done. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Your focus is on how it will affect home prices? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Home prices and home availability. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But not the bigger economic -- I mean, I think we could study it to death if we start looking at what the economic repercussions are to the construction industry if they build fewer houses -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're issuing 4,000 building permits a year. There's 20 years of growth on the books today. So I think to say that we're going to crash an industry with this action is just a scare tactic. It's not realistic. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But the home value is very relevant. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I do think we want to look at the economic impact to the purchaser, the end user. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we, as a part of that -- and I'm not sure, but maybe Greg can figure out how -- but as a part of that, make sure we look at the positive economic impact of not having 23 flyovers, and not having -- the things we are -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Both sides of the issue. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, as opposed to just strictly okay, houses might be more expensive. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll amend to include that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Two last items: Projects in the urban area that utilize traditional neighborhood design, as approved by the board at some point in the future, will retain existing maximum densities. Again, they're not granted them, but they retain them as maximum densities. And the final item is that we continue with the cjustering criteria proposed by staff. Those are the -- I think I exceeded my last nine-point motion by a few points. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Ten. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ten? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Ten points. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Those are the points as this discussion occurred I felt like we had consensus on the board and was a positive direction. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have a question on the traditional neighborhood design. Since we haven't -- since we haven't developed that and put it into our Land Development Code, can we reference it in our growth management plan? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We actually do have in our comp. plan a traditional neighborhood design section. It is stated in there. In fact, all we have to do -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It's not yet in our Land Development Code? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, all we would have to do is amend our Land Development Code with standards that would reflect the language and intent of the comp. plan. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: One more implementing ordinance. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a -- MS. CACCHIONE: Commissioner? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- motion and a second. Is -- yes. MS. CACCHIONE: Could I request clarification on just a few items with regard to the density rating system? Right now we do have provisions for density increases in a couple areas, and I want to just talk about those for a few minutes to see if you'd like to keep those or not. One is conversion of commercial zoning outside of activity centers. Right now we allow a bonus density of up to 16 units per acre if you convert commercial to residential outside of activity centers. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I personally would like to dump that one. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As would I. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I would want to know what that does to the potential for in-fill development on small parcels or something. I don't know. I mean, it sounds like a great idea, but does it leave some pieces of land with very little use? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, the -- I'm -- and if I could interject. The reason I'm comfortable with eliminating that is because if they have commercial zoning outside of an activity center, they went through the zoning teevaluation process to maintain their commercial zoning. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good point. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Now, if they went to that extent to maintain their commercial zoning, by God, use it for commercial. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, it wasn't arbitrary. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, but don't use it to -- they had the opportunity then to convert it to up to 16 units an acre and chose not to. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see. This would be properties that could have opted for the 16 units but instead chose to fight to keep their commercial designation. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Exactly. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MS. CACCHIONE: To follow along with -- so I'm understanding, you would like to delete that item? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make it three. MS. CACCHIONE: The next item was for smaller properties less than 10 acres. If they get three units per acre or four units per acre, there's an option for an additional three units per acre, for in-fill properties that are less than 10 acres in size. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Perhaps we want to offer a bonus, but I don't know that we want to give them double, because we're going to three units an acre. A bonus of three is allowing double what everything else is, so -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Maybe we tie that back into TND. In other words, if their 10-acre parcel complies predominantly with the TND -- in other words, they can't do commercial in there, but they could interconnect to the adjacent neighborhood and whatnot and tie into them, then they can request that as a maximum. Again, giving us that leeway that if they -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think she's saying less than 10 acre parcels, though. MS. CACCHIONE: So I think what I'm hearing is you want to have some option on these smaller parcels maybe for a little bit higher density. You're just not sure -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, let me put that in perspective. If it's 10 acres, they could have 60 units on 10 acres -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and I just -- that's not consistent with what we're trying -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You want to cut that back -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- to accomplish here. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- from three to two then? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Do you want to also apply the TND criteria? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If -- I think if it's less than 10, it may be plugged in somewhere where that doesn't work, but if it can work, sure. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, I like that. MS. CACCHIONE: The next one is the affordable housing. Right now we provide a density bonus of up to eight units per acre on the base density. Is that something you -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I want to leave that one, personally. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I do not. And again, the reason why is eight units over three. I mean, you start doing the math and it just doesn't make sense. If we're trying to do three everywhere and they end up at 11, that's a -- percentage-wise that's a big plug. I would say we probably want to have a bonus of some sort, but maybe we do that at a five or at a six instead of an eight. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The only thing is, that's such a sensitive little piece. I'd like to have the economic analysis of that one before -- you know, because they tell us that if we take one unit away, they won't -- there'll never be another affordably priced house built in this county. You know, I'd like to see -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And you believe them. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I'd agree with you, I'd like to have a look at what that will do. Because what bothers me is even when we hear -- we do hear that, but when the units come back, they are tiny square footages rented for -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Six hundred bucks. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- very high prices. And they may meet some legal criteria of affordable, but they're not necessarily accomplishing the goal that we originally set. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Agreed. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And right next door to this property is an apartment complex that did not use all the affordable housing bonus type things, went to market rate and has lower or as low rates as the affordable housing complexes around here, so -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there any objection if we at least explore that -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to explore. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- at five or six instead of at eight? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In the absence of information, I would want to keep it at eight. But why don't -- I'll include in the motion that we ask for a report back on the -- if we reduce to five or six, what's the net effect? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are we going -- and that will cause us to examine the existing affordable developments that have been out there, which ones are successful, which one's not, and determine how we want to proceed. We certainly don't want to discourage -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- affordable housing in the right locations. So leave it for now, but we would like to get more -- if I'm paraphrasing correctly, we'd like to get a report back on what would be the net impact of reduction of one or two units per acre in that bonus. Am I -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two or three, yeah. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Two or three units, okay. MS. CACCHIONE: The next item is roadway access, and it's access to two or more arterials. You get another bonus of one unit per acre. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What was the basis for that, anyway? MS. CACCHIONE: I think the basis was if you were on a major roadway, you might allow a little higher density on those projects. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me give you my tag on that. And it comes from any properties -- and we don't have that many left, but properties that are L-shaped around activity centers but will connect to arterial roadways. We might be able to use that additional unit per acre, or a portion of that. Maybe it's a half a unit -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Naples Heritage, for example. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, to cause them to give us a public roadway that avoids that intersection, and in exchange, there's the -- because of the community benefit, so -- COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Could we make that the requirement then for the additional density? If it's -- if they provide some off -- some frontage road or some additional roadway to avoid the intersection? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: A public thoroughfare connecting the two roadways will allow them to request the one unit per acre -- is that __ COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, that's what I -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Shoot for the -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Like Lely Resort, they've got public roadways where you can get through and actually ultimately will have a connection up to Rattlesnake Hammock as well. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Which we're going to talk about later. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So yeah, that's the only reason I'd want to see it in there, because at two arterials -- if you're at two arterials, you're in an activity center, more or less, so '- MS. CACCHIONE: Okay. And there's just two more. The TDR's, right now you permit that to go above the maximum density of the density rating system if you use TDR's, but that's a very limited provision that's in there. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It should be consistent with the maximum density. I don't see why we'd allow TDR's to go beyond maximum density. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Then what's the meaning of the TDR? I mean, how does the TDR have value? Maybe I'm just missing something. MS. CACCHIONE: Well, I think that is the point. Our maximum density would be three or four, so if you can't go above that with the TDR, I think that's part of the -- if I could have a little time with that one, maybe we could work that into -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm afraid it might '- MS. CACCHIONE: -- some of our other concepts. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- hurt us in the legal arguments. You know, these TDR's are on the edge. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's ask for you to come back with some information on that; is that okay? MS. CACCHIONE: And the last one is you do have a density reduc __ COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before you go on, I'm not done talking about the TDR's. I don't mind if we have that increase, if it's going for the economic incentive to Immokalee. But to do that anywhere else I think is defeating the purpose of what we're trying to achieve here in lowering that. I don't have any interest in putting five units or six units or seven units anywhere when we're getting in close to the urban area, or in the -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Good point. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- urban area. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Good point. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I agree with that. MS. CACCHIONE: We'll just maybe change the focus of that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. MS. CACCHIONE: Instead of the coastal urban area, the Immokalee urban area. And finally, the last one is, right now there is a density reduction in a traffic congestion area which is that area west of Airport Road. Would you like to retain that reduction and keep that COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: That's a -- it then would match the rest of the urban area, three units an acre. It was four to three west of 41, so now it would all be three. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fair. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think that's fine. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Before we go down the motion, I want to take one last shot at encouraging instead of four to three four to two and a half, and ask you to think about how that will affect the effectiveness, the usefulness of our PUD sunsets. If we have two and a half in as the base density, then when the sunsetting PUD's -- those frightening 80,000 units that are out there that we can't wait to have come back through so they can be applied -- have modern standards applied to them, then the modern standard would be two and a half, which is what we're building now, which is what the new PUD's that are coming in are more alike than three. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me ask this: Rather than going to two and a half today, we can always have the opportunity of doing that later. If we find out one, what are the total number of units -- I know it's between 86 and 88,000 -- the total number of units in the acreage; in other words, what would be the net effect of taking all of those PUD's from their existing density to three versus their existing density to two and a half. Let's look at what that difference is -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd love to see that number. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- before we '- MS. CACCHIONE: In fact, I have looked at that. And basically, when you look at the PUD's that are coming through the sunset process that haven't started, it's a relatively low number. It's about 15,000 units. So most of the other projects, even though there's a lot out there to be built, they have started in some way. And that was surprising to me when I looked at it, too, that we are looking at approximately 15,000 units and PUD's that haven't started that will -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: A total number? MS. CACCHIONE: -- come through the sun -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Of those 80,000, we're going to get to look at 15,0007 Wow. MS. CACCHIONE: Well, through the sunset process. Now, there may be processes where you would look at it -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Voluntary fezones. MS. CACCHIONE: -- when people come in for changes in their development plan and other things. So there are other processes that you'll look at it and you can look at your comp. plan as it exists today and compare that against when this was approved. Having the change in your comp. plan is really the key, because that's what you're judging everyone against is consistency with that plan. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Again, Commissioner Hac'Kie, I really appreciate where you're trying to go. Obviously we want to get that ultimate population number as low as we reasonably can and legally can, but the -- by -- I don't think it's wise to go to the average, because obviously there are some above the average and there are some below the average. So while we're averaging two and a half, there are some very good developments out there that may be at three, or 3.1 or, you know, 2.9, and -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And frankly, it's less critical if I've got a shot at 15,000 units than when I thought I had a shot at 80,000 units, so -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Likewise. I'm going to leave the motion at four to three and I'm also going to incorporate into the motion the consensus direction given to staff on the items brought by Ms. Cacchione. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And the second amends. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any further comments or questions? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Absolutely not. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I hope not. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five to zero. And we're going to give our court reporter a break before her fingers fall off. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: A much deserved break. (Brief recess.) Item #8A2 FUNDING FOR 1998 TOURISIH AGREEHENTS: GULF COAST RUNNERS NAPLES ON THE RUN - $3,500; NAPLES GIRLS BASKETBALL FOUNDATION TOURNAMENT - $5,000; NAPLES SAILING CENTER YOUTH SAILING REGATTA - $5,650; NORTH NAPLES LITTLE LEAGUE SPORTS FESTIVAL - $8,000 - TABLED UNTIL LATER IN THE MEETING CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right, we'll resume our agenda, and moving on to item 8(A)(2), approval of the funding for the Golf Coast Runners -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Could I -- actually, I'm sure these are fine, but we don't have any backup on these. I don't have any idea what they have for -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: There is backup on them. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- projectile -- I don't have any substantive backup on them that shows what they project for beds and so on. I'm sure they're all wonderful events, but -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But are they going to sell beds? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I don't know if the youth foundation has teams coming in from everywhere, or if it's just all local, or what the deal is. MR. HIHALIC: Commissioner, we should have put a line on the application sheet to tell you what the heads and the beds numbers were that they projected and they gave themselves. Normally, we would also include the agreements between the groups and the county, but there's a time sense of urgency on some of these issues, and with vacations and other issues, we couldn't get the original application signed off by the legal department. It's my fault, but because we have the basketball foundation coming up in a week or so, and they can't expend money until the council approves it, we didn't include those things within your packet. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you just explain to me what each of these is? Let's do Gulf Coast Runners Naples-on-the-run first. Is __ CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think -- don't we have -- I have that backup material, I believe, in a TDC folder, Greg. We can provide that to Commissioner Constantine. I believe, Ms. Filson -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And all of us, too. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- if you could get that, I believe it's in that TDC folder. And it's the same information they brought to us at the TDC -- MR. HIHALIC: Yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- which supported all of this. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, why don't we table this item SO We '- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If you'd like to do that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- can get that backup to all commissioners. So I'll move to table it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion to table this item until we can get the backup out here. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. So we'll table item 8(A)(2) for just a few minutes. Item #8A3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE SCOPE OF REVIEW APPLICABLE TO RECONSIDERATION OF A PUD DEVELOPMENT ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.7.3.4 TIME LIMITS FOR APPROVED PUD MASTER PLANS, (PUD SUNSETTING) OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE - APPROVED AS PER THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Moving on then to item 8(A)(3), requesting the Board of County Commissioners acknowledge the scope of review applicable to reconsideration of a PUD development order pursuant to section 2.7.3.4 times -- time limits for approved PUD master plans, which is PUD sunsetting, of the Land Development Code. MR. NINO: Yes, my name is Ron Nino, planning services division. We were asked to prepare a memorandum, or an executive summary, I should say, that described the scope of review that we apply to PUD's that are sunsetted. And we believe the executive summary that you have describes that scope of review. And our question is, is there something that we're missing that you think we ought to specifically review when we're dealing with sunsetting PUD's? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Madam Chair? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, Commissioner Hac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just want an English language translation, because there's a lot of words here for what -- I -- my hope is and my expectation has been that when we review sunsetted PUD's, that we are starting from scratch with regard to density, with regard to codes, compliance with parking, com -- I mean, that we can essentially start from scratch. How far wrong am I? MR. NINO: You're not wrong at all, Commissioner. That's exactly what we do. We review -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay, just a lot of words there that maybe MR. NINO: We review for consistency with all elements of the Land Development Code. The PUD is circulated to all staff who have jurisdictional responsibility. In all cases an updated El, environmental impact, statement is required, the stipulations are changed to reflect current conditions. However, the executive summary emphasizes that. At this point in time, in terms of PUD's that are reviewed for sunsetting, they're all post-1990. They are always, always consistent with the current future land use element. Now, following your actions today, there is another window of opportunity that will be raised in subsequent PUD's that will be coming before you for sunsetting. But under today's requirements, they are consistent, because nothing has happened. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But the problem is consistent with what? They're only consistent with future land use element, which is the density question. There's other issues that I want them to be consistent with. For example, interconnection. If we are requiring interconnection on PUD's now, then as a sunset PUD comes back, is that an element we can require? MR. NINO: The interconnection issue and the current future land use element simply addresses the opportunity for additional density. And that is reviewed for that relationship, not for enhanced traffic circulation. Because that is not an element. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The problem is, this board hasn't adopted a formal policy saying we will require all projects to interconnect. I mean, the first time we really proceeded with that was, what was it, two weeks ago on that one project that wanted four units an acre and the argument was three or four based on whether it would interconnect to the adjacent property. So I don't think we've really handed staff a formal policy such as those parcels where interconnection makes sense should. Whether we need to do that or whether or not staff has heard two weeks ago fairly clearly that's going to be a discussion point, we'll include it in their -- in their staff report, it may be the distinction there. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And a different example then, because I hear you. Once we have standards for traditional neighborhood design, will we be able to incorporate those in the re-review of sunsetted PUD's? MR. NINO: We certainly will. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Particularly if we have the density differential that they go to three units an acre, and if they want anything more than that, they've got to go for traditional neighborhood design. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And last question for me is, because I got worried about this with one PUD that I saw that came in, that they chose to voluntarily amend their PUD instead of have the staff do it at the end of the six months, or whatever period we gave them. There didn't seem to be much change in that PUD. I hope that in addition to the ones that we force a rezoning on, those that voluntarily fezone are subject to the same scrutiny, the same level of review, the same start from scratch and comply with everything current. MR. NINO: Our staff report would in fact attempt to do that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: about Northbrooke. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me -- Pam, you're probably talking I don't remember the name of the project. The one that we kind of fewrote up here? Absolutely, that's the one. That in my opinion -- and I was the one that more or less pushed on that. That was a mistake. What we should have done is said this, this and this are wrong about this thing. Now go away, fix it and come back. Because what happens, you're going to see that one coming back, because the -- as we sat there and as I sat here and tried to kind of rewrite their PUD because I didn't like what I saw, the elements that we ended up with were kind of confusing and vague, and now we've had to nail them down. So you're going to see it coming back with more specific language. And I've requested it come back with that to clarify the intent and whatnot. In the end it will be where we wanted to go. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But if Ron's answer to my question is yes, we are going to -- we do that, why did we get a PUD that didn't do that? MR. NINO: I'm sorry, but Northbrooke Plaza PUD was entirely consistent with the current Land Development Code and the future land use element. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What it wasn't consistent with is our view collectively of what that corridor should or shouldn't be. And that's why we sit here. And we're not going to be able to delegate all that out to staff, but again, our staff, as I've seen in the past, is obviously smart enough to recognize when there's a trend out there. They're warning the applicants up front that you're probably going to run into this at the commission, and if they choose not to address it, there's nothing staff can do to make them, if they're consistent with the growth management plan. Again, if we formally adopt a policy that says these are gateway roadways or gateway entrances and you won't do this, this and this, then staff can enforce it. So I know the frustration you're talking about, but what we need to do, and I learned from Northbrooke is, if it isn't what we want there, you say here's my concerns, now, either you can go away, fix these things and come back or I can deny it. And, you know, that's -- that's where we would stand in the future with those. So I kind of learned a lesson there. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, I don't want to be writing PUD's up here like we tried to do that day. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, I think the intent was good. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think the part of it that was good that day was the fact that as a board collectively we had a discussion about what we want to see in this particular interchange. This was an opportunity. And whether it was wrong to sit up here on that particular PUD and write that, or give that direction -- I don't think it was wrong to give the direction, but I think it was wrong to go ahead and approve it, perhaps, with the direction that we sat up here and gave that day. We should -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We should have continued it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We should have just said either, you know, go away, because -- but this is what we're now looking at and what we want to see in the future. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, we should have continued -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And I think that was good. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- it for two weeks and let them bring it back -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- addressing those concerns. So in the future we can do that. But Mr. Nino, on this item, the two things that seem to come up most often on these sunset PUD's are compatibility from the standpoint of land use and density. Now, it may comply with the growth management plan and it may comply with the Land Development Code, but as we've seen a couple of times, the compatibility issue of what's around it, you guys are kind of caught in a position that, you know, yes, they comply with the code, yes, they comply with the growth management plan, but maybe their density is a little higher than it ought to be. Maybe we need to define for our staff what role we expect them to play in making a compatibility recommendation. Do we want them to look at what is a -- you know, the -- a reasonable density, even if it's less than that allowed by the growth management plan, and do we want them to look at specific land uses and say whether this is or isn't compatible with the surrounding community as a starting point for our discussion? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My answer is yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- so much for identifying how to get to the problem that I'm concerned about. You just identified it. We absolutely do need to give that instruction to staff. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think understanding that what they give us is a starting point for discussion. They don't, you know -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: With their professional recommendation. MR. NINO: I think -- if I may, I think all of you will agree that compatibility is a very subjective -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. MR. NINO: -- element. Staff is trained to look at compatibility, typically on the basis of broad classifications of land use with respect to another land use. Normally compatibility has traditionally been defined as the relationship of residential to commercial or industrial, and not one so much based on compatibility, five units per acre next to three units per acre. With all respect, commissioners, I don't think you'll find anything in any literature that allows us to draw a compatibility comparison between five units per acre and three units per acre. There are many examples in Collier County that have high-rise buildings next to low-rise, low-density buildings, worth millions of dollars. Those people obviously believe that there's a high standard of quality of life, even though there's a dramatic difference in density from one unit to another. We cannot draw that compatibility nexus. You certainly have far more discretion to deal with that issue, and we need to take our marching orders from you on a case-by-case basis. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I personally don't believe that staff should be in that position. I believe that's our job. I believe that they have certain criteria that they work from and look at, and I think that's where they come into it. And when it comes to the vision and that kind of thing, after they have said that it meets all the criteria that is commonly referred to, I think that's fine. But then we start looking at particular areas, and is this how we want it to look? Now, if we want to change that, then we put it in writing. But we go ahead and give the direction, so the next time he's got that direction in front of him. But to ask him to do our job I think is wrong. I don't think that's the right approach to it. But if this is a general consensus up here, when we talked about just the prior item that we had, that's where we give our direction to change some things. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: But once they have that impression, once they're able to tell, for example, where we're going with the corridor, or if they can look at what zoning approvals have been granted in an area lately -- what I need from staff is for them to say here's what's surrounding this community from a good land planning perspective. Commissioner Hancock has that background and so he often offers it to us on the board, which I appreciate -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- but it is -- it would be nice to also get that from our staff that from a professional planning perspective this does or doesn't fit. And then we have more general neighborhood eye. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't mind if we get that from staff, I just want to be careful. Every now and again you'll hear someone who tells us that they've applied for something and staff has strongly discouraged them from even attempting it. Now, while I want staff to apply common sense and tell these folks, you know, likelihood, this has never passed before and save somebody the bother, at the same time I don't want the decisions to be made or someone to feel like they never got a fair shake. And I don't think that's happening now, don't misunderstand me. But I just want to be real cut-and-dried. If staff wants to give those recommendations to us in that public hearing, I certainly appreciate that, but I don't want all that going on out of the public forum where other neighboring properties don't have a chance to participate, us as the ultimate decision-makers don't have a chance to participate. I don't know that that's the appropriate forum. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is a tough one, and it's really specific to planning. In engineering, well, water flows downhill. The question is how fast, how far and how much. So you can get more concrete answers and things in the engineering area than you do in planning, because so much of planning is subjective. What may be compatible to you and I may or may not be compatible to Mr. Nino or the petitioner, and that's why there's five of us up here, because it's a consensus of what is or isn't appropriate. My concern is one of two things: If -- and Barbara, you said it appropriately, I think. And that is if we're going to ask staff to begin rendering the opinions based on compatibility, whether it's land use or density, we need to put it in writing that that is part of their role and function as a planner, because what I don't want to see happen is for Ron or one of our staff planners to stand up there and say well, you know, I think a liquor store is compatible in this location, and somebody up here, you know, bat them around and bite their head off because they disagree with them. That's a difficult position to -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- put staff in. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Good point. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So if we're going to ask them to do that, we need to be cognizant of that and understand that the disagreements aren't personal. We're not going to beat them up. If we disagree, we disagree. I'm inclined really to come full circle and agree with Barbara, that we are the conduit of our constituents. And if our constituents are concerned about a particular type of use -- and we know our neighborhoods better than staff does, simply because those people, when they have a problem, don't pick up a phone and call staff, they call us. But those that do call staff, I greatly appreciate. But we have that finger on the pulse, so to speak. I don't think we can interject staff in there fully to accomplish that. So we either need to define their role or say that is ultimately ours and we'll deal with it. And whatever we do, let's do it quickly. MR. NINO: Well, I might say, I would hope that the vast overwhelming preponderance of the sunsetting PUD's that we've done have addressed contiguous land use relationships and have indicated whether there is a drastic incompat -- I mean, it's got to be a very noticeable incompatibility issue for us to step up to the plate and say it's not compatible. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Whereas you or I may have gotten a phone call from somebody who pointed something out to us that upon further review makes a lot of sense -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Maybe a nudist recreational use or something? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, don't need to go there. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, I think you need to go there. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So I guess at this point I'm not -- I'm not willing to formalize a policy that staff should look at those things, but I think it's fair to say when the board, through an individual decision or action sets a tone, if you will, for an area, that it's incumbent upon our staff to inform petitioners of that direction; not to discourage them, but to let them know what the current status and thinking of the board on an individual issue may be. I think we should ask them to do that, and that could probably avoid some surprises at the other end. MR. NINO: If I might comment. And believe me, we do that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I know you do. I get those phone calls, too. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Ms. Student? MS. STUDENT: Madam Chairman, Harjorie Student, assistant county attorney, for the record. I just want to remind the board that in our criteria that appears in the Land Development Code for fezones, a sunset PUD has to meet the criteria for fezone. Compatibility is already in there. So that's one of the things that staff looks at and one of the things the board, acting in its quasi judicial capacity, one of the criteria that you're charged to look at as well already in our land code. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's not fair. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I appreciate that. And I just wish that we would get more emphasis from staff on sound planning principles about what is compatible. And we can make the smell test judgment. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I think too that this is kind of one of those things we all think we know, you know. And what you think may be compatible and what I think is compatible, that's why we're up here to debate the issues sometimes. And I think staff has the general scope of what their job is all about in terms there are guidelines, and rather than get specific in saying you will do the following things, I would rather you have your general criteria that you look at land uses and go from there. And when you get down to some of these other issues, I firmly believe that it's the job of the Board of County Commissioners to make some of those decisions. That's just my -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It certainly is. And we've done that for a number of years now, perhaps even before you were on the board, Commissioner Mac'Kie. We asked the staff not to get into the subjective recommendations as we could see that that is the -- really the purview of the board. And if you'll note on our land use executive summaries now, there's a list of pros and cons without a specific comment as to which one we should take. And that was the direction when Commissioner Constantine and I were first on the board, we -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It was a good judge. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- set that out as policy and have followed that -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Back in the late Sixties. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: back in the late Sixties. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- ever since. Because really -- yeah, Back when you both were young. Yeah. Well, John wasn't young in the Sixties. I never was. But in any case, I think the principle is that really, Mr. Nino is right, subjective stuff should be left to the board and not to staff. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I could see the opportunity for abuse. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, sure. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Recalling back to what it was like before you guys made the changes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, absolutely. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a good point. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Referred to affectionately as the mad dog days. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: This was back in the -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: What type of direction would you like at this point in time, Mr. Nine? MR. NINO: I guess we'd like some comfort level from you that this executive summary, if adhered to, accomplishes the job of -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion to provide Mr. Nine with comfort. MR. NINO: -- getting the sunset PUD's. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I refuse to second that one, because of the epen-endedness. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: According to the executive summary, would that -- could we add that on to the motion? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll amend my motion to reflect that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll second that one. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Let the record reflect. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No speakers? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have any speakers on these items? MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We do have a motion and we have a second. Any further questions? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: God, no. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Do we have the information, Mr. Mihalic? MR. MIHALIC: Yes, we do. Continuation of Item #8A2 FUNDING FOR 1998 TOURISIM AGREEMENTS: GULF COAST RUNNERS NAPLES ON THE RUN - $3,500; NAPLES GIRLS BASKETBALL FOUNDATION TOURNAMENT - $5,000; NAPLES SAILING CENTER YOUTH SAILING REGATTA - $5,650; NORTH NAPLES LITTLE LEAGUE SPORTS FESTIVAL - $8,000 - APPROVED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Do I have a motion to untable 8 (A) (2) ? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries, five-zero. Item 8(A)(2), the funding for the groups previously mentioned. MR. HIHALIC: While that's being handed out, Commissioner Constantine asked about the impact of county impact for tourist development of each of these events. And in the applications on the Gulf Coast Runners, they are estimating 250 bed nights from that event. The Naples Girls' Basketball Foundation is estimating 1,200 out-of-county participants. The Naples Sailing Center is estimating 120 out-of-county participants, and the North Naples Little League is estimating 1,250 out-of-town participants. Commissioners, did you want me to describe each of the events a little more fully for you? All of these TDC applications were approved nine to zero in front of the Tourist Development Council and unanimously approved. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, you've answered my question. And what you haven't said, I've actually read here, so I -- MR. HIHALIC: Thank you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll move approval of -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: There's a motion on the floor, actually. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You can second it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's the motion on the floor? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: To approve. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Each of these four? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that motion. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. Do we have any speakers on this item? MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. I'll call the question. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. MR. HIHALIC: Thank you, commissioners. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Mr. Hihalic. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Greg, in the future, can we just have this with part of our staff report, these kind of summaries? This is very helpful. MR. HIHALIC: It would have been with it, commissioners. It was my fault, because I didn't have the agreements fully signed by the law department, and so it was pulled out because those weren't fully executed. And I apologize. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No problem. Item #8A4 DAVID WOODWORTH REQUESTING AN APPEAL OF DECLARATION OF PUBLIC NUISANCE - WEED ABATEMENT CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 71-027-05 - APPEAL DENIED Moving on to item 8(A)(4), code enforcement case number 71027-05. MS. ARNOLD: Good morning. For the record, Hichelle Arnold, code enforcement director. I'm here to present to you -- there's a request by the property owner, David Woodworth, to have his case, code enforcement number 71027-05 appealed. It's -- the case is the declaration of public nuisance, weed abatement. I believe you-all should have gotten color photographs with your packets. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We did. MS. ARNOLD: I've got two photographs that were taken of the subject property. One is from the rear of the property looking forward to the trees that line the street, and the other is just -- they're on the viewer. And the other photograph is showing the extent of the growth. Our codes currently prohibit the accumulation of weeds, grass and other similar nonprotected growth in excess of 18 inches. And as you can tell by the photographs, the weeds that have accumulated on the subject property are in excess of the 18-inch requirement. The executive summary identifies for you that the subject property was visited on March 12th of 1998, and it was at that time that we noticed that the weeds are in excess of 18 inches. We issued a notice of violation to the property owner and also sent a certified notice of violation to the property owner, which was received by the property owner and signed on March 31st. Another visit was made to the property on the 29th, and the violation still exists. That's -- our recommendation is that you would uphold the declaration of nuisance and weeds. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Does the petitioner wish to speak to this item? MR. WOODWORTH: I certainly do. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me ask Ms. Edwards (sic), what's the zoning on the property? MS. ARNOLD: It's residentially zoned. I'm not -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And Pine Street's located exactly where? MS. ARNOLD: Pine Street is west of Bayshore Drive, south -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: -- between Thomasson and 41. MR. WOODWORTH: This is an official of the area -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Can I get you to go on the mike? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You need to be on the mike, David. MR. WOODWORTH: My name is David Woodworth. I'm -- I started off life as a forester, so I guess I'm very protective of trees. And the site has over 30 trees on it. Now, some of them are small. And if you decide that a bush hog is going to have to go in there, more than half of them will be gone. And my site is not much different than many other sites in the area. And -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hay I just ask you a question? This exhibit you've given us has -- it shows photographs of a lot of different lots? MR. WOODWORTH: Those -- that's an area of two or three blocks around my particular lot. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: None of those is your particular lot? MR. WOODWORTH: Yes, one of them is. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. MR. WOODWORTH: But it's not -- the only thing different about my piece of property there, it has no litter on it, and all the exotics have been removed. Now, on the other pictures that you see there, there are exotics and there's litter. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to see it again when it comes back down. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good, we'll cite them. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Woodworth, I mean, in my mind is -- up here, sir. Sir? Up front -- is equivalent to saying but officer, all the cars were going 90 miles an hour. I mean -- MR. WOODWORTH: No, not that -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If I may finish my comment. If you violate the law, it doesn't matter if other people are violating the law. That's doesn't make it okay. So if you have an explanation as to how you don't believe this is violating the law, I'd love to hear that. But suggesting that because other people are violating it too yours is okay isn't a very good defense to me. MR. WOODWORTH: Well, all right. My point is that there are trees. Now, you go to great lengths to say that when a property is developed -- when a home is built on it, it has to be landscaped and there has to be trees on this property. Now, I have a vacant lot with no house on it at the moment, and you want me to get rid of a bunch of trees. And I -- it's bad for the environment, it's bad for Naples. I mean, having a few extra trees is good for Naples. And I think you should distinguish between weeds and trees. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Hancock? MR. WOODWORTH: You know, if it's over 18 inches and it's a tree, I think it should be left. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is this one yours, sir? MR. WOODWORTH: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The bottom line is, I'm looking at either you have 8,000 24-inch trees on your lot, or you've got a bunch of weeds with some trees that have -- MR. WOODWORTH: Five -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sir, let me finish. MR. WOODWORTH: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What you are saying is that you have to get a bush hog in there now because it's in such condition that you can't simply mow it. If you had mowed this at regular intervals, your trees would be fine. If you had mowed it around trees that were starting, they would be allowed to grow. But there's 24 inches of growth covering this lot. And while -- you know, you want to protect the trees? The best way to do that is to properly maintain it so the trees can thrive. You've got 24 inches of growth covering this whole thing. Now, what about your neighbors that have to deal with the rat infestation that's going to occur if this thing grows out of control? Yeah, I know, you're going to guarantee me no rats will ever live on your property. MR. WOODWORTH: I know where the rats live, because I live in the area. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So you've got a survey of all the rats in your neighborhood? MR. WOODWORTH: I know where they are. They're over by Gulf Gate Shopping Center and they're out down by Haldeman Creek. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If your concern is not to eliminate trees, then you simply need to maintain your property at regular intervals like everybody else does, or should. And we appreciate the exhibit, because we're now going to go out and cite those individuals that you brought it to our attention because -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Some of these are pretty good. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- if they're in violation -- MR. WOODWORTH: Well, you can see the Brazilian pepper in almost all of them. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If they're in violation, they too must be brought into compliance. And we thank you for bringing that to our attention. But that doesn't change the condition on your lot, sir. There's a rule that says you cannot have weeds and grass and whatnot exceeding 18 inches on your site. Are you telling me that you do not? MR. WOODWORTH: I'm saying that if -- you know, the trees are -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's a yes or no. MR. WOODWORTH: -- so close together that it's impossible -- the only way to be able to leave the trees would be with a brush cutter. And that's just too expensive. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Have you done anything on your property in the last couple months? MR. WOODWORTH: Oh, I removed all the exotics, including an 80-foot Australian pine, sir. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Which you were required to do. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. MR. WOODWORTH: I did it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sir, you've just -- you've got to keep the weed growth down, one way or another. And we can't let it grow out -- MR. WOODWORTH: Those are vines. Those are not weeds. Okay, that -- part of the problem is that you don't define what a weed is. As far as I'm concerned, vines and trees are not weeds. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sir, you can have Kentucky bluegrass, but you can't grow it higher than 18 inches. You can have whatever you want, but you can't just let it grow hog wild. MR. WOODWORTH: What about the trees? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What about what trees? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Don't cut them down. MR. WOODWORTH: All the trees that are there. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Please don't cut them down. MR. WOODWORTH: It's impossible. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's expensive. MR. WOODWORTH: No, it's -- it's -- well, I'm not -- let's say I'm not going to spend the amount of manpower to trim around this, because for one thing, you will want to do this again. And to me, you should designate certain lots wooded lots and other lots not wooded, and depending on how much ground cover there is. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You know what, sir? We have done that, and yours is a not wooded lot. MR. WOODWORTH: You have already done this? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. You're in a fully developed area. MR. WOODWORTH: It's still a wooded lot. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You're right off of highway 41, almost downtown. MR. WOODWORTH: I can show you other wooded lots. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We've been through that part of the discussion, I believe. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: You just can't do what you want to do, sir. You've got to comply with the code. And the code makes sense. It's so that your neighbors don't have to look across the street at 18 inches of whatever. MR. WOODWORTH: Do you know who my neighbor is? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't know who your neighbor is, and that's not the issue. The issue is, sir, there is a code that says that you can't let it grow beyond 18 inches, and you've allowed it to do that. That is an action of your own doing. You had the opportunity to go in there when it was six inches and save whatever trees you wanted to save and just mow the silly thing. It's not rocket science. When it gets this high, you go in and mow it. I do it every week in my yard, and I save the trees. I go around them. And you could do the same thing on your lot. MR. WOODWORTH: This is a vacant property. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: You can do the same thing on your lot, but you've chosen not to. That's caused us to send code enforcement out there and the taxpayer to bear the cost of code enforcement coming out there and enforcing the code because you refused to do it yourself. You know the law, you have to comply with it. MR. WOODWORTH: I've spent a lot of time on that lot. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, obviously you need to spend more of it on a mower. But there's -- I just don't see any compelling reason here to let you continue to allow this lot to be overgrown to the unsightly appearance that your neighbors have to deal with, period. MR. WOODWORTH: As far as I can tell, there's no neighbor that ever made a -- you know, there's no neighbor complaint. MS. ARNOLD: This was originated from a complaint. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It was originated from a complaint? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is this a public hearing, or can I make a motion? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have any other speakers on this item? MR. FERNANDEZ: No other speakers, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve staff recommendation. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second to approve staff recommendation. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That recommendation is declaration of public nuisance? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, sir. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do you have any questions? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, not at all. I just wanted to clarify. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, okay, all right. If there's no further questions, I'll call for the question. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. MS. ARNOLD: Thank you. Item #SB1 CORRIDOR STUDY FOR THE EXTENSION OF SANTA BARBARA BLVD. SOUTH BETWEEN DAVIS BLVD. AND RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD (PROJECT NO. 60091) CIE NO. 32 - CONTINUED TO JUNE 9, 1998 CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Next item, item 8(B)(1), corridor study for the extension of Santa Barbara Boulevard south between Davis Boulevard and Rattlesnake-Hammock Road. Mr. Ilschner. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: While our staff is coming forward, I just want everybody on the board to think about one thing, and that is, does anybody think it's a good idea to take four lanes of arterial traffic and pour it into a two-lane neighborhood collector -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, and -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- in a neighborhood that has been long established and is essentially built out? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. And if my recollection serves me correctly, we -- the board as a whole already gave direction not to even consider that option. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And here we are today considering it as our prime option. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So perhaps we can not waste time doing one if the board has given specific direction not to, and look at what the other options are. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But as Sheriff Rogers is going to tell us, there are considerations in the alternative to it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Mr. Wiley? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just before we go on, maybe Mr. Fernandez can help me here. We gave direction and have had some specific recommendations on this thing that had it lining up with what will be a future road through Lely and leading down to 951, or as an alternative, actually L-ing out to 951 on its own. Those were the specific recommendations that this board gave the go-ahead to explore. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: When was that? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: A couple of years ago anyway. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: From maybe '94, '95. I mean, this is not new news. And we specifically said it made no sense to hook it up to Santa Barbara where you had -- or to St. Andrews where you had houses 30 feet off the road. And so if we've expended time and money and effort exploring something the board specifically asked not to, then there's more than just this issue at hand. I'm wondering why we're wasting everybody's time and money doing something the governing body has specifically required -- or requested not to do. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Can I just say something here? This is a new item, as far as I am concerned. I wasn't here when this other discussion took place. It was my understanding from what I read here that this was a new approach. Did I misread that or -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, option number one is not a new approach. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But I don't have any backup information in my packet, so I don't know -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Where do you see option number one? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's it, I don't have that, John, and that's the reason when -- what you're talking about. I don't -- I'm not sure what you're talking about. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I need a map. COHHISSIONER NORRIS: I'm sorry, I've seen this presentation before. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, okay, all right. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And just to add to that, this was a very frustrating agenda item to get that looked like there's a whole lot of information of which I have none. Because I haven't already seen what you're going to show us today. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't -- and I don't have it either, so I don't really know at this point -- maybe the rest of you are all familiar with it. I don't happen to have the information. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're going to have to proceed with it, because I don't have the foggiest idea of what's being proposed here today. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't either. I don't know either. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I will say in the future -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Give us a map. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- whether it's a power point presentation or not, if there's no backup in this item, I'm going to table it until there's backup. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's just -- I'm driving blind here. I know you're going to give us a presentation, but what's the sense of my getting an agenda on Thursday if it doesn't do me any good? MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: Why don't we just do that? Why don't we table this item until the -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd love to do that. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- until we're able to give you the backup you're asking for and consider the comments that you've made here today and bring it back to you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: This is it. I'm really at a loss, too. And that's the reason I'm ready to hear whatever it is you have. But I really would appreciate the backup information. And then if you want to give your presentation, I really would appreciate that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So it wouldn't be a first blush. So I support that continuance. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And perhaps as part of the summary, you can tell me how much we expended on something that the board gave direction not to do. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to move to table for one week. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second to table for one week. All in favor? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Continue. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Continue. I apologize. That was a motion to continue. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Continue. I'm sorry. I agree. I should have caught it. I believe it was five-zero. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It was. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. We'll see you in a week. Item #SD1 FOOD AND BEVERAGE CONCESSION CONTRACT AT THE MAIN GOVERNMENT COMPLEX - AWARDED TO CANDITO MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.; AND STATE OF FLORIDA, DIVISION OF BLIND SERVICES AGREEMENT TERMINATED Moving on then to item 8(D), having to do -- I believe that was pulled off the consent agenda, Commissioner? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I had pulled this item off. This is the concession agreement. While everyone's I'm sure enthusiastic about having Subway, and while my waistline probably doesn't need Dunkin' Donuts downstairs, the one thing I wanted to make sure of, Steve, as you-all know, has worked down there for 10 or 12 years, has done a fine job. I wanted to make sure that he was being taken care of as part of this process. And while we had been given verbal assurances, I don't know if there was anything in writing a couple of weeks ago to that. And Skip, I wanted to make sure we took care of that before we approve the item. MR. CAMP: Yes, sir, we have it in writing from the proposal. For the record, Skip Camp. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What specifically do we have in writing? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. CAMP: That the contractor will incorporate him -- if he wants to, incorporate him into his operation, train him and provide him with all the necessary equipment. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I specifically asked Steve if he was okay with that, and he had no comment one way or the other on it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, you know, I was very hesitant. I hate to change what's there because it was sort of the right thing to do. But I'm willing to go along with the change in modernization, but only if we're protecting Steve. MR. CAMP: We also have recommendations from the area -- or the regional manager that says that if he didn't want to do this, there were other options, including increasing his vending operation. But the concessionaire has agreed to incorporate him into the operation, supply him with any appropriate training and equipment. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And you'll report back to us if that doesn't happen? MR. CAMP: Absolutely. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And with the written agreement, I'm more comfortable. My real concern a couple weeks ago was it was a warm, fluffy verbal assurance, which was fine, but I didn't want to end up two months down the road or three months down the road having a surprise to us. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Right. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you, Skip. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Give it a whack. Motion to approve then? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I'll move approval. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, motion and a -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know if you have any speakers. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have any speakers on the item? MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you, Skip. Item #8El COUNTY ADHINISTRATOR'S REORGANIZATION PLAN - APPROVED; COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO PROVIDE RATIO OF PROJECTS DONE IN HOUSE VERSUS THOSE PROJECTS DONE VIA OUTSIDE CONTRACTS CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Hoving on to the next item, 8(E)(1), county administrator's reorganization plan. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, this item was previously presented to the board. The board asked that we come back after we have fully assessed the economic impact of the proposal. I'll be glad to go over the details of the plan, if you wish to hear it again. We have given you the financial impact. The first is the addition of a staff complement for the division administrator for emergency services totaling 126,000, including the operating expenses for that office. There's a savings projected in the area of parks and recreation expenses for OCPH when considering the cost of the actual staff that will be conducting those services within parks and recreation, compared against the historical charge of OCPH. The savings there is $160,000. And the area facilities management, again the comparison of the direct cost against the historical charges. The savings there is 399,300, for a total decrease in general fund cost of $261,300. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Question. You and I had talked a little bit about this, and there were some charges that -- and I may be mischaracterizing this, so correct me if I am -- but that appeared to be either overcharges or just mischarged off to OCPH; a larger number than what might be -- might otherwise have had. My question is, if we were not making any of these changes but there was the item you had apparently caught where some of the money is being transferred between various departments might have not been exactly a number you were comfortable with, would we see a decrease in the general fund? If we caught that item you caught but didn't make any of these charges -- changes. MR. FERNANDEZ: That's difficult to say. I think if we took -- if we looked at arranging the resources of OCPH differently, there is the potential that there would be additional savings. I don't know that we would have done that without this consideration of reorganization. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The only comment I have to make, I just had a terrible time following this. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. What I'm trying to say is that in the areas of facilities management and parks and recreation, over the years they were charged a certain fee for services provided by OCPH. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, and that's -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay? Now, that's going to discontinue, and in place of that, the staff people -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Are going to be in those areas. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- to conduct that work will physically move from OCPH to those departments and they will be paid by those departments. The difference between what they were charged in the past by OCPM and what they will pay for those employees is the savings that we're going to have. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, so what -- yeah, I -- like the facilities management -- this is on the second page -- where you had 399,300 for the construction management fees. If you separate out then the decrease to the -- no, I'm sorry, if you separate out the three people up above -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Right. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- that's where your savings is realized then? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just by moving them. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The 261,300 -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Two sixty-one. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- by making that move. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just by moving them. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does that mean the departments will no longer work in concert with OCPM and there will be no charges from OCPM anymore? MR. FERNANDEZ: There will be no charges from OCPM. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And they won't be working with them anymore? MR. FERNANDEZ: I would assume that if there's a need for some coordination between something that OCPM is involved in and the project staff, there would be communication, but there's no formal linkage. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: What's left in OCPM after we've done this? MR. FERNANDEZ: What's left in OCPM is project management and engineering for all the public works division projects. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Which would be how many people? What are you looking at? What's left? MR. FERNANDEZ: I don't know that number. MR. ILSCHNER: Thirty-five people left. MR. FERNANDEZ: Thirty-five people. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Janet Vasey knew the answer. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Barb? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This isn't really a surprise to me. OCPM is not a new animal. Lee County had one and dissolved it and took it back into its sections. The intent of OCPM when it was formed was -- it was a good idea. There are some things that are rudimentary and that are repeated over and over and over that to contract out to consultants to do instead of doing in-house doesn't make any sense. Whether it be sidewalk construction or the laying of a water main in a simple -- you know, there are tasks that are base design that are not that difficult that we could be doing and saving money. OCPM kind of evolved into a different animal from that starting point to where they are involved in every single thing. And we are actually bidding out as much, if not more work now than we were. And OCPM has become kind of a project management team as opposed to actually physically doing the work to save us money. We -- remember, under Neil, we saw a savings showing up all over the place? But if you look at the consulting side and what we're paying consultants, I think you'll find those savings weren't there, if you combine the two expenditures. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And if Mr. Fernandez could provide -- I don't need it right now as part of this hearing, but just for my edification outside of this forum -- provide those numbers for me? Because my recollection in '92 was that the county had roughly 12 percent of all projects being done in-house. Once OCPH was up and running fully, that was 40 or 45 percent. And that was about -- those numbers are from about the time Mr. Conrecode left, so they're a year and a half, two years old. But it was a dramatic increase in the amount of projects that were done in-house. I'd be interested to see if those -- if the financial benefit of that didn't accrue along the way, I'd just love to see those numbers. I don't need to see it now, I don't need to -- but I would like to see that for my own -- MR. FERNANDEZ: That's the comparison of the projects done in-house versus contracted prior to and after the -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did we save money by doing three times as much in-house? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd love to know that, too. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, one key to that, and you may not have apples to apples, is that a design firm that does sewer -- you know, does force mains, like -- you know, like it's spitting out Hershey's Kisses, you know, like it's just a factory, just chomping out things can do 'em -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Like Hershey's Kisses. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The Hershey's -- well, earlier I saw Commissioner Hac'Kie give a Hershey Kiss to Chris, so that was on my mind. I wonder if you have any more down there. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have one right here. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But our staff, for the most part -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Hac'Kie gave -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON BERRY: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let the media reflect that Commissioner Threw a Kiss. -- Commissioner Hancock -- Threw a Kiss. -- a Kiss. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A Kiss. I want it reported on a gift disclosure form, too. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you for completely losing my train of thought. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sorry. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, a -- some firms (sic) like sidewalks, for example, you know, you can just crank those things out with typicals; it's not that big a deal. But some design firms have experience in doing permitting and current technology on certain projects. Our in-house people spend a lot more time in the review phase than they have in the design phase. And there's some efficiency lost when you go from someone who's predominantly a reviewer to trying to do design. And I think what you'll find is some of the projects that we did in-house, if you tally up all the hours we spent on it and look at whether there was an efficiency there versus a similar project that was bid out, I think you're going to see that we didn't really save all that much money, if we saved anything at all. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chair? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If that last point is the case, however, then -- and we had staff spending a great deal of time on those things and they no longer will if we go back out, we ought to see an accompanying lessening in staff. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, this doesn't change that. This doesn't propose to change the ratio of projects contracted versus projects done in-house. What this changes is the reporting responsibilities of the staff in-house that are doing the work. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Understood. But I -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay? That's all it does. It does not change the ratio of how many projects we're going to be contracting out compared to what we've been doing historically. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So instead of Parks and Recreation going to OCPH for a project, they're basically now going to be capable -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Right. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- of handling that within their own department. MR. FERNANDEZ: The same capabilities that we formerly had in-house under OCPH will now be available within that department. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Duplicated five different times. MR. FERNANDEZ: Pardon? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Duplicated five different times. MR. FERNANDEZ: Duplicated within the department? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, just within multiple departments. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, you didn't have the same guy at OCPH CHAIRPERSON BERRY: He's not doing -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- reviewing roadway projects as park projects, because the level of expertise necessary to be -- you know, be the project plan reviewer or an engineering review on a roadway project is different than Parks and Rec. It requires a different level of expertise. So we had that division already within OCPH. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Entirely different subject. I support the OCPH changes and question whether or not we need to have a new division administration for emergency services. My question is basically what new benefit to the community will there be as a result of this new upper management position? MR. FERNANDEZ: That is proposed in order to respond to the commission's directive that we separate the disciplines of emergency medical services from fire. Those two will be departments under this division, under a new division head. The same department head will not be supervising both of those functions. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We have just those two tiny little fire departments, though, so it seems like a lot of government for two small fire department functions. MR. FERNANDEZ: It also includes emergency management. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Campano (phonetic) and those guys. MR. FERNANDEZ: Campano and his staff. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many employees? MR. FERNANDEZ: Emergency management? I think we have three. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So the total number of employees managed by this division manager would be EHS, the two fire departments and the three -- and EHS is going to continue to be managed by -- it just seems like an unnecessary duplication to me. I'm hesitant to support that piece. MR. FERNANDEZ: I understand. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Where I found some comfort in that is I rode with Steve Rockey, who's one of the battalion commanders for EHS. And if you look at the work that the battalion commanders are having to do because Diane was in several different places, the need for additional battalion commanders seemed to be present. I don't think we're going to see a request for additional battalion commanders because Diane will be more or less full-time EHS and not dividing her time among other things. So there may be an offset there. I don't think we're going to see a reduction of battalion commanders, but maybe a reduced expansion in the future. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: More efficient use of the battalion commanders that you've got. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, get 'em -- instead of him out there doing paperwork, he can be restocking the meds supplies and whatnot. And I just -- I see some -- I'm still a little hesitant, like you, because it's a small division, but I think it's something that it's worth giving it a try to resolve some of the issues that have been divisive and problematic, to see if we can't get through those. I don't want to steal Janet Vasey's thunder, but we had a discussion last night about -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But you're gonna. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. Just -- I know she'll mention it, and far more eloquently than I. We had a discussion about what role the assistant county manager -- what increased role they might have in this scenario instead of a new division administrator. So again, it's something I don't know if you considered. In other words, is there enough there for a division administrator; if not, could the assistant county manager assume that role until the division grows to a point that a division administrator is required? Or is the assistant county manager far too, you know, gone and busy to -- to assume that role? It was a neat concept that Janet brought up that I thought really had some merit and was worthy of consideration. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I just say -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chair? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- something that I'm confused about, that I'm surprised that you and I would disagree on this one, John? Because I -- I see that the message we might be sending to the fire districts is we are so interested in getting in the fire business that we're creating a division, that we're expanding, we're getting larger. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No, we've already got those two little dependent districts and we've had them for some time. We shouldn't have them, but we do, and we need to -- we need to -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: To manage them separately? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Right. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't know, it confuses me -- it concerns me that it looks like we're trying to stretch out into the fire business more. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No, no. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: They're clearly not -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- I believe you had a comment. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, I was going to respond to Commissioners Hancock's comment about the role of the assistant county administrator. The other parts of this reorganization proposal seek to remove some of those direct reporting responsibilities that we currently have with the assistant county administrator to free him up to do the other things that he's assigned to do. That's franchise administration and utility regulation that were previously reporting -- or do now report directly to the assistant. Also, we have the office of public information that answers directly to my office, trying to align all of those within one of the divisions that we're creating. So we're trying to have some organizational consistency there. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The only thing I wanted to ask is on the Pelican Bay services division being placed under public works, which to me makes sense, because most of their budget are things that we deal with on a separate scale, and I think Ed would have a good review hand in that. But this board in the past has -- when the Pelican Bay HSTBU comes forward and says we want to tax ourselves to do "X", rarely does this board take issue with that. MR. FERNANDEZ: I understand that. This is primarily for communication and coordination purposes so that there is some interaction going on. We had a great iljustration of the utility of this during our budget discussion, where I invited Mr. Ilschner to sit in on that discussion, and we found out that there was some -- some work being proposed by the district that would have conflicted with proposed work in public works, had they not been aware of each other's plans. In other words, we'd be tearing up a road twice or tearing up an area twice. And we discovered that because we brought them together at the table and kind of forced the communication. That's really all we're looking for here. We're not changing reporting responsibilities in any formal sense, it's just that Mr. Ward's feedback will be I think more current, more constant through Mr. Ilschner than the infrequent opportunities we have directly with -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: He was somewhat disenfranchised by reporting directly to the county manager in the past. There was almost no communication or involvement there. So we are not increasing our hand in the business of the HSTU in any way, shape or form here, but giving an additional review level that may help them through some public works issues. MR. FERNANDEZ: That's our intent. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have any public speakers on this item? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, we do, Madam Chairman. First one is Janet Vasey and the second is Eric Watler. MS. VASEY: Janet Vasey, for the record. Good afternoon. I've -- I wanted to start off by telling you that we looked at a couple of these things. We're in the budget review mode right now. We've spent the last month with your county administrator looking at budget things. So when this item came up, we took a look at it just to see what we thought. And one of the first things we discovered is perhaps in looking at the savings, it's an apples to oranges kind of comparison to look at the historical versus what a person would be paid now in another organization. It might be better to look at what you would pay for these services today in OCPH and compare those to moving these people into another organization to get your savings, rather than going back to a historical context. As far as the reorganization goes, we recognized that they were moving around spaces and taking some things that directly reported to the county administrator's office and moving them under the different administrators and thought that was probably a good idea. The changes between OCPH and the other organizations were probably a good idea, tOO. The one thing that did seem kind of questionable in our minds was the new administrator position, simply because right now, if you look at an organization chart, you've got the emergency management office that has three people in it, as you were just told. Emergency medical services has about 121 people; helicopter operations, which is four; and then Isle of Capri Fire is two; and Ochopee Fire is 11. So those -- the emergency medical services and the helicopter operations, I assume, would probably still stay together. So you've got a small emergency management under Ken Pineau that is pretty autonomous, I would suspect, you've got the emergency medical services, and then you've got these two little fire districts. They probably have had a good bit of activity lately, but I don't know that that will always be the situation. When you look at what these gentlemen do as administrators, they have a much wider span of control, are involved in much interrelating with a variety of other people on high dollar value items. Breaking this down and putting an administrator and secretary position into the network at $126,000 just sort of seemed like overkill. That's why in brainstorming we talked about the possibility, since some functions were not reporting directly to the county administrator anymore, maybe this would leave a little room to have the other emergency ones report to the deputy county administrator, who will probably kill me for this. But it just seemed like there might be a little opening there to save a little money. If there was an expanded need, if there was a lot of workload associated with it, then perhaps in the future it would be necessary. But it's not -- this other administrator would not be doing anywhere near the kind of -- it doesn't seem like they would be doing anywhere near the kind of work that these other gentlemen are doing, so it didn't seem like it was necessary at this point. And so as a cost savings issue, that's why we brought it up. And maybe that's not the right alternative, but I would suggest maybe there are other alternatives that would be more cost efficient. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: I understand I misspoke on my comment about the charges of OCPM. Those are not historic charges that they were compared against, but rather the -- what the charges would be in the current budget. In fact, the budget that we are considering now is structured in that way, just not assumed this reorganization would be approved. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Comment? MS. VASEY: I did go back and look at the current -- the 97-98 budget revenues for OCPM to see what they were currently doing this year. And for parks and rec., it's a hundred thousand dollar reimbursement, and for facilities management this year it wasn't anything. Unless those items show up somewhere else, it wasn't on the line that's called reimbursement from facility management. So in the future, I don't know. I didn't really look at the current budget that's being under -- that's under consideration to see how much money was going into those areas, so that could very well be. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Eric Watler. MR. WATLER: Eric Watler. Like always, she said it almost all already. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Eric, you've got to start going first sometimes, you know? MR. WATLER: I tried that, but she's a little bigger than I am, so -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Taller, Eric. MR. WATLER: Excuse me, taller. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: A lot taller. MR. WATLER: Semantics. To add this other public safety divisional manager, if that's the correct title, into this organization seemed, as was said, an overkill. I just wonder what that person would do. I think he would have to look around -- he or she would have to look around to say gee, what should I do today, because I've got -- I'm back doing this and there's no fires today and what should I be doing? You say, well, growth will probably generate sufficient activity to keep them busy. But I was very impressed with what Dr. Tober had to say in that workshop a couple of weeks ago. What he said, his problem was he couldn't handle all the training requirements, and his problem was keeping people certified because there wasn't enough problems for them to handle, I think was the point that he made, and he made it very eloquently and very strongly. And so I have to wonder whether we should really look at this on a longer term basis to see what really is the EHS requirement in manpower and therefore management over, say, a five-year period. Maybe we got all we need right now, based on a lot of what Dr. Tober said. So I would recommend that some further study be made of the requirement for EHS growth, because it is specific -- if not almost all EHS over a five-year term, as opposing (sic) to putting a management type in there and waiting perhaps for the thing to grow around him. They seem to be putting it the wrong way around. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. Any further comments from the board? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like to -- this isn't popular from a policy standpoint, but I think if we looked at EHS in particular, there are currently some extenuating circumstances there that we need to take into consideration. And we may be able to solve a good set of problems and address those circumstances in today's action. I share the concerns that Eric and Janet have brought forward, and I want to thank GNCA obviously for your budget work. It's always appreciated. I'm not entirely comfortable, but I am willing, based on the in essence revenue neutral approach that Mr. Fernandez has taken to this, to give it a shot and to find out if it is the way to go, based on his recommendation. And if we find that it's not, then we can deal with it. But at this point I think there are enough conditions that warrant some position there. And that's simply what I have to go with today. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not going to support it because I don't think there's a necessity for another administration level individual. And I understand there are some unique circumstances right now, but that doesn't warrant putting a $126,000 line item in the budget. But I don't want this to be mistaken as not supporting Mr. Fernandez. I think he's done a fine job for the past year as our county administrator. And while I may differ in my approach to this particular thing, I don't want that misread to be not supporting you or the effort you're putting forth. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I'm not going to support it because I don't want to add the division. I, as I said before, would strongly support the changes in OCPH. And I know that Bob already knows that I think he's just the best thing since sliced bread, so it doesn't have anything to do with that. I just don't think we have the justification for another division. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: As someone who's been down in the emergency operation center and worked in there, knows what the Red Cross does during tropical storms and hurricanes, there's a coordination element here for disasters that currently falls to Ken Pineau and Ken Pineau alone. And we're probably looking at potential expansion of his department, an additional position in there. So I'm adding all this up and looking at the coordination element required in some of those disasters, and I don't expect to sway anybody, because I understand the logic of at least the two that have spoken that they're not going to support this. But I think when I've put it all together, having a single point of coordination for those services that in the event of a -- not even a hurricane but a small disaster, are going to have to work well together and coordinate together. That's additional justification for me. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just wouldn't want that person to be anybody other than Ken in a disaster. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He either. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, that person will be required to listen to Ken. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Are you making a motion? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to move that we approve the recommendation from our county administrator regarding the reorganization. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. If there's no further discussion, I'll call for the question. All in favor? Aye. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Opposed? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Aye. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries three-two. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Headline, Fernandez support shaky. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It was said, and I have to mention it, Bob, we may have to get a larger table, because there's -- we're going to need five chairs added now. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yeah, that's right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Four of you are going to have to share. MR. FERNANDEZ: You didn't have to say that. Item #9A SETTLEMENT OF THE CASE OF COLLIER COUNTY V. BETTYE J. MATTHEWS, CASE NO. 98-224-CC - APPROVED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, moving on then to item 9(A); has to do with a settlement of Collier County versus Betty J. Matthews, case number 98-224-CC. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: To phrase our great national -- our great county embarrassment, we could be over. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You shouldn't say such things about other commissioners. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: This is an embarrassment. MR. PIVACEK: Afternoon, board, Larry Pivacek for the county attorney's office, assistant county attorney. This is my item. You've all seen my executive summary. Basically what the county attorney's office is requesting of the board and myself as the lead counsel in the prosecution of this case is for authority to settle the case for $1,600. To reiterate some of the things that's in my executive summary, the value or the amount of money in controversy in this case is $2,500, 2,000 of which is being requested by the county of the defendant, and there's a $500 -- $540 counter-complaint against the county. The primary thing that we always have to understand in litigation, and as my client, I need to make you aware of this again, is time and cost. If we go forward in this case, there's going to be a cost to it, there's going to be a time element to it. I feel fairly confident that I could settle the case for $1,600, if given the authority of the board, and that's what I'm asking for right now, taking into consideration the time and cost elements in this case. And, of course, I'm available to answer any questions you have. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Obviously if we could settle this, and it's a difference of $400, and as you say, the time cost, makes sense. I'll tell you what bothers me, though, and as I look at the counter suit, two out of the five Leadership Florida meetings were held during the time that Commissioner Matthews asserts she was still serving the public. What really burns me on this thing is that those meetings for September and November, during September through November Commissioner Matthews didn't come to any of our budget hearings, didn't come to any of our land use hearings, and didn't come to some of our Board of Commissioner hearings, so -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And had already lost the election. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand she lost the election, but to claim you are still serving the public, and her term was through mid November of that year and certainly should have been serving the public. But it just burns me to say I'm going to sue the county for this extra 500 bucks and expenses because I was still serving the public, and yet didn't show up for almost all of the meetings after losing that election. And so while her term certainly went through there, it's unfortunate that it unfolded that way. And as Commissioner Hac'Kie opened this with, this is an embarrassment to everybody. It just should not have unfolded this way. But I'll go ahead and make a motion that we give our staff at the county attorney's office the okay to go ahead and settle. It doesn't make any sense to drag this out any longer, if we can settle out for 1,600 bucks, we ought to. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm going to second it. And I'm just going to add a personal plea that former Commissioner Matthews would still do the right thing and make the county whole on this. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I have to add a comment here, because it just happened recently, but Ms. Matthews stood before us on an ethics issue, a very strong proponent of ethics. And this to me is a clear-cut case of ethics. This is taxpayer money. And I think this is a big concern certainly to me as a commissioner, and as a taxpayer in Collier County. And I'm just very disappointed that a person who would stand before us speaking so strongly about ethics would then turn around and have this particular type of suit before the Collier County Commission and the taxpayers of Collier County. And I think it's a sad, sad statement. At any rate, we have a motion and a second. I'll call for the question to settle this case. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Thank you, Larry. Item #10A RESOLUTION 98-177, APPOINTING MATT CROWDER TO THE ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE DISTRICT ADVISORY COHMITTEE - ADOPTED Next item under 10(A) is the appointment of member to the Isles of Capri Fire Dis -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- trict advisory committee. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- there's one opening and -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- one applicant. I'll make a motion we approve that applicant, Matt Crowder. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to approve Matt Crowder to the Isle of Capri fire district advisory committee. Any speakers? I'm sure not. MR. FERNANDEZ: No, no speakers. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Item #10B DISCUSSION RE ANIMAL CONTROL AND PIT BULLS - STAFF TO REVIEW AND PROVIDE A REPORT WITH REGARD TO DANGEROUS ANIMALS/SEVERITY OF ATTACKS Next item, 10(B), Commissioner Hancock, I believe you added this on to the agenda regarding an incident? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll try and make this quick. I didn't want to waste staff's time if there was a board consensus on this -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I interrupt just for a second? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've got to say today, earlier today, we cut the population of future Collier County by about 100,000 people, and now we're going to talk about dogs and all the cameras start rolling. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, yeah, when I was over by the door after the break, I had three interviews on the pit bull situation and, "Oh, by the way, about that growth thing you just did." COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, by the way. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's amazing. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The priority. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Driving in this morning, I heard on the radio a report that an 85-year-old woman in -- I believe in the Estates, in going to get her morning paper was attacked by three pit bulls. This isn't an isolated incident. It's not something that happens all that frequently, but when we hear about vicious attacks, more times than not, it's a breed of pit bull or a mixed breed involving pit bull. And my concern is that if we don't have laws and ordinances that in effect protect the public from the owners of these types of dogs that have a tendency, when not trained properly, to be harmful, to be vicious, then we need to -- we need to act on that. The problem is what we have is that we have a statute on attack or bite by dangerous dog. My concern is that we require you to keep your animal on a leash when you have them out, to have tags on them and whatnot. The difference is for an animal control officer picking up a Cocker Spaniel that's running wild or an animal control officer picking up a pit bull that's running wild, the danger to the public I think is different in those two cases. So what I wanted to ask is if the board as a whole, or a majority of the board, wish to ask Animal Control to look at increasing the penalty or fine for owners of pit bull or pit bull mixed breeds that are found without restraint, not on a leash or not fenced in, recognizing the particular nuances of that breed, I would just like to see us raise the bar a little bit for pit bull owners to say that if you're going to own the dog, you need to treat it responsibly, much like you would anything else that could potentially harm the public. I think we have to recognize that breed of dog as being one that will do that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I appreciate where you're trying to go with this. My worry is that we get on a slippery slope of having what are the top 10 lists of biting dogs and do we have a sliding scale, okay, a German shepherd is more likely to bite than a poodle. You understand what I'm saying? It's -- obviously pit bull has been a problem here. We've had a few incidents. That's not news, not surprising to anybody. And I think your point is well taken, they are more likely than most breeds. But how do we define which breeds are dangerous and which breeds are not dangerous, and are there different levels for all of those, or how do we single out one single breed? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think much like a lot of our laws and ordinances, we're not going to cover everything, but we can cover the most extreme of circumstances. And when you go throughout the State of Florida, throughout the U.S. -- I think even Britain looked at outlawing pit bulls as a breed allowed in the country. It's not that I have something against pit bulls. If the dogs are trained properly and appropriately, they're as safe as any animal. But the problem is that a pit bull on the loose, particularly if there's more than one, has a certain viciousness to the attack when it occurs that exceeds that of almost any other canine, and that's my concern, is there is -- there should be an increased responsibility on the owner of an animal that has that potential. And I think the pit bulls clearly demonstrated it, as happened yesterday. I'm trying not to be knee-jerked to what happened yesterday, because this -- if the dogs are running loose, no law in the book is going to stop them from attacking somebody. But I think if you own that animal, you need to know that the responsibility is greater. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry, I got tickled because it sounded just like the ethics ordinances debate. If the dogs are running loose, no amount of regulation -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Either the dog has ethics or it doesn't. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sorry. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So if there's not the interest to ask Animal Control to look at that, I'm certainly not trying to paint anyone as not caring, because I know we're all concerned about the woman that was involved. But it is a public safety issue to me and one that I think we've heard enough about pit bull attacks that we ought to consider addressing it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What if we ask them for a recommendation? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I was -- exactly, Commissioner Hac'Kie. I was just thinking in terms of what if we went to animal control and had Ms. Hotlock come back to us with some kind of a proposal, whether it's an ordinance or whether it's something else. But let them come back to us with -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are we asking them if there's a need for it, as -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I think -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- opposed to directing them okay, we want a proposal? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's what I'd like. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I think both. I think they should come to us. They have the facts and figures on how many times this has occurred, and I think it would be prudent to hear and see so we're not reacting to a situation. As bad as this is, it's certainly -- I don't mean to minimize that -- this incident at all, but at the same time, when you start creating an ordinance, I don't think you create an ordinance for every situation that comes down the line. But I think we need to take a look at the preponderance of issues that we have along this line. Where does this seem to be occurring, you know, is this occurring in North Naples, is this occurring in Everglades City area, or out in that area, or is it in the Estates? Where is the preponderance of the problems that we're having? And then how do we go about -- and what is their recommendation to us in addressing the situation? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay, well, there -- yeah. And I understand and support what you're trying to do, but I think maybe we may want to look at the penalty side of it rather than the breed side of it. Because when you say bit bull, are you talking about an English pit bull or an American pit bull terrier? Are you talking about full blood or are you talking about some sort of mix? How much mix? I mean, you get into so many legal issues at that point that it may not be effective to try to attack the problem from a breed standpoint. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let's go back to talking about density. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No, this is more fun. So I understand what you're trying to do, but maybe the better approach would be to look at the penalty side of what our ordinance is doing. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, are you looking at bad dogs or careless owners? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I think you have a combination. You have the potential in that particular breed for obviously more damage than most others. I'm not -- again, I'm not trying to trivialize an issue, but it's just something that after yesterday's attack, and as someone who, you know, has a daughter, the idea that going for the newspaper becomes a life-threatening experience -- going to the curb to get the newspaper becomes a life-threatening experience is something that I'd like to discourage. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think both, the one you almost said and what you said can be both cases. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So what -- I'm comfortable in what everyone is asking for, and maybe we just need counsel from our animal control department on this as to the nature of the problem. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And legal department. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And legal department. But I just think if it's -- there are regulations for certain types of animals that can be more harmful. And I know that I'm about to get the wrath of every pit bull owner in Collier County on me, and that's fine. I can live with that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just be careful when you're going out to get the paper. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll be doing it from the door of my van from now on, but -- wait, what paper? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So is our -- that's right. Is our direction then to staff to come back and tell us if they think something needs to be done and if it does, then we go to the attorney? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm comfortable doing that. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, me too. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let's do that first. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Olliff is so directed, it looks like. MR. OLLIFF: For the record, Tom Olliff, public services administrator. I think it's a good idea. What we'd like to do is perhaps provide you a report. There are a lot of other communities who have looked at this and done something in a whole -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Range. MR. OLLIFF: -- yeah, range of types of ordinances, everything from completely outlawing certain types of animals to requiring insurances for owners who own certain types of animals. So what we'd like to do is provide for you just a memo type report, let you see what severity and the numbers of dangerous dog type cases that we've had over the course of the last couple of years, break those down by breed, let you take a look at those, and then perhaps show you some similar types of ordinances from other communities. If we can find something in the way of an animal ethics ordinance, we'll include that as well. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please. MR. OLLIFF: But we'll provide that to you under memo format then. If you see something that you like that you'd like for us to pursue a little further, maybe then you could bring that back up to the board meeting and give us that direction. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The key you mentioned for me is severity of attack. Because that's what caught my attention on this one more than anything. There will be dog bites. I mean, they're animals, they're going to bite occasionally. But the severity of this attack is what really caught my attention. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I agree. Okay, you have the direction, I believe. I don't think we need to have a motion -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- on this particular item. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think that will come later on -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I thank you for allowing me to bring that up. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's fine, certainly. Commissioners, we've got just a few items left here. desire to keep on going here? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Keep on. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Keep on keeping on. Is it your Item #lib PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. All right. Item 12(C)(1), an ordinance amending Collier County ordinance number 86-41. Commissioner Constantine? MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chair? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The only question I have on this item is the -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think they're going to tell you there's a public speaker. MR. FERNANDEZ: ll(B), public comment. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, heavens. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I overlooked that. I apologize. Let's go back to item ll(B), we do have public comment on general topics. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, we have two speakers, Ty Agoston and Mary Dunavan. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. I apologize, I was just looking ahead. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: She's hungry. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, yeah. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He too. MR. AGOSTON: Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Ty Agoston. Again, I live in that endangered section of the county called Golden Gate Estates. And I'm speaking for myself, my children, my grandchildren. And while you're giving direction to Tom Olliff about the pit bulls, you might include the black bear, or that doesn't get any attention to the matter. If it happens to visit me one more time, it's not going to make any difference. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Put it on a leash, Ty. MR. AGOSTON: That sounds -- that's exactly what I'm going to do. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Feed it, Ty. Feed the bear. That's all you have to do. MR. AGOSTON: You know, interestingly enough, I don't really get an awful lot of local mail other than articles from my newsletter. I got a kind of a hate mail the last time I mentioned that I had a black bear in the front of my house. Somebody was telling me that black bear was here before I was and suggesting that the black bear needs special considerations. Well -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: How old do black bears get? MR. AGOSTON: I'm sorry? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: How old do black bears get? MR. AGOSTON: Beats me, I don't -- I'm not that familiar with them. And I'm certainly not on speaking terms. But to go back to a little more serious matter, last week I mentioned to you that I have had some problems with one of the codes that you have enacted for controlling buildings, which is the clearing of land. It just so happened that my second child, my son, decided that he will take me up on my offer and will build next door to me. I happened to pass the forest ranger people on Randolph Boulevard, and I stopped and I says let me ask these people for their expertise, the advisability of having a piece of property only cleared out of two and a half acres, only clear one acre, or, for that matter, land clearing in general. Well, I was told that I would do the Golden Gate Estates a great favor by clearing a piece of land, because it would provide a break for the fire to travel. In the meantime, I -- the advice went for some half an hour, but I'm not going to bother you with it. The fact is that I asked two big mahoffs (phonetic) within the fire fighting organization, and an interesting additional information I've got is that cabbage palms actually adds to the heat of a fire, and it allows the fire to spread on the top as well as from the underbrush on the bottom. So as far as I'm concerned, I think it might worth (sic) some people's lives for that matter for you to revisit this particular issue and allow Golden Gate Estates, who happen to own a piece of a jungle, to come into those lots and clear it. Now, nobody's going to strip a piece of land that they're planning to live on. So I believe that you can well judge their self interest to clear that land to their own specifications, instead of limiting their scope of action and telling them that -- what they can and cannot clear. And I understand that you have some protection against the cypress tree and whatever, and I believe that those things could be accommodated without telling the landowner what he can and cannot do unnecessarily, or counter-productively. You, ladies and gentlemen, might endanger my grandson, and I hope to have one from my son. And if he builds a house surrounded by trees and a fire that's started on Tenth Ave. -- a few years back by somebody not quite normal -- if that happens at night, that fire could travel at night without everybody -- or anybody becoming aware of it until it's too late. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Ty. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Mary Dunavan. MS. DUNAVAN: Good afternoon. My name is Mary Dunavan, and I'd like to turn Ty in for weed nuisance. Would you allow him to clean and clear his lot through the weed nuisance? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, you remember the gentleman talked about we should have areas that you can have wooded lots and areas where you can't have wooded lots? Ty being in the estates is one of those areas that can have a wooded lot. MS. DUNAVAN: Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: His choice. MS. DUNAVAN: What I'm really here for is I'm here to ask you to update and bring forward the four-laning of Immokalee Road. This has been now the number one dangerous highway in our county, and I would like to see it four-laned all the way to Immokalee. But if you cannot do that all at the same time, then at least go to the fairgrounds. Do not stop at 951, or just past the rock quarry or whatever, because the strip of land -- strip between Orange Tree and 951 is a roller coaster; it tears you apart just driving through there. And so I implore you, get the money somehow and get this planned ahead of time. Don't wait 'til you have it planned. And use the money from Golden Gate Boulevard. They don't want theirs four-laned. Forget it. Let's four-lane our highway. We want it. Come on, let's get it. And -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And you're speaking officially for those people? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You just made a few friends and a bunch of enemies. MS. DUNAVAN: Well, they can use my four-lane. They're not that far away. So we would be giving them some benefit. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: No other speakers, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Please let the record reflect that that was Mary Dunavan's comment. I believe that there is some kind -- well, there is some plan beyond 951, at least out to the Orange Tree area, in terms of some enhancement to the roadway in the budget this next year. I've got to be honest, I don't believe it's four-laning, but there is some enhancement to do some improvement on that roadway, which will be an improvement. And anyway, there also will be a light at 951 and Immokalee Road, and that's been in the works. And how close -- just for a point of information, Mr. Kant, could you just tell us how close we are to that at this point? MR. KANT: Edward Kant, transportation services director. That's due to be up and operating by June 15th, and then immediately after that we're going to get started on a light by the new Gulf Coast High School, although if that's probably going to be up early, it will be bagged, but it will be operating also when the -- before the high school starts operating. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So the road -- the light at 951 and Immokalee Road should be ready to go hopefully in the next week or so. Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: No other speakers. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No other speakers? All right. Then we'll continue on with the agenda. Item #12C1 ORDINANCE 98-46, AMENDING ORDINANCE 86-41, AS AMENDED ESTABLISHING STANDARDS FOR CREATION AND REVIEW OF COUNTY BOARDS - ADOPTED Going on to previous mentioned ordinance amending Collier County ordinance 86-41. Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, my only question on this is the item providing for automatic extension of terms. And I don't know if Ms. Filson is the appropriate person. Whomever has suggested that perhaps can explain to me. MS. FILSON: Do you want me to answer that, David? MR. WEIGEL: Sure, that's fine. MS. FILSON: Okay. In the past when I have to advertise like three and four times when I don't receive applicants, the current member's term who's about to expire has mentioned that they would continue to serve until we found someone so that they wouldn't have a problem with quorums. And that's what initiated that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think did we not have a problem with one board this year? MR. WEIGEL: Code Enforcement Board was one. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Code Enforcement, that's correct. MR. WEIGEL: We specifically addressed that and provided for that in the specific Code Enforcement Board ordinances. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I'd prefer to do that on a case-by-case basis rather than automatically extend every time something may go a week long or a month long, or -- MS. FILSON: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I can picture problems coming from that. I can picture people discouraging applications. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Prior to the term expiring, you'd ask Ms. Filson to bring it back and ask the board to approve an extension of the sitting member until someone is found? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, if there's -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What we've been doing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If there's a problem situation where we're having trouble getting -- and we need to make sure we do that, that's fine. But I hate to do it as an automatic extension, because I just envision all kinds of -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON BERRY: want -- go ahead. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: part. Then do you want to -- Close the public -- Okay, I'll close the public hearing. Do you He's going to make a motion to delete that COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chair? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm sorry, we have a speaker. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a speaker? Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hear from the public speakers. MR. FERNANDEZ: Dorothy Fitch. MS. FITCH: I was going to speak to this after the county attorney had presented his revised advisory board project, but I just wanted to let you know the League has been active with the county attorney since 1985 in establishing the advisory board regulations, we assisted again in '92 when there was a slight change, and we just wanted to compliment the attorney and his staff for coming forward with a new revised advisory board. Not revised in any way that will react to your approvals or disapprovals, but to -- just to clarify the whole matter. And so we thank him. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We thank you, too. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's wonderful that the League's out there watching those good government issues. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We appreciate that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we appreciate it. MS. FITCH: We try to be a good watchdog. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You are good. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, I'll now close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we amend Collier County ordinance 86-41 to include all the information in our packet, with the exception of that referring to the automatic extension of terms. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any further questions? If not, all in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Item #12C2 ORDINANCE 98-47, REPEALING ORDINANCE 76-63, AS AMENDED, ABOLISHING THE DISTRICT 1 MUNICIPAL SERVICES TAXING UNIT - ADOPTED Item 12(C)(2), recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt an ordinance repealing in its entirety Collier County ordinance number 76-63 as amended, abolishing the District 1 MSTU, et cetera, et cetera. MR. WEIGEL: Madam Chairman, if I may, I think the executive summary is fairly self-explanatory. Obviously I'll answer any questions. It provides for the termination of this district effective September 30th, as drafted. And I would ask that if the board should go forward with this, they would amend it to make it October 1st so that the -- so that this district would get the full fiscal year duration. The almost companion item 12(C)(3) following this addressing district three MSTU would commence October 1st. So what we have here is the territory outside of the City of Marco in this MS -- district one MSTU, that it will not be an orphan territory, but will continue to be -- the whole district will continue to exist 'til the end of this fiscal year, and then with the commencement of the new fiscal year, the territory outside of the City of Marco that comprises the rest of district one would automatically go into the MSTU district three. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Close the public hearing? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Do we have any speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Madam Chairman, I'll make a motion that we adopt staff's recommendation. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In accordance with Mr. Weigel's comments? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: In accordance with Mr. Weigel's comments, of course. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any other questions? If not, all in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Item #12C3 ORDINANCE 98-48, AMENDING ORDINANCE 76-72, AS AMENDED, ADDING LAND AND INCREASING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE DISTRICT 3 MUNICIPAL SERVICES TAXING UNIT - ADOPTED The next item is -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You want to close the public hearing? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve an ordinance amending Collier County ordinance 76-72. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Does the date change on that one, too? MR. WEIGEL: No, that one's -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's all taken care of. MR. WEIGEL: -- just fine. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I have a motion and a second. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I seconded it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON BERRY: favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: MR. WEIGEL: Oh, okay. Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in Hotion carries five-zero. Okay -- Thank you. Item #14-1 COLLIER COUNTY VS. STATE OF FLORIDA (INTERIH GOVERNHENTAL SERVICES FEE VALIDATION HEARING - SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 26, 1998 AT 9:00 a.m. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Hr. Fernandez, do you have any comments? MR. FERNANDEZ: No, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: None. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, I do. We're going to be here awhile. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Gotta go. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe you're going to be here a while. Item #15A DISCUSSION RE NUDIST TYPE OPERATIONS BEING ALLOWED AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN CERTAIN ZONING DISTRICTS - COUNTY ATTORNEY TO PROVIDE INFORMATION COMHISSIONER NORRIS: No, I have a really short one, and it is not meant to be in a humorous vein. I just would like to ask the board if anyone besides me has any interest in making nudist type operations a conditional use in any zoning district. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there going to be any sort of First Amendment issues or something with that? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Of course not. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're saying make it a conditional use regardless? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Right. But right now it's an approved use, as I understand it, only in C-5 zoning. And I'm saying, is there any interest in making it a conditional use rather than an approved use? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm interested in looking at it. I'd be -- the legal intricacies I think are the first and foremost hurdle there. But -- I'll just let that lie. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let that one lie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But it is. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, I think I'd like to hear something back from the county attorney on that as an option, and then determine whether we want to move forward with it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe Mr. Weigel can expose us to that information. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Before this conversation gets totally out of line, Mr. Weigel, I'm sure you've heard the discussion. If you can come back to us with some kind of a proposal or some thoughts on this issue, I would appreciate it. Does that address your concern? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's what I was asking for, yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Barely. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Barely does, yes. Item #15B UPCOMING REVIEW OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S PERFORMANCE - DISCUSSED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine, do you have any comments? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes, I do. They are not, however, lengthy. Each year one of the things we have done on the board to help our county administrator know where he is at is have a review process. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We've already talked about it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's what I was going to ask, usually the chairman puts something together. I was going to ask if there is a schedule, because his one year anniversary is roughly now. And I wondered if we had a schedule for that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We don't have a schedule, but as late as yesterday we had discussion about this. I suggested to the administrator that he take the goals which this commission put together as late as a couple of months ago and use those as kind of the basis or criteria. In addition· if anyone else has anything else -- actually· he can tell you and report to you what he has done in regard to those goals. Those are measurable. You can take a look to see what direction staff, through his direction and what have you, what's been accomplished. If there are any other areas or criteria, if you would like to get with Mr. Fernandez and make those statements to him. If there's something else you'd like to see used as well, you're certainly welcome to do that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can we stay away from numerical values? In the past -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- we've had these numerical scales and they change every couple of years. There's no comparison from one to the other. It seems to me in all of the functions of this job either there's room for improvement, satisfactory or it's excellent. I mean, there's really only three ways of gauging it, and we -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Maybe we could assign each one of these o~e · two - - COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A value. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A value. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- or three? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: A, B, C or D, yeah. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Frankly, sometimes it would fall in between. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe 2.5. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think the written comment is probably the best that -- in terms of -- yeah, you were easy. You were one of those that liked to mark the little boxes, you know, that -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Color boxes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Color code the -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, it's very -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Multiple choice. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- difficult to do those questions and do -- and make them effective tools for constructive criticism, so -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Says the teacher of the group. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Mom. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's okay, Son. At any rate, I have nothing further, but we are working on that and we'll take care of it. Commissioner Hancock, do you have anything further? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. Thank you, everybody, for today's growth management initiative. I think that we're all going to be real pleased with this. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think there was a lot accomplished at this meeting today. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Weigel is -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Weigel. Yes, how could I forgot you? I'm so sorry. MR. WEIGEL: Well, happy to be at the end. The interim governmental services fee -- validation -- finance validation hearing is scheduled for June 26th. We've gone quick and early as we can looking to proceed throughout this calendar year. That's June 26th at 9:00 a.m. It's the County versus the State of Florida in the regular type of finance validation proceeding. Looking forward to it. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do we have a judge? MR. WEIGEL: Judge Hayes. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. Item #14-2 PUBLIC RECORDS POLICY FOR THE BOARD'S REVIEW - COUNTY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT POLICY MR. WEIGEL: And secondly, I -- most of -- our schedule office had sent a memo to you-all, kind of updating you on public records policy, where we get requests from time to time, sometimes rather onerous, to provide public records saying give us all you've got on something, or make me copies of this, that and the other where it requires inordinate staff time and clerical assistance. And we do not have a formal policy. The board has not adopted a formal policy up to this point. We have worked in an ad hoc manner. And I'd like if the board would entertain to direct county attorney to bring back a policy for you to review and adopt or revise as you would wish. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think that's a great idea. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So do I. I think -- well, obviously we want to cooperate and make things available -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- as best we can to the public. There are certain instances where that courtesy is abused. And if we have some policy that at least sets the parameters, if they want everything in the last five years on a particular topic, perhaps they need to do some research on their own. We'll make all that information available, but I don't know that staff time should be expended doing that. MR. WEIGEL: Well, we can provide it, but there is a cost. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Absolutely. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just one other point. I think that's a great idea, too. I don't want us to go too far, that's for sure. But, you know, we're doing a better job of -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, come on. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- of coming up with these policies. Could we get them all put together? Could we have -- could you consider putting the county policies in a book? MR. WEIGEL: Yeah, that would be great. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There's so dang many county policies, and there's nowhere to go to officially find out what they are. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You can ask me. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Pardon me? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Ask me. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Ask him, he knows what they are. MR. WEIGEL: I like that suggestion. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is there anything further? Ms. Filson? MS. FILSON: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Can we go? MS. FILSON: Yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. Meeting's adjourned. ***** Commissioner Norris moved, seconded by Commissioner Hancock and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted: ***** Item #16A1 - Added FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES FOR PARTRIDGE POINTE, PHASE 2. Item #16A2 RFP 98-2780 FOR LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE NORTH COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD - AWARDED TO ROETZEL AND ANDRESS Item #16A3 RESOLUTION 98-175 AGREEING TO JOIN THE LOCAL PARTNERSHIP FOR HOMEOWNERSHIP Item #16A4 RESOLUTION 98-176 AND AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING WAIVER OF WATER IMPACT FEES, SEWER IMPACT FEES, LIBRARY IMPACT FEES, PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT FEES, ROAD IMPACT FEES, EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES IMPACT FEES AND EDUCATIONAL IMPACT FEES FOR ONE HOUSE TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY FELICIANO MARTINES AND SOFIA MARTINEZ AT LOT 4 OF BLOCK 11, NAPLES NLA/~OR ADDITION Item #16A5 - Added REQUEST TO APPROVE A PRELIMINARY WORK AUTHORIZATION FOR FORREST GLEN GOLF COURSE Item #16B1 - Deleted STATUS OF THE GROUNDWATER MONITORING PROGRAMAT THE NAPLES LANDFILL Item #1682 BID NO. 98-2806 FOR THE PURCHASE OF ONE DUMP TRUCK FOR THE WATER DEPARTMENT - AWARDED TO WALLACE INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $48,750 Item #1683 BID NO. 98-2800 FOR THE BURIAL OF AGRICULTURAL MULCH TO ADWOOD, INC. AT THE IHMOKALEE LANDFILL Item #1684 ACCEPTANCE OF THE BID FOR SURPLUS OF ONE HAGNA ONE SYNCHRONOUS AC GENERATOR TO CJS SALES AND SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,578 Item #1685 ACCEPTANCE OF VARIOUS DRAINAGE EASEMENTS TO PROVIDE FOR FLOODING RELIEF TO PROPERTY OWNERS ABUTTING SPERLING POND Item #1686 CONSTRUCTION CHANGE ORDER WITH BETTER ROADS, INC. FOR VANDERBILT DRIVE PATHWAY IMPROVEMENTS (VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD TO lllTH AVENUE) - IN AN A_MOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $7,900 Item #1687 ADDITIONAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BY JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC. FOR ANALYSIS OF UTILITY IMPACTS WITHIN THE GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD FOUR LANING CORRIDOR (PINE RIDGE ROAD TO VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD) - IN AN A_MOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $100,000 Item #1688 DONATION AGREEHENT FOR CONVEYANCE OF UTILITY EASEHENTS FOR ACCESS AND MAINTENANCE OF THE RECLAIMED WATER MAIN TO THE NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT Item #16B9 CONTRACT TO GUYMANN CONSTRUCTION OF FLORIDA, INC. TO CONSTRUCT WORK REMAINING TO COMPLETE, AND APPROVE AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO AGNOLI, BARBER & BRUNDAGE FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION OF THE RIVIERA COLONY WATER-SEWER IMPROVEMENTS, PHASE II, BID 96-2588 Item #16B10 SETTLEHENT AGREEHENT WITH GUYNLA/~N CONSTRUCTION OF FLORIDA, INC. REGARDING RIVIERA COLONY WATER-SEWER IMPROVEMENTS, PHASE II, BID NO. 96-2517 Item #16D1 - Moved to Item #SD1 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: There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1:00 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK BARBARA B. BERRY, CHAIRPERSON These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, NOTARY PUBLIC