Loading...
BCC Minutes 09/08/1998 R TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, September 8, 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, CONSENT AGENDAAND SUMMARY AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning. I'd like to call to order the September 8th meeting of the Collier County Board of Commissioners. This morning we're pleased to have with us Pastor Hayes Wicker from the First Baptist Church of Naples. If you'd rise for the invocation, remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance. REVEREND WICKER: Let's pray. Our Father in Heaven, we recognize that you are the one who created all of this universe, and we thank you that you've given us this beautiful part of the country and this beautiful part of the world. And Lord, we thank you again that you spared us during the recent hurricanes and storms, and again, we give you the credit and the thanks. And Lord, we always recognize that our intelligence and our expertise is inadequate, and it's difficult for us to make these major decisions. And so, Father, we look to you to give us strength. And you said in your word that if we ask for wisdom, you'd give it to us. And so we ask. And most of all, we ask that our leaders would have character, conviction and that what they do would not be out of political expedience, but simply because it's right and good for this county. And so we ask these things in the name of your Son, Amen. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Reverend Wicker. Mr. Fernandez, do we have any changes to the agenda this morning, please? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chairman. Good morning. The only item that I have to change this morning is to continue item 16(A) 7 to the September 15th meeting. These are lien resolutions. I won't read all the detail, but it's clearly outlined there. That's the only change I have, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, that change is noted. Commissioner Mac'Kie, any changes? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, Madam Chairman, I'd like to add one item; I think probably best under item 10 -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: equipment. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. -- concerning the use of our television So that would be 10 -- (F). -- (F). Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to remove 16(H)l from the consent agenda. I don't have any problems with the program, but I do want an explanation of how we expect to fund that once the grant cycle is over. This is the final year of a three-year grant. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Where do we move that to? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 8(H). CHAIRPERSON BERRY: 8(H) or (G)? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Or I guess we have a whole different line item. Never mind. ll(A). CHAIRPERSON BERRY: ll(A). Okay. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: ll(A) i is the former 16 -- what was that number, (H)? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: (H), as in Hunter. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: 16 Hunter 1. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll be loading the agenda in the coming weeks, thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. No overload today then. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not at this point. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, do I have a motion? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve the agenda, consent agenda and summary agenda as amended. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Item #5A1 PROCLAivLATION DESIGNATING SEPTEMBER 29, 1998 AS LAW ENFORCEMENT APPRECIATION DAY - ADOPTED This morning we have a proclamation. Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Speaking of H, Hunter, we have our sheriff, Sheriff Hunter, with us. If he'd come on up, we have a proclamation to read for law enforcement appreciation day. SHERIFF HUNTER: Good morning. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Good morning. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning. Come up and face the multiple cameras that will be on you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Face the multitude. Proclamation reads as follows: WHEREAS, the problems of crime touch all segments of our society and can undermine and erode the moral and economic strengths of our communities; and WHEREAS, we are fortunate that law enforcement officers from all area agencies dedicate themselves to preserving law and order and the public safety; and WHEREAS, we recognize that the men and women in law enforcement risk their lives on a daily basis to protect our citizens and maintain social order; WHEREAS, we encourage all citizens to pause, to recognize our law enforcement officers so that we may not take their work for granted. NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that September 29th, 1998 be designated as law enforcement appreciation day, and we ask all citizens to join us in honoring these law enforcement officers and so assist them by exercising responsible citizenship. Done and ordered this 8th day of September, 1998. Board of County Commissioners, Barbara B. Berry, Chairman. Madam Chairman, I'd like to make a motion we approve this proclamation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. (Applause.) SHERIFF HUNTER: Commissioners, I thank you very much for the proclamation. I'm here actually representing State Attorney Joe D'Alessandro, who has put together an appreciation day for the circuit, the 20th Judicial Circuit. And I believe that there's a breakfast, and I don't recall the name of the church. I believe it's CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Saint Francis Xavier. SHERIFF HUNTER: -- Saint Francis Xavier Catholic Church, in Fort Myers. I don't have the street address. Chairman? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think it's right off of 41, actually. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Phone number? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Just 1-800-God. SHERIFF HUNTER: I would like to thank Commissioner Constantine for his reading of the proclamation, for presenting that proclamation, and would like to add that we are very proud of the work that members of the Collier County Sheriff's Office do in our law enforcement, jail, and bailiff capacities, keeping this county safe. I'd like to say on behalf of all of the sheriffs of this circuit, thank you for recognizing law enforcement on that day, and we appreciate your continued support. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you very much. Item #3 CONSENT AGENDA - FURTHER AMENDED MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Before you take the next item, I'd like to mention the fact that you have two speakers that have asked to speak on an item that was on the consent agenda, and I neglected to mention that before you took action on the consent agenda. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: I don't know if that is reason to pull the item from consent, or if you wish to just let your actions stand. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: If somebody wants to talk about it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If there was an item -- is it -- are they the same -- is it the same item? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Two speakers on the same item? MR. FERNANDEZ: Two speakers on the same item. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't see why not. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, yeah, I can't remember in four years that ever happening, but it would seem to me that we should maybe go back, pull the item from the agenda -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: As long as we know, we'll pull the item off and let them speak on it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What is the item? MR. FERNANDEZ: The item is item 16(C)1. It's the Vanderbilt Beach concession. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 16(C)1. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So it will become? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 8(C)1. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Sure. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, 8(C)1. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And I'll make a motion that we amend the agenda once again to -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- reflect that change. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right, we have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Item #5B EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED All right then, moving on to service awards. Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's that time of the month when we get to recognize employees who have had diligent service to Collier County, and the first one today is for Gary Gangi -- I hope I'm saying that correctly -- for five years of service. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Next for 10 years of service, we have Kevin Potter. (Applause.) COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: St. (Applause.) COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: your service. Also for 10 years of service, Sam Poole, Sam's not here today, but we appreciate Joseph Bierley, for 10 years of service. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Jean Jemmott. I hope that's close. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ten years of service. And for 10 years of service, we have Thomas Bartoe. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And finally, for 15 years of service to Collier County government, Joanne Soprano. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's it. Item #5C1 TOM MCDONOUGH, MAINTENANCE WORKER II, WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT, RECOGNIZED AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR SEPTEMBER, 1998 - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: At this time, it's my pleasure to present the employee of the month for the month of September. If we could have Tom McDonough come up here, please, and face the audience. Good morning, Tom. If you would turn around and face the camera so they can take a look at you out in our TV land. Tom McDonough is an employee that consistently goes over and above what's expected of him. His main title is maintenance worker two, but Tom is an individual that displays many other talents that has earned him the title of jack-of-all-trades. Tom's prime responsibility is taking care of facility grounds, which has earned him many compliments from employees, as well as outside visitors. In addition to his normal duties, Tom has saved his department many dollars by troubleshooting and correcting equipment problems, avoiding having to call an outside vendor, all of which is done with a smile on his face. Tom is an asset to the wastewater department in the county as a whole. Without reservation, Tom McDonough was nominated and selected as employee of the month for September, 1998. And, Tom, at this time, I would like to present to you a plaque, which you may display, and certainly last, but not least, and one of the most important, is a check. (Applause.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you very much. Congratulations. Item #SB1 UPDATE TO THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER MASTER PLANS - APPROVED At this time, then, we'll move on to item 8(C) -- I'm sorry, 8(B)(1), adopt an update to the Collier County water and wastewater master plans. MR. ILSCHNER: Good morning, Madam Chairman -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning, Mr. Ilschner. MR. ILSCHNER: -- members of the board. My name is Ed Ilschner, public works administrator, Collier County. I apologize for running late, I was congratulating an employee there. The item before you this morning is an item that was generated by a past action of the board. The board approved an agreement with Long Bay Partners to extend Livingston Road north of Immokalee Road. And the water and sewer master plans had not anticipated that action and, therefore, did not contemplate having within them the water and sewer line systems in the master plan. In order to incorporate these improvements to service development that is occurring in that corridor, we need to amend the water and sewer master plan to incorporate the technical memorandum update by CDM. In addition to that, we're also asking the board to authorize the staff to negotiate and prepare an agreement for the water and sewer district facilities with the engineering firm in the amount of $122,640 to design the water and sewer improvements associated with serving the development of Long Bay Partners. In addition to that, to bring back to the board for board consideration and approval a contribution agreement between Long Bay Partners and Collier County to accommodate the extension of those utilities to service Long Bay Partners Development. I'd be happy to answer any questions that I can. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't have any. I'm just glad we got this on the agenda -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- ready to approve it. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Ilschner, is there anything that -- in this request this morning that would deviate from prior actions of the board? MR. ILSCHNER: Not to my knowledge, sir. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No questions. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. I move approval of staff recommendation. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. Do we have any public speakers on this item? MR. FERNANDEZ: We have none, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No public speakers. I'll call the question. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Item #8C1 VANDERBILT BEACH CONCESSION AGREEMENT - APPROVED WITH DAY-STAR UNLIMITED, INC. FOR BEVERAGES ONLY Item 8(C) is the item that was taken off the consent agenda concerning the agreement through the public -- or I'm sorry, parks. Is it parks, Marla? MS. RAMSEY: Yes, that's correct. Yes. Maria Ramsey, director of parks and recreation. This morning what we have is an agreement -- an amendment to an agreement with Daystar, Unlimited, who has a concession at Vanderbilt Beach. The amendment is to include snacks and beverages to the existing contract that we have there currently, which would then include all of the different items that is being sold there, including the chairs and umbrellas and rafts and whatnot, as well as beverages and snacks. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, beverages and snacks, what are we referring to? MS. RAMSEY: Basically Cokes, water, chips, candy bars, that type of activity, yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, in other words, no other foods or nothing -- sandwiches or anything along that line? MS. RAMSEY: No. Same kind of thing you would get out of a vending machine. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Hac'Kie, do you have any questions? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, just want to hear from the speakers. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Any of the other commissioners have any -- Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just by way of background, there's been a -- what I'll call a little firestorm in Vanderbilt Beach between people that support a certain business and people that support Dan, and quite frankly, it's been very disappointing to hear all the fighting going on between people, the letter writing you've all received I'm sure copies of. What is being done at Vanderbilt Beach is not terribly unlike what goes on in the rest of the county at many other beaches. But I think we do have to strike a balance in this between the businesses that are located near the beach and rely on that location as their mainstay. I think we can do that today. But I just -- I'm just going to ask that we avoid the rhetoric and deal with the issue at hand and kind of remove the emotion and the, pardon my frankness, the garbage from this. Let's just deal with what's at hand and not make this an emotional issue, because it's really fairly straightforward. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, at this time, then, we'll go to the public speakers. MR. FERNANDEZ: First speaker is Steven Sheer and then Daniel Byers. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I do need to disclose, I've had discussions with Mr. Sheer, with Dan, the owner, and with several residents who live either in, around or patronize the businesses in that immediate area. MR. SHEER: Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to let me speak. My name is Steven Sheer. My wife, Robin, is over there. We bought the Gulfview Dipperdale (phonetic) on the corner of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Gulfshore Drive in June of '97. We live in the county -- we live in the Country Club of Naples and have for six years. We always wanted a family business, and one of the reasons we finally selected the Dipperdale was that the business was 19 years old and well established. We are strongly opposed to amending the Vanderbilt Beach concession agreement, but since we found out about this meeting on Saturday, we did not have the time we would like to prepare our presentation. We're asking for the opportunity for this to be postponed until a later time. In doing so, it will allow us the opportunity to follow through with discussions we've had with Mr. Hancock regarding a compromise situation, or, barring that, it will give us opportunity to seek counsel who can give us advice and help us properly articulate our concerns. If in fact you choose to proceed today, I have some comments that I'd like to read, as well as some petitions and letters to enter into the record. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Do we have some idea what the nature of the controversy is? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If he wants to read -- if you have other comments, now would be the time to make them, because I have no idea why I would want to continue it right now. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, me either. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're going to need to enlighten me, if that's what you're looking for. MR. SHEER: As I said, we've lived in Naples for six years. During that time we've worked and donated time to local charities in town but were always looking for a small family business to buy. One of the reasons we selected the Dipperdale was that this business was 19 years old and well established. We put all of our money and our house on the line to buy this business, and we are opposed to amending the concession agreement. And I'll get into the reasons why. The value of our business was immediately diminished by the location of the tent. Our patrons once had a clear view of the gulf, now they do not. Our business essentially comes from the beach. Our first year in business was the E1 Nino winter and beach traffic suffered as a result. Even so, the bigger threat to our livelihood would be allowing the concession to make a larger profit at our expense. From what I understand, there was no public outcry for this concession. Dan initiated this concession, although proposal 97-26-54 that went out to the public for bids, there were no bids. It was a clear path for Dan and the parks and recreation's group to negotiate their deal. The public notice specifically states under the heading of scopes and services its purpose, sale or rental of umbrellas, tubes, rafts, floats, cabanas, beach-related sundries and any other services that the concessionaire wishes to propose. No food or beverage will be allowed at this concession location. So from my -- the way I read it, the public notice that went out specifically said no food or beverage. If it did, I'm sure there would have been other people applying for the concession, as well as myself. There was obviously a misunderstanding about the scope of services to the concession, since the tent opened with food and drinks for sale immediately. We contacted parks and recs. department and spoke to Harla Ramsey, explaining our situation. She said she would look into the contracts, the legal things and see what was up. And within a couple of days she stopped the sales. Seeking more information, we contacted Commissioner Tim Hancock, who informed us that the concession was not set up to sell food and drink, nor was it the intent or policy of the county to compete with long-established local business, which put our minds at rest. Even after we thought the threat to our business was over, Mr. Hancock and we continued to talk about some compromise that would benefit both businesses, as well as provide additional public services that parks and recs. were looking for. In June, Mr. Hancock did try to set up a meeting between all of us, but my wife and I could not attend, as my father passed away from a long bout with cancer and we spent most of the month in New Jersey. Mr. Hancock and I spoke on our return and throughout the summer, and he asked if we could wait until after the election to schedule a meeting. Our position on reaching a compromise has not been altered. The public is well served by the restrooms and water fountain on Vanderbilt Beach. Even though other beach concessions in the county do serve food and drinks, there is no business location to offer this service within 100 yards of those concessions. Please, we implore you not to sponsor competition to our business. We are a seasonal business that relies on beach traffic. If the Vanderbilt Beach concession is allowed to sell food and beverages, there's a good chance that we may no longer be able to stay in business. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask a question? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If what they're going to sell, if what's being proposed to be sold is just vending machine kind of food, we're talking about Coca Colas and chips, that's going to put you out of business? MR. SHEER: Well, it's a twofold problem: Number one, we sell a lot of drinks and have a full line of chips. What happens is people that were looking for a drink or chips would not come off the beach to me, Circle K or one of the other stores. So not only do I lose that immediate sale, but I lose in a bigger picture in the following sense: An example, perfect example happened the other day. There were four travelers, tourists from England, who found our store and bought water. They were walking out on the beach and whatever. Once they discovered that our store was there, they came back three successive days in a row for lunches. So part of my fear is that if they don't come off the beach for the water, we won't -- they won't get to explore so they won't know we're there. Not only do we miss the sale of the water or the drink or the chips, we miss all the potential business those people can bring us. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I just ask you then, respectfully, if all we're proposing to sell is, you know, water, what would be a compromise? MR. SHEER: Well, first of all, you're not proposing to sell just water. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know, but even if you would object to the sale of water, what would be the benefit of a postponement to allow a compromise? MR. SHEER: Okay, one of the compromises that Mr. Hancock and I proposed -- first let me say -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What would that be? Do you -- MR. SHEER: The comp -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What Mr. Sheer and I talked about, and I talked about this with Dan, is that there's -- again, there's been a lot of, you know, people in Vanderbilt Beach supporting Dan's operation and whatnot and people supporting Mr. Sheer, and it's gotten kind of silly, to be honest. But what I proposed as a compromise was that Mr. Sheer has a business there, and we shouldn't really do anything with a vending operation on the beach that would take away from his business. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Of course not. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: By the same token, I went down there two successive weekends and -- with my family and watched. And the number of people that -- you know, the distance between your business and the beach is not -- it's not real close. I mean, it's a little bit -- you have to kind of know you're up there -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: How far is it? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- to go there. MR. SHEER: Within 100 yards. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Distance? Yeah. MS. RAMSEY: From the entrance. MR. SHEER: It's adjacent. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. MR. SHEER: The store has been there for 20 years. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Understood. So what I offered was, what might work, is if Dan wants to sell just drinks, we put a reader board up there informing the people on the beach of the business locations right across the street. Because you're not going to get a sandwich from Dan, and the bulk of the business that is done up there is sundries and lunches and that kind of stuff. So the compromise was if people just want water or a soft drink, you know, they have to pass the Circle K and his business, most of them -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: To get there. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- to get there. They have to see it as they're going to the beach, so they know it's there. But I was just saying there might be a middle ground which says, you know, Dan obviously provides a service down there. And I have to say this: The people in Vanderbilt Beach support what Dan is doing, not just because he's there selling beach chairs. Every day he cleans the public access area. This may sound a little strange, but someone got sick there. It wasn't a county employee that cleaned it up, it was Dan. He takes care of the area. And so I have a -- the people at Vanderbilt Beach have expressed a loyalty to what he has done for that area in keeping it clean. And if there is a way we can make sure that his business is profitable to the point the public gets served but yet can advertise the local businesses in such a way that they get more business, that's the compromise I was looking to accomplish. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, couldn't we -- couldn't we instruct -- that we could approve the item today with the instruction to staff to work on some way to -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's a possibility. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- meet that goal? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: When we got back from vacation, I then found out this was on the agenda and, you know, so it's something that -- obviously the last few weeks I had some other things going on, so COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Did you? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But that was where I was trying to head with it. And if that was an acceptable position to both parties -- and I can say that Dan has actually made some effort in the past. Unfortunately, Steve, you don't have the staff in your shop to have someone run food down to the beach. I mean, that would be perfect, if people could actually order from the beach. But you have -- it's a small family business and you can't do that, and I understand that. So we've looked at a few different things, but that's kind of where I was going with it because it seemed to make sense to me. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think we should be very careful not to get on a slippery slope of putting signage up on the beach, because if we do it here, we could end up five years from now with signs at every single access point on the beach -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Very good point. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and then that's -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Very good point. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- not a desirable thing. I am curious, however, if the bid that went out asked -- or specifically lined out no food items, no food or beverage, what was the catalyst for putting that in during negotiations? MS. RAMSEY: It really came from Daniel and the number of requests that he received from the patrons of the Vanderbilt Beach area while they were using the facility. MR. SHEER: If I may just try to politely respond from that. I can give you just as many letters and petitions in support of my point of view as you can get in front of Dan. And I have some with me today. I have not done this in a large of context, because we're a small local community. We get along great with all the businesses that come in for lunch, we all refer business back and forth, and I didn't want a whole big negative thing clouding our beach area. The public support is really manufactured by Dan to make his case, his point of view, and which it really comes down to he needs to make more dollars. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't think we need to get personal about it, Mr. Sheer. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, let's not. MR. SHEER: It is personal because -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Steve, I'm sure Dan could stand up and say your support is manufactured, and that doesn't make either statement true. Let's deal with the issues. MR. SHEER: Right. So you should take the -- take it for granted that there's equal support on both sides. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could we -- could -- it sounds like that COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a follow-up point. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, Commissioner Hancock's pointed up how this has gotten a little bit silly and the only thing that could make it sillier of course is if we get a bunch of attorneys involved, with all due respect to my friends who've made the law their profession. We could have a dragged out apparently unnecessary thing. If we advertised and specifically lined out, not including food and beverage and then awarded food and beverage, someone could possibly -- and I'm asking this as much as saying it. But could someone have a legitimate gripe as far as gee, I would have responded had I known food was part of that, or is this fairly common consideration when we are negotiating agreement on a contract? MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think that there is an ability for someone to say had I known I would have prepared or participated in that thing. At the same time, I would feel very reluctant to say that government or anyone cannot fine tune an operation with contract negotiation and amendment to an agreement. I don't think there's a clear-cut line that says that the county is in an indefensible position to go forward. At the same time, there may be an issue. I would tend to say, though, that I believe it can be defended, the county's potential action, as proposed in the executive summary in the agenda item today. It doesn't mean that someone can't contest it, but I tend to think that it is defensible. But it is an issue. It creates an issue that could be settled in a different forum, clearly. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Ms. Ramsey? MS. RAMSEY: Yes. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: The impetus for this whole discussion about adding the food and beverage was caused by simply patron response, requests? MS. RAMSEY: The original one was -- if you go back all the way to like December, was a call from Steve complaining about the sale, me looking into it, and then me stopping the sale of the beverages, basically water and soda at that time. And then a number of calls from both sides into my office of support on both sides. And then we stopped the vending, and at that point we received a lot more calls from the public asking for the beverages and snacks to be reapplied to that contract, so -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess a lot -- along those lines, it's going to be interesting to hear from the vendor. Because if you have offered a service, people come by and ask for it and you say, well, the county won't let me sell it anymore, why don't you call them. That could generate some of that. So in fairness to the gentleman at the podium, and I'll need to hear from Daniel on that, but yeah, I can see where some of those calls and some of that demand might have come from. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The concessionaire is currently under contract? MS. RAMSEY: Correct. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And when was that contract let again? MS. RAMSEY: I believe it was in December -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: December -- MS. RAMSEY: -- '97. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- of last year? MS. RAMSEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So irrespective of it being advertised originally that -- there was no food or beverage in the RFP? MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That does not preclude us from amending the contract at some future date, which is today. MS. RAMSEY: Correct. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, let's hear from the next speaker, please. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Daniel Byers. MR. BYERS: Good morning. My name is Daniel Byers, and I run the concession at the Vanderbilt Beach County Park. To touch on one point that Mr. Sheer brought up, he stated to the county and myself that he was never aware that this even went out for public bid, so obviously if food and beverage would have been included in the RFP, he still would not have been there. We all have copies of where it was advertised in the paper. He surely had time to come and voice his opinions at that time. He decided not to. As far as him quoting that there's no other beach concessions about food or beverage within 100 yards, we'd have to reference Lowdermilk Park, which has although not a county concession but a city, they have food and beverage across the street from each other. On numerous occasions, Mr. Hancock tried to get meetings together with Mr. Sheer and myself. I think we were stonewalled at least two or three times. We were put off through Memorial Day, July the 4th and other holidays. It was a desire of Ms. Ramsey, Mr. Olliff and Mr. Hancock to make a working relationship between the two of us. I was at any time, within an hour's notice, could have been at a meeting to resolve this. Mr. Sheer found it unnecessary to ever show up to any of these meetings. I'd like to just read a small excerpt from a letter that was written by Mr. Olliff to a gentleman who had some concerns about our amendments today. Throughout the county there's several vendors established at beach parks that provide beach chairs, motorized recreational vehicles, beach sundries, cold beverages, in most cases, hot food. The question is asked by the staff that you referred to, were asked if several beachgoers called or wrote indicating that the drinks on the beach were very convenient. Some indicated that they would be able to purchase cold drinks from a beach vendor but would not be able to go across the street to a store or ice cream parlor, due to the number of children or other reasons. Having drinks available on the beach is a common service provided in beach parks throughout the country. It would appear that if a large number of beachgoer public desire a concession that provided drinks, which is a typical beach park service, your comments would suggest that the park staff should ignore what is frankly a reasonable request. I would point out that this is -- if you used the state's only beach park in Collier County as a measure, it has a concession serving food and cold drinks which opened two years ago. Of the county's four major beach parks, Vanderbilt is actually the last to be serviced by a concessionaire. All other locations, including the Barefoot Beach Reserve, Clam Pass and Tigertail all have concessions. Each have a food service concession serving hot prepared food, cold drinks and snacks. That's all I have. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And in this particular one, there's not going to be any hot food, from what I understand -- MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- it's just simply as you said, the vending machine kinds of things and water and -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sounds to me like there's already been a compromise, you know, in -- MR. BYERS: The compromise was made that we would not serve any hot prepared food. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. And the fact that you didn't anticipate this when you bought the business, isn't government's problem. It is a reasonable expectation based on the pattern in the county that -- and based on the country, apparently, that, you know, you might expect that there might be some sort of concession at a public beach. So the fact that you didn't anticipate it when you bought the business doesn't -- isn't real persuasive to me. MR. SHEER: Hay I respond to that? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask one -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I haven't seen the facility in question here, so is it my understanding that to get to the gentleman's business, you have to actually cross the street? MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. You come down Vanderbilt Beach Drive, you can make a right-hand turn and go up Gulf Shore Boulevard to the north, or you can -- there's the beach access at that point. This gentleman's store is located right kind of on the corner of Gulf Shore Boulevard and Vanderbilt Beach, whatever it's called at that point. Anyway, that's where the store is located. To get to the beach, you still have to continue. You have to walk a ways. I'm not very good in judging distances, but it is a bit of a ways. If I had small children, I certainly wouldn't turn them loose to come back across. Number one, is there a stoplight at that corner? MS. RAMSEY: No, there's not. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't think so. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No, there's not. MS. RAMSEY: There are stop signs. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: There's a stop sign, but there's not a stoplight. So it's not a case where you would say go across the street. To me this kind of comes down to almost a simple marketing kind of ticket in terms of the business owners along that street. They really -- they are competing with certain items, but in terms of the hot food, the sandwiches, the meals, that kind of thing, there isn't a competition here. It is no different, frankly, in the City of Naples with Lowdermilk. As you pointed out, you have First Watch restaurant, which is just across -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There's a deli in there. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- from Lowder -- plus a deli which serves sandwiches, et cetera. So there's -- you know, and again, I don't think that precludes anyone. If you're that hungry, you're going to walk across Gulf Shore Boulevard at that point and get food. So it's really -- I look at it as two separate types of operations. And I went down there looking for that tent, and I -- where is your tent located? Because from the roadway I did not see it. Now either it was down -- MR. BYERS: It's one of those things, if you're looking for it, you will find it. If you're driving down Vanderbilt Beach Road and you go to the end where the turnaround is -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. MR. BYERS: -- at the beach county park, I'm just a little bit to the left, down actually on the beach. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, because when you're -- when you're at that corner coming from the north down Gulf Shore Boulevard, I did not see your tent. MR. BYERS: Correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's behind the Sea -- it's actually -- Mr. Olliff located it there. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So there is no blockage at that point. That's what I was looking for, to see if there was anything that was blocking the businesses. My first -- when I first heard about this, my interpretation was that there was a tent set up across the street that was blocking the view of anybody looking for businesses across the street. I drove down that street, Gulf Shore Boulevard, and I did not see a thing. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I make a motion to approve staff recommendation. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There is the potential for -- Mr. Sheer I think has a point in looking at things like -- he does sell ice cream and whatnot. I think we need to be very careful that we limit this. My personal preference is to limit this to drinks, just beverages. And the reason is Mr. Sheer's business predominantly is food sales. And all the people may come in and buy water and come back and buy food. If we start allowing snacks, does that include ice cream, does that include -- what does that include specifically? MR. BYERS: I could -- sorry. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just -- so, you know, when we were talking about this initially, we were talking about beverages. I don't ever remember talking to you about the sale of food items, whether they be packaged or not. And since Mr. Sheer's business is predominantly food sales, I'd like to see if we're going to amend this today, we limit it to beverages only, because I think that's the most convenient and that's what's being requested predominately. No one's said God, I need potato chips, you know. So -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'll change my motion to reflect that. MR. BYERS: If I could add one thing to that. Department of Health stipulates that if you sell any nonperishable food items, which are prepackaged items, you do not have to have a Department of Heath inspection. Department of Agriculture takes care of any items that are not prepared; cold drinks served not in a cup without ice, chips, crackers, things of that nature. At no time would I be able to -- even to serve ice cream or any prepared nonperishable things that are -- need to be refrigerated. So -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's okay. If they get hungry, let them go looking for food. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we started off today in mind that there's going to be some compromise, and that's not exactly where I intended to end up, but I think it -- I think it will cover probably a decent revenue source for you, Dan, and not have an adverse impact on the adjacent business. And that's probably as close as we're going to get today. MR. BYERS: That's fine. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll amend my second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel has something. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: I'd note, then, for the parks and rec. department and concessionaire then that it would appear that the amendment as shown in the agenda would have the word snacks removed. Beverages -- the word beverages remains, but the words and snacks would be removed from that and we will prepare that for resignature. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So the item, the concessionaire will be able to sell drinks, drink items, such as those found in a vending machine, and that will be the limitation placed on it. MS. RAMSEY: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right, all understand? Motion carries five-zero. Okay, we have a Thank you. Item #10A RESOLUTION 98-374 DECLARING A VACANCY ON THE CONTRACTOR'S LICENSING BOARD - ADOPTED Moving on then to item 10(A), recommendation to declare a vacancy on the Contractors' Licensing Board. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Move staff recommendation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. MS. FILSON: May I make one note, please? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Just one moment, please. Ms. Filson? MS. FILSON: I just need to bring it to your attention that this was brought before the Contractors' Licensing Board and it was a result of their recommendation. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, we got a letter from the chairman. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me correct that, move Contractor Licensing Board recommendation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There you go. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second amends. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. We have no public speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: None. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Item #10B RESOLUTION 98-375 APPOINTING EUGENE SCHHIDT TO THE COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY - ADOPTED The next appointment is an appointment of member to the Collier County Airport Authority. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Speakers. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You have a speaker. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, we have speakers -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a speaker on this? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- on that? Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: You have one speaker, Charles Krout, Jr. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. KROUT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. I just wanted to let you know that there's a real human body behind that resume that I hope you have. And to plead my case, I suppose, I would like to become a member of that board. I think I could do a good job. I'm very familiar with the aviation community, and I do have a background in management and executive experience, and a great deal of my background is in sales. And I think that this airport authority, to do a good job, is going to need some salesmanship. That's about all I had to say. I just wanted to meet you and say hello. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I might -- I would like to add that this is one group of people that we had that I think have contacted many of us, people wishing to be appointed to this particular authority, and I feel that we really have outstanding individuals -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I agree. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- who have asked to be on this particular authority. There's -- it's very, very difficult that there's only one position available. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I started looking to find out if we began paying this position, because, you know -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- everyone was -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- my thought would be -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- so professional. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- that we reappoint Mr. Barton to finish his term, and we do that just to allow him to complete what he started, but with the idea that could -- Lord, I've never seen so many qualified applicants. I hope that when these -- as these terms expire that we will have these people to reapply to continue to be willing to serve. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just going to ask a question. At the top it says to appoint one member to fulfill the remainder of a vacant term expiring on August 10, 1998. MS. FILSON: And I have my finger up. That should say '99. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: '99, sorry. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mine is changed. It says '99. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Hac'Kie, your motion -- and believe me, let me just say, it's very big of you, you know, to look aside someone who potentially was going to challenge you for your seat. And I understand that. But one thing this gives us the opportunity to do is to look at a cross section of applicants. And it may be fulfilling the remainder of the year of the term, but in all likelihood that person may want to be reappointed, and whatnot. And I was just terribly impressed with Mr. Schmidt as we went through this. I don't know if anyone else had the opportunity to meet and discuss and look at his resume. But I think one thing you do when you run for office and you have to get off boards is you understand that that position is not necessarily held for you. And although I greatly appreciate your sentiment, I was just very impressed with Mr. Schmidt and would like to ask consideration of him as a candidate for this vacancy. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have to agree, he's one who I was going to call and ask him to please reapply if he didn't get the appointment today, because it was an incredible resume. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So there's a motion on the floor, but I just wanted to make that statement. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there a motion on the floor? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: There was a motion but not second. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just my lobbying. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Is yours in the form of a motion? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If there is not, I'll move Mr. Schmidt to fill the vacancy. Nothing against Mr. Barton, I just think we have an opportunity to fill it and I was just very, very impressed with Mr. Schmidt. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If no one -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, if no one else was going to second, I would have seconded it. Anyway, we have no public speakers on this other than Mr. Krout? MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Krout was the only one. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a comment added -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- to what we said before. Interesting, as we go through our different appointments week to week and oftentimes we have a vacancy and an applicant or two vacancies and two applicants, and it's refreshing to have several people. It's difficult to choose because we have several qualified. I've spoken with four out of the five, and all four are very impressive. But very refreshing to have that. I wish we could get this response on a number -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: On all committees. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Absolutely. It's been absolutely wonderful. Okay, we have a motion and a second favoring Gene Schmidt to fulfill the one-year remaining term of Mr. Barton on the Collier County Airport Authority. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'd like to encourage Mr. Krout to come back next time we have a -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- vacancy, because he looks like he has a lot to offer for our board here, too. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Krout, I notice that our meeting tomorrow has been canceled. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Schmidt and his wife are here. If he would just stand, at least, for those in the audience to recognize that he will be the newest member of the Collier County Airport Authority. Thank you -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you, sir. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you for offering to do this. Item #10C RESOLUTION 98-376 APPOINTING TERRI TRAGESSER - ADOPTED We'll move on then to item C, appointment of member to the Collier County Planning Commission. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, since this is district two, first of all, congratulations to Don York. Hate to lose him on the Planning Commission, but I think he's going to do a terrific job on the school board, and best of luck to him. I know both of these people personally, I think very highly of both of them. But one thing I've wanted to do in the Planning Commission, as time has gone on, is kind of turn it toward the citizen planning commissioner side. And I've been terribly impressed with Ms. Tragresser and her involvement in the community and her willingness to step up and be involved in planning issues -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and so I'm going to move Terri Tragresser. With all due deference and respect to Mike Volpe, I do think the world of Mike, but Terri, I've just worked closely with her and I think she'll do a fantastic job. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And her work on the focus in -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good job. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- particular, that's excellent work. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that was where I was really impressed with what I saw. But I think she'll do a great job. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second for the appointment of Terri Tragresser to the Collier County Planning Commission. Do we have any public speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: None. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'll call the question. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Item #10D RESOLUTION 98-377 APPOINTING WILLIAM J. TYSON TO THE HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOARD - ADOPTED The next appointment is to -- of a member to the Historical Archeological Preservation Board. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We have one and one. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have one and one. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I move for approval. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- candidate, Mr. Tyson, who will -- is the only applicant that we have. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Item #10E CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE FORMATION OF A STATE-WIDE "CLEAN AIR TASK FORCE" - NO ACTION This next item I placed on the agenda at the request of Manatee County. I must also, I guess, say that it's on there with a bit of a caveat that this comes down to more governance. I'm not sure that -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, with no -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- this is something that you want to get involved in, but I am fulfilling the request of another county to put this on the agenda, vote it up or down. I don't have any strong feelings other than, as I said, it's more governance. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: With the lack of clear definition of the charge, funding, formation or anything else of this, I just think it's a feel good thing that doesn't have enough structure to have my support. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Sounds like something like this could lead us back to the auto inspection days. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think obviously we all support clean air and doing what we can to make sure we preserve clean air and improve our air, but I too am concerned about this creating more government. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And we'd have to be out making sure that all skunks are de-fumed before they get to walk the streets, so -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I assume if we -- if this was a problem in Collier County, we'd be getting the recommendation from our staff -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Exactly. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- in that regard, so -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And we certainly have not. So I think what we will do, depending on the vote today, we will then send a letter to Manatee County, expressing -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thanking them -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- our concerns. Anyway, we have a motion -- do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to deny. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion to deny. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's no action. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually, I -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There's no action. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No action? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There's no action? Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Consensus that we'll take no action on it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right, we'll just tell them thank you very much and -- okay. We'll draft that letter, Ms. Filson. Item #10F DISCUSSION REGARDING TELEVISION EQUIPMENT - STAFF TO EXPLORE ADDITIONAL PROGRAMMING AND TO MEET WITH SHERRI AVERY, NEWS DIRECTOR OF CHANNEL 2 Okay, item F then, Commissioner Norris, regarding our television station. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Madam Chairman. As we all know, we've got a lot of very nice state-of-the-art television equipment and a mini studio back there in the side room over here. I've got a suggestion where we might utilize that a little bit more, and here's what I'd like to do. I'd like to set up a weekly program that we could use to perhaps -- as you know, we do have a portable TV camera as well -- perhaps go out and take a little film of some of our county projects, our parks or whatever's going on, and bring that in and make a program and talk about upcoming projects or events or perhaps something that just happened. It might be helpful if we were going to have a road construction project, to have that as an item on the program and discuss maybe traffic impacts that will be temporarily disrupted by the construction. It could be real helpful to explain some complicated or sometimes controversial agenda items that may be coming up or have recently been in the public view. We could have staff interviews to help explain some of the technical parts of these agenda items. And this could be done on even a call-in format, perhaps. You know, we could set it up that way as well. One of the other things that we could do is we could correct the errors that frequently occur in print media and, you know, get the facts out as they really are instead of sometimes how they end up not being presented properly in print. And I have spoken with a -- the former news director, I believe, of our cable Channel 2, Sherry Avery, who has agreed to explore this with us. She would be able to direct our staff to set up a program each week. She certainly has the background to be on the program and present whatever topic we have of the day. She can certainly handle the call-in format, if that's what we decide we want to do. So what I would like to do is -- today is to see if we could maybe direct staff to develop this idea a little bit more with perhaps a few meetings with Ms. Avery and see if we can come back with something that will work for us and be able to serve the public I think a little better with our -- all this television equipment that we have. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: CCSpan. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: That's right, CCSpan. That's what it would be, CCSpan. That's what I would like to propose. And if there's no questions from any of the board members, if there is -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My -- just a question about what the cost would be. Any exploration of that yet? And then -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, in my brief conversation with Ms. Avery, she said that she has a full-time job, so she would do this on her after hours. And she -- we calculated in our discussion that it would probably take her no more than let's say three to five hours a week total, including on-air time. And so my first thought would be that we would enter into some sort of little contractual relationship with Ms. Avery and whatever is appropriate on the pay. I think it would be fairly minimal for the benefit that we would get for public information purposes, though. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner, are you thinking about like a half hour or an hour? Or what -- did you have any idea? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, you know, one of the nice things about having our own channel is that if we have information that, on one week that only takes a half hour, we could do that. If we have something that would be more involved, we could expand it to an hour. And then we can -- again, since we control the scheduling, we could replay any program any amount of times that you would like to during a week's period. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My other thought, I'm not sure how I feel about that. I appreciate you bringing it up, I want to think more about it. But the one thing that I was hoping, I kind of was guessing this was what you might be going to bring up when you said our TV station, is if we could get some election coverage, since -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We could do that too. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Since there's none other -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Since there's none. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- in Southwest Florida. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And since it's happening -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think that was one of the most frustrating things this past election time -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could we do that? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- that we watch TV, we got the -- what was it -- Moore Haven Mosquito Control -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- which is -- all due respect to Moore Haven, it's a lovely little place over there, but I wasn't interested in that when I couldn't hear -- I couldn't even get any coverage at all locally. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that wouldn't require any extra staff or anything, would it, Mr. Fernandez? Maybe just some -- you know, for somebody to be in here to operate the camera. But this, as I understand it, is where Ms. Morgan is already, you know -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: In the past, sure. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- announcing the results and that kind of stuff, if we just would turn on the cameras and have that on TV, that's all I'm looking for. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: My thought would be that on the evenings where we have the program live, where it's actually being shot, that we would take our personnel that run the equipment now and shift their hours for that day. Have them come in later and leave later so that they -- they just work a normal work shift, but it would be at a different time of day. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, I think there's -- obviously there are a lot of applications here. And I'm very supportive of this for the reason that I did a speech or discussion with the International College of Naples one night, and it was tape recorded by our folks and played on Channel 54 several times. I had more comments just about -- it was just like general government, you know. Everything from how many people lived in Collier County, how commissioners are elected, just general information. I received more comments on that and asking us to do more of that kind of thing. I think what we need to do is maybe appoint Commissioner Norris as a liaison to work with or through Mr. Fernandez with our television staff to kind of adopt a schedule, if you will, a program, if you will, that gets -- introduces people more to their commissioners, but by the same token limits it to a schedule so that an individual commissioner now or in the future can't use it as their own pulpit or platform to increase their exposure. You know, you have to be careful there that it doesn't become a political -- you know -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Absolutely. Of course, any commission that would be filed for office would certainly not be -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You couldn't be on the program. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- eligible to be on the program. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You'll run into FCC rules at that point. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But I just -- again, you know, I think we need to do it, but I think we need to have kind of something in front of us to say well, we like this or don't like that, and someone's got to formulate that, and I think you're the perfect person for it, Mr. Norris. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commiss -- just a moment. Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two things. I too want to -- I think it's a great idea and I think Commissioner Hac'Kie's idea for election night coverage is very good. But I want to make sure the content is information. I think the transportation type things or general government type things are great. I think we need to be very careful not to get into too much editorializing. The second is we've got to put some real dollar figures on the cost of television production. It's not just Sherry Avery's time, but when you go out to the field and shoot it and you have to edit that, the actual cost of production can add up very quickly. Just to put together a half-hour show may run you $1,000. And we have our own people on staff, we're not going to be paying an hourly -- somebody 60 bucks an hour to do editing, but I think as part of your work with our staff on this, I'd ask you to try to put together a budget. And Sherry can probably help you with what some of those reasonable expectations are for hours. But this could turn into -- and I think it's a great idea. I think we need to be prepared to have a real dollar amount we're looking at to produce how many ever (sic.) shows a year. Do we do 30 a year, do we do 50 a year? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Are you suggesting that our costs will increase, even though we have staff on board already that are being paid? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It could very well, because when you go to the field there is an expense, and they're not doing whatever they're doing right now when they have to go spend three hours in the field to shoot that site or doing road work. When you come back and edit that tape together, that may take several hours. So it's possible, very possible. And I just think we need to have all those numbers. I am all for pursuing it. But we -- in order to be fully informed, we'd better put those numbers together. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm interested in seeing the numbers for sure. And the only question I have is whether or not we need a TV call-in show. I think we could use the channel a whole lot more effectively than we do, a whole lot more effectively. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's just one of the suggestions I brought out. If the board doesn't want to do call-in -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll tell you what, I am amazed, though, particularly if we have Ed Ilschner or Tom Olliff, for those guys sitting there -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, that's a good point. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- being able to answer the calls. Not necessarily a call-in to us, but if you have someone on there who is explaining our parks department or our water and sewer, or any number of things, that may not be a bad venue for a call-in. I think there are a lot of questions on this. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I think one thing -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But explore all that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- certainly during election time it comes out. But any of you that have held community meetings -- I happened to hold one and there was a discussion about the difference between zoning, what a PUD is and the lack of knowledge of what some of these things really are and the difference. And if you don't work in this, you're not familiar with it. I'm not putting anybody down, it's just this isn't their world, it's not something that they deal with or they have no reason to deal with it. That's what we have to do up here and that's what our staff does. But no matter what you say, saying it one time doesn't get it there. And we have so many new people who move into our community, we sometimes forget that they are new and that things aren't done like they're done back in Michigan or Ohio or New Jersey or New York. It's just a whole different thing down here. You're in a different state. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We could have a weekly call-in show called Ask Filson. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Ask Ms. Filson. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Ask Ms. Filson. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that's one of the reasons why I wanted to bring this up -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- because I think the more people get familiar with what we're doing, the more they'll be receptive to the county and then they'll be more involved in the county, and I think citizen involvement of course -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think it's great. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- is critical. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think we need to -- I think we need to look into it and get as much information and then go forward. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, you guys -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: I was going to say that this discussion really mirrors a discussion we've had at the staff level. Since the reorganization, Ms. Merritt has been busily working on a plan to improve our public information. She's indicated to me that she has a very extensive plan drafted up and is planning to meet with me very shortly about that. It includes the input we've already received regarding more frequent shows. We currently have a monthly show that runs for a half an hour. Whether we need to expand that format, we have the capability to do it more frequently, that sort of thing. But these are all things that have been considered by Ms. Merritt and will be part of the plan that she's presenting to me. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let me say this about Channel 54. And this has to do with the school system. There's three governments now is my understanding that are sharing 54? Am I correct on that? The City Council, the school board and us. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: In addition to that, the school system is using the channel for educational communication. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's becoming more and more busy. They have asked for a second channel, and they can't -- we can't do anything about that until Media One, is my understanding, does something a little bit different and opens up more channels. But this is a problem. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let's give them Channel 154. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, it's just that they need -- they need -- because of the educational, the distance kinds of things and the interaction between the schools and what have you, they're going to need another channel. So we're going to have to work very carefully on this and make sure, I mean, because we've got -- we've got a lot of things that we need, too. I mean, county government, we've got things that we would like to do, and so it is going to require some coordination to get all of this done and taken care of. But I know that this is looming out there, and there has already been a request made. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: To Dave, report that, would you? Report that to the powers that be out there? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As part of our agreement with Media One, we did have two -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Exactly. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- stations. So, I mean, if they have to make a -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's true. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- change, they have to make a change COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- in order to conform. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But it's not going to come around 'til next year, and they're already into this, and that's one of the problems. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, agreed. I would think we'd want to put a reasonable and realistic time frame on when we would expect that. Because while it's easy to say we need more, we need more, filling up air space is difficult. And it's taken us a couple of years to get to the point where we're using what we are, and we still have more. And so I think we need to be very, very sensitive, particularly during those school hours, to the school's needs. But keep in mind, that's a 24-hour channel -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Absolutely. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and if we open up a second channel, while it's great that you have all that empty space now, it takes time and money and effort to fill up that space, too. So we want to kind of do an air time budget, if you will, of what we can fill up, what we can reasonably do, and at what point will we get to where the school board absolutely needs their own channel because we're filling it all up or -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, all I can tell you, I got the request two weeks ago and checked with Ms. Herritt on this, and so there's -- you know, it's not that they're not working together, they are, and they're doing a very, very good job of that. That isn't the issue at all here, so -- it's just that there's more and more demand going to be placed and is being placed right now. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I just -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- want some election night coverage. We'll keep beating that drum. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Please. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, I don't think any -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Nobody disagrees with you there, so -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Could have saved me some money if it came in earlier. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Norris, then, I think you have this task to coordinate. I don't think we need to take a vote on this. I think it was unanimously in -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Very good. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- favor of your coordinating this effort -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: All right. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- so we'll leave that up to you. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Item #11A1 BCC TO SERVE AS LOCAL COORDINATING UNIT OF GOVERNMENT AND ENDORSE THE COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE GRANT APPLICATION FOR CONTINUED FUNDING FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, HIGHWAY SAFETY FUNDS FOR THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE D.U.I. ENFORCEMENT PROJECT APPROVED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, item ll(A), Commissioner Constantine, this was an item you pulled off the consent agenda. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, this was 16(H)l and it was a recommendation that we service the local coordinating unit and endorse the sheriff's office grant application for continued funding. This is the third year of three, I understand, from FDOT highway safety funds in the DUI enforcement. I don't think any of us are going to object to that. I think the only question I wanted to have answered was if this is the third year of three, how do we anticipate funding it -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Next year. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- next year and beyond? And it says in growth impact, continued funding will be sought for subsequent years, which we all could assume. But again, I'm wondering, do they have any recommendations on where that continued funding will be sought from? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I bet we have someone who can give us some information here. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is just going to be very helpful as we plan year by year if we know, because we haven't in the past. MR. ADDISON: Thank you. This grant was for three years -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Please identify yourself. MR. ADDISON: Lieutenant Darrell Addison. I'm in charge of the traffic unit for the sheriff's office. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. MR. ADDISON: This grant was for three years with a decreasing scale, as you know, down to 50 percent the last year. If we do not get a reup on the grant, we will roll it over into current positions that -- due to attrition. Hopefully this grant will be renewed. There is some more money coming up under the Department of Transportation this year for more of these positions. Hopefully we can just roll it over into a new grant. We're not sure of that yet until they get the money in November or December whether we're going to get a new one or not. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: In December, you say, you'll have an answer? MR. ADDISON: Right. They -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. MR. ADDISON: What's happened is -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: My question was going to be, are we going to have an answer before next year's June budget hearing? MR. ADDISON: Sure, we'll be able to tell whether we're even going to be able to renew this one or apply for a new one. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's great. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine. That's really -- I think it answers your questions. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One of the choices outlined in here is if the grant funds are terminated, and then it goes on for several lines and says, or reallocation of any positions that will be requested from the board. Do we have any idea -- what, we would rank this a higher priority then, when we talk about reallocating? MR. ADDISON: We were talking about attrition, just refilling the slots when somebody retires or we fill in new slots. So there would really be no prioritization with the manpower allocation on that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It had said due to normal attrition or reallocation of any positions. MR. ADDISON: Right. I don't think we're looking at reallocation, per se, no. We're looking at more the attrition. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Did we ask last -- this past budget cycle as a budget policy in the future that positions that were formerly grant funded be separated as a line item in the sheriff's budget? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. In all -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- all of them, I thought. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Just to help identify those, so we can go back and say well, this is the one we talked about on the "X" date, and -- okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll move the item. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. Do we have any other -- do we have any public speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: None. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Probably not. Okay, all in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. (At which time, Commissioner Mac'Kie exits the boardroom.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: At this time we'll go on then to the -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Public comment. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- public comment. Do we have any public speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: None. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: None? Item #12B1 ORDINANCE 98-71 RE PETITION PUD-98-6, ROBERT L. DUANE OF HOLE, MONTES & ASSOCIATES, INC. REPRESENTING HARK BATES, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "A" AGRICULTURE TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS OAK GROVE PUD FOR SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES WITH A TOTAL OF 550 DWELLING UNITS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE INTERSECTION OF LIVINGSTON ROAD NORTH AND DNAIELS ROAD - ADOPTED All right. Then we'll go on to item 12(B)(1), petition PUD-98-6. This is a fezone from agriculture to PUD, known as the Oak Grove PUD. Hiss Hurray? I think, do we need to swear in? Everyone needs to be sworn in on this? Yes? MR. WEIGEL: Yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Would all persons who are going to be speaking on this item please rise and be sworn in by our court reporter, please. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any disclosures from any of the commissioners on this item? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I spoke with Mr. Duane. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I met with the petitioner once. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: As did I. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: As did I. I don't know if Commissioner Hac'Kie did or not. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We'll ask her when she gets back. MS. HURRAY: All set? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Sure. MS. HURRAY: Good morning, Susan Hurray, for the record, planning services. The petitioner's requesting a rezoning action in order to fezone the subject site from agriculture to PUD in order to develop a mixed single-family and multi-family develop -- residential development on 137.4 acres. The site is located about a half mile east of Airport Road at the existing terminus of Orange Blossom Drive. The western boundary of the site abuts the eastern boundary of the Citrus Gardens PUD. And specific -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before we go too far, is it just me, or is this pretty much a no-brainer? I mean, it's at a lower than could be asked for density, it's lower than the neighboring properties. It just -- and f we need to go through the whole thing, fine, but it seems like this is kind of an easy -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't have any questions that haven't been answered in my personal visit with the petitioner. (At which time, Commissioner Hac'Kie enters boardroom.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie, do you have any disclosure to make -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I do. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- on this item? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. I met with the petitioner's representative and the petitioner, and we have correspondence here from I guess an objector. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. And we'll hear probably -- I believe he's -- we have a public speaker on this item. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And maybe we need to go through it just -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I guess, Mr. Weigel, portions of the letter of objection by Mr. Pulling cite a current lawsuit that he's filed against Collier County. Correct me if I'm wrong, but elements of that lawsuit, this is not a hearing on that. And things that have been entered into the courts on that lawsuit, for us to go into them to talk about things, to discuss them here today, is something we simply can't do. So what we're dealing with here are just simply the issues of a fezone, which is compatibility, consistent with the growth management plan, impacts to adjacent properties and infrastructure, simply from the standpoint of impacts from this project. That's as I understand it. So I just want to get that -- if I'm incorrect, please tell me, but I want to get that out, because the letter I received, half of it had to do with the lawsuit that he filed against the county and less to do with this particular project. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, to respond to your comment and question, the record before you today is the record that's provided in your agenda packet with backup, and any information that is provided to you at the meeting today. As indicated, the letter that you have received from a person is received and made a part of the record and may or may not be a part of your -- a part of what makes your determination today with the issue that's before you today on this specific property here today. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have a question. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just wanted to make sure, because there are some things in here that in my opinion are not true. But to respond to them would be responding to positions in a lawsuit that has been filed against us, and I don't feel like I should do that, so is it -- would you recommend that on those points that don't have to do with this fezone, just remain silent? MR. WEIGEL: Yes, I would. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel, or maybe staff, I don't know who, do we -- I'm confused about access issues for this PUD. This one clearly has Livingston Road North as an access. It has Orange Blossom. That's potential right-of-way there that's not currently acquired? MS. HURRAY: That's correct. This PUD purports to dedicate a portion of their property for the future construction of Orange Blossom Drive and Livingston Road. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And if they -- just -- this is just a procedural question about how fezones come in, because I've heard the same thing said about the First Baptist Church fezone, that when they come in and they -- what requirements do we make for them to prove that there is access to the property before we fezone it? MS. HURRAY: Well, this -- this property has access via Orange Blossom Drive currently, and that's described also in the PUD document. And that was noted in the PUD document that should -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because it gets '- MS. HURRAY: -- Livingston Road -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- to the edge of their property, it goes that far. MS. MURRAY: Correct. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. In general -- well, in general do we require that properties have dedicated access before we fezone them? Is that just a normal part of the process, or is it not? MS. HURRAY: It's my understanding that properties in the county in the past have been rezoned without dedicated access. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. So it's not a part of the process that we require access. MS. HURRAY: That's -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It just seems -- MS. HURRAY: That's my understanding. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Cops. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- kind of odd. MR. HULHERE: For the record, Bob Hulhere, planning director. It isn't necessarily part of the process, although it's something that we look at. We do require a survey. And if they're proposing for the fezone, for example, to a PUD, which depicts access to a particular right-of-way, then we need to verify that they have that access. But it isn't necessary under all conditions, as part of a fezone, that they verify access. That can become, you know, let's say a straight fezone, an issue that they have to deal with subsequent in the process. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. So -- MR. HULHERE: It can be. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So it may just -- we may -- I had never paid attention to whether or not there was access to a piece of property when we were rezoning it. I had assumed that there was. MR. HULHERE: But in any case, as far as the PUD, when the applicant indicates an access point, then we do verify under those circumstances for the survey or from -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Understood. MR. HULHERE: -- some proposed acquisition that they'll have access. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But what you're telling me is when I get a fezone petition, I need to inquire about whether or not there's access to the property, because there might not be. MR. HULHERE: In some very rare circumstances, I think that has been the case, but not any that I've been aware of in the very near -- in the very recent past. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just -- I needed to get that straight. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Last one that comes to mind would be Dinabell (phonetic) -- MR. HULHERE: Correct. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- or something like that. MR. HULHERE: Where they hadn't finalized the -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Years ago -- MR. HULHERE: -- access that had some acquisitions. And that was discussed, and that was some -- an issue that staff reviewed and brought into the public record during the fezone process. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So you would normally bring it up? MR. HULHERE: Absolutely. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was going to say, it's been my experience as someone who's written PUD's in the past is that many times you will do the zoning before the infrastructure is in place. And in the PUD, you will see a statement regarding access or whatnot that says that this is contingent upon the county taking some action or the private property owner taking some action to provide access. In other words, there's almost a clause that says the county is not responsible for providing you access to your project just because you showed it on your master plan. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That's always been there. And I think I've done -- I did two projects back in a prior life that the access wasn't there, but at some point in the future should it, but the onus was placed on the property owner, not on the county. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Got you. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Miss Murray? MS. MURRAY: Did you want me to continue with my full presentation? Or I can -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioners -- MS. MURRAY: -- just summarize it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- what's your desire on this? MS. MURRAY: I'll do whichever you prefer. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let's hear from Mr. Pulling. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's my preference. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, I've read the staff report, I don't have any questions. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let's go to the public speaker, please. MR. FERNANDEZ: Speaker is John Pulling, Jr. MR. PULLING: I'd like to thank you all for allowing me to speak here today. And my name is John Pulling, Jr., and I represent myself and my sister, who own the property on the east side of Airport Road, on the north side of Orange Blossom through Orange Blossom, and on the south side of Orange Blossom. And I'm just here today to let you all know that there is no public access through that piece of property. It's a private piece of property. I own the easement personally. There are no utility easements through that piece of property, there's no water easement, there's no electricity, there's no sewer. And their set of plans shows water and sewer and utilities and public access through my piece of property. That's what I'm objecting to. They can build the development, I have no objection to the development going in whatsoever. I just object to the fact that the county is going to be sitting here today trying to give away my property which I OWD. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask Mr. Mulhere I guess a question about that? How unusual is it that we have a fezone, a PUD fezone, that shows -- that shows access across a privately owned piece of property? MR. MULHERE: I think it's fairly unusual. I'm thinking back, I don't think that's something that we see regularly. It's -- nevertheless, it's something that the property owner will have to negotiate, if they're able to negotiate. In this case they have access, so -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is it our problem to solve -- is it clear enough in the PUD that if they are unable to satisfy Mr. Pulling with a price for his property, that they don't have that access? Is that clear in the PUD? It needs to be. MR. PULLING: I'd just like to say one thing further, that nobody has ever approached us at any time ever about making any kind of arrangements for any kind of access or utility or anything like this for this project. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd hate to think how much -- well, you probably hate to think how much roadway in this county is donated from the Pulling family. You know, it's a tremendous amount. So it would seem unusual not to discuss it with them. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This board obviously doesn't have the authority to give away private property. If these folks own that little square up there and want to fezone that, great, we can either give our blessing or not to that. How they get their access and what they do with Mr. Pulling frankly is none of our business. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just want to be sure it says that in the PUD. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, and as we understand, the county is in negotiations to try to obtain additional property for the extension of Orange Blossom. Whether or not they're successful will have an effect on whether or not this property owner is successful in having access. Nevertheless, they still have access to the PUD. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: points of access. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If -- From Livingston. Let's remember, though, there are two Right. One is Livingston Road, which is -- MR. MULHERE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- a county project. MR. HULHERE: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So, you know, whether they do or don't get access to future Orange Blossom that isn't under control of either them or the county, not an issue for us today. And by taking this action today, we are not taking a role in granting, guaranteeing or acquiring that for this project, period. That's my understanding. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just to be clear on that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That is between the property owners. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Great. MR. PULLING: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Understood. MR. FERNANDEZ: No other speakers. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No other public speakers? All right, we'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to approve this fezone. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You want to have a break for the court reporter? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah. At this time, we've only got a couple left, but we're going to give our court reporter a break so her fingers don't fall off her hands. We'll be back in about 10 minutes. (Brief recess.) (Mr. Constantine is absent from the boardroom.) Item #12B2 ORDINANCE 98-72 RE PETITION PUD-98-4 DWIGHT NADEAU OF MCANLY ENGINEERING AND DESIGN, INC. REPARESENTING GERALD L. AND MARION M. BRAY, AND GEORGE A CANAAN, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "E" ESTATES TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO BEK NOWN AS HIR-HIR PUD FOR COHMERCIAL USES PERMITTED IN THE RANDALL BOULEVARD COHMERCAIL DISTRICT AS SET FORTH IN THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUADRANT OF THE INTERSECTION OF RANDALL BOULEVARD AND THE NAPLES IHMOKALEE ORAD - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Hoving along. Petition PUD-98-4. This is an estates to a PUD known as Hit-Mar, for commercial uses permitted in the Randall Boulevard commercial district, as set forth in the Golden Gate area master plan. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry, you said Hit-Mar? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It is Hit-Mar, not what is printed on -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not Hit-Hit? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Not Hit-Hit. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: A Russian space probe PUD. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It says Hit-Mar on one of our documents and Hit-Hit on the other one. So it's Hit-Hit on the wall. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm glad to correct that, because I was going against it all the way with Hit-Hit, the name. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Too strange. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Ms. Murray? MS. HURRAY: Susan Murray, for the record, planning services. This is very straightforward. This is actually a -- I'm sorry, we need to be sworn. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, you do. I apologize. That's my inadequacy and inefficiency. All those wishing to speak to this item, please rise and be sworn in by our court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, do we have any disclosures on this? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, I don't think I've had any contact with anyone on this. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Nor have I. I don't think -- I don't -- MR. NADEAU: Way back. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Way back? Way back. You can't get too far back and expect us to remember this. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let the record show that the chairman's memory stops at three weeks. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The chairman admits to mental deficiency, and many of the people have known that for a long time. But as -- anyway, if I have had any contact, it has been some time ago. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You forgot. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And I don't remember it, so it's not going to be influential anyway. Please go ahead. MS. HURRAY: Again, Susan Murray for the record. This is a companion item to a small-scale future land use map amendment which you approved via the summary agenda earlier this morning. It's a 2.38 acre parcel. It's on the south side of Immokalee Road. It's between the existing Randall Boulevard commercial center and the Big Corkscrew Island Fire Station. The PUD purports to develop the site with a maximum of a 20,000 square foot shopping center -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ms. Murray, can I interrupt you -- MS. HURRAY: Yes. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- to ask a question? How did this one fail to qualify for the summary agenda? MS. MURRAY: I actually received a letter in opposition from an attorney representing the property owners to the east. An objection to a depiction of a potential future access between the two properties. Additionally, the future land use map amendment needed to be approved prior to this rezoning in order for it to be consistent with -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see. MS. MURRAY: -- the map. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. But it does seem to me to be a straightforward no-brainer, unless there's a particular issue. Is there a speaker who has an objection? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I'm sorry, now that I see the location, Dwight, I think we did have a conversation on this. So I'm four weeks, Barb. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Four weeks? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay, I'm -- MR. FERNANDEZ: You have two speakers -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- up to five weeks. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- Madam Chairman. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a disclosure, too. MR. FERNANDEZ: You have two speakers, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We do have speakers? All right, let's go to the public speakers on it -- MS. MURRAY: Certainly. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- please. MR. FERNANDEZ: Dwight Nadeau. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: He's the petition -- one of the petitioner's representatives? MR. NADEAU: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, my name is Dwight Nadeau, planning director for McAnly Engineering and Design, representing the applicants for this PUD 98-4, presented before you. As Planner Murray described, it is a 2.38-acre piece of property. And by virtue of the adoption of the CPSS-98-1 in the summary agenda, the proposed fezone is now consistent with the Golden Gate area master plan; therefore, we have a piece of Estates property now within the Randall Boulevard commercial designation. The next step, now that we have the enabling legislation, would be to move forward with the PUD, which will allow only those commercial land uses allowed within the Randall Boulevard commercial district. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you know what the controversy is, or what the one complaint is? Because -- MR. NADEAU: Yes, I do, actually. In communications with the property owner and the adjacent property owner, as well as Mr. Kant, from capital projects -- transportation, I'm sorry. We were trying to improve some of the traffic circulation patterns, because the Randall Boulevard PUD to the east of me -- or east of the subject property has some significant intersection improvements that would be required, should they ever expand. And we also had some safety and some security issues with the Big Corkscrew Island Fire Station, which is immediately to the west of us on the west half of tract 54. And to assist the community needs, we're going to share access with the fire station. We're going to expand the width of the road on Immokalee Road. We will only take major access off of Immokalee Road. But should there be an agreement between the adjacent property owner, being the Randall Boulevard PUD, where the Mobil Station is and the Taco Caliente and the bank, Community Bank, we suggested, and it was welcomed by the adjacent property owner, to provide a potential future interconnect to relieve some of the traffic problems. Well, ironically the attorney for the property owner of Randall Boulevard Center wrote -- told his attorney to write the letter objecting to that future access. Well, the county loves the interconnection, the petitioner has no objection to it, should there be an agreement to it, but if the adjacent property owner doesn't want it, we'll take it off. But the county encourages the interconnection of two commercial projects, whether they be frontage roads or not. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, we do. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, we strongly, strongly do. MR. NADEAU: So that was what the letter of objection was, which really didn't make any sense to the petitioner or I, because it would affect -- the interconnect came as a result of discussions with that property owner. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe we just want to hear -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Dwight, do you anticipate the construction of an eastbound right-hand turn lane, a deceleration lane, coming into the shared access? MR. NADEAU: Unfortunately the bridge across the Corkscrew Canal, it would be an eastbound turn lane, would be precluded based on the width of the bridge, or the distance from the bridge to the existing access to the fire station. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That bridge is not going to be widened until Immokalee Road is four-laned out through that area, and at such time I'm sure provisions will be made. And we really don't know how far off that is. What turn radius have you agreed to construct there? MR. NADEAU: We really haven't agreed to any type of a turn radius at that primary access. I would -- presently the radius would be at least 50 feet. I would imagine you're going to have a widening of the existing access with an additional 50-foot radius to the east. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: While whoever is next to speak is doing so, if we could get something on the record about that, because I'd like that turn area to start as close to the existing bridge as possible so that people can get off Immokalee Road as safely as possible turning into this. Whether -- I don't see Mr. Kant, but I just want to know that's been addressed to the fullest extent that we can. That's my only concern there. MR. NADEAU: Sure. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner, there's another question that I have, too. It's not only the eastbound, it also is the westbound on Immokalee Road, and having some kind of a lane to turn in. That whole area out in there, I'm -- thank God you came before us today, because this gives me another opportunity to speak about this whole area. Randall Boulevard itself accessing Immokalee Road. And whether you're east or westbound, with the amount of traffic that's out on this road right now, we've got some serious problems. As far as I'm concerned, there needs to be -- there needs to be an eastbound decel. lane where -- a turning lane to be able to access this property. MR. NADEAU: Okay, and I -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Has there been any discussion about this? (Commissioner Constantine returns to boardroom.) MR. NADEAU: Yes, I can respond to that, Madam Chairman. The Orangetree DRI PUD has specific language in it requiring them to do intersection improvements, where Randall -- or possibly after you approve the street name today, Valencia Drive or something -- intersects with Immokalee Road. So there are conditions within that DRI settlement agreement, and PUD, as well as conditions in the Randall Boulevard PUD requiring a westbound turn lane, as well as an eastbound left turn into Randall, or whatever the street may be named at a future date. The subject property does not have access off of Randall, it only has access off Immokalee Road. So if we had an aerial photo, which I do, you can see that it's a very constricted area for turning movements. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, I know. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Personal experience. MR. NADEAU: So to impose conditions on the fire station at this time may or may not be appropriate. I certainly would have to defer to the county attorney whether or not we can require expanding or making the right turn in a little bit longer towards the east -- to the west, such that it would be closer to the bridge. Now, as far as coming in from the -- going west for a left turn in, it doesn't appear as though there's enough spacing distance between the Randall Boulevard intersection, which is going to be improved, and Immokalee Road. So this distance in here is what is problematic. And I can show you here. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we're starting to see why the adjacent property owner -- I'm sure they have someone here to speak -- may be against this future joint access, because there may come a point that the Randall Boulevard intersection is the way you access all of these parcels, and it may be in the best interest of the public safety-wise to have internal connections instead of an unsafe, you know, secondary drive. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And nobody likes to grant access through their project for liability reasons and whatnot, but there's a larger public safety issue here. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: There's a huge public safety problem. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could we put that maybe on the visualizer, or whatever it's called? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have this modern -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: High tech. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- technology here, so -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, is this something that staff has considered in their review? I mean, I would imagine that these aren't -- I would suggest that these aren't things that should come up at the board meeting. They are things that staff should -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I would assume -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- consider. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- this is also going to involve South Florida Water Management District. Am I correct, Mr. Ilschner? MR. ILSCHNER: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's the canal and this bridge. So it's not just Collier -- it's just not us. I mean, it's something that we're going to have to work with the water management district as well __ MR. NADEAU: When -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- to do -- MR. NADEAU: -- Immokalee is four-laned -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's right. MR. NADEAU: -- yes. But as far as the petitioners -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. MR. NADEAU: -- they would not be subject to south Florida permitting. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, I understand that. I'm basically just talking about the traffic issue in this area. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is the possibility that these triggers that are in the Orangetree PUD and the Randall something PUD for those roadway improvements, maybe those triggers are too far out into the future, if the problem is currently existing. Is that where we've blown it? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: In my opinion? Yeah. You didn't ask, but yeah. Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, first, I have to disclose, I have had conversations in the past three years with George Canaan on this property. Can I just ask, is there general consensus that it makes perfect sense to develop -- to redo this as commercial -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, yeah. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- the question is the access question. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The question -- that's -- in my opinion, that's correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mine, too. MS. MURRAY: Madam Chairman, if you will, we do have language under the transportation section of the PUD document. We could, if the petitioner agrees, maybe tighten that language up a little bit just to say that prior to development of the site that they would confer (sic.) work with the transportation department to ensure that the -- a turn lane or access is adequate enough to minimize to the greatest extent possible the impacts on Immokalee Road, if we could tighten that up a little bit. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think that's really all we can do today. Because, you know, there's already a turning area there. So that's really where I was heading. The other question I had was -- wonderfully detailed site plan, Dwight. MR. NADEAU: Well, actually -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thanks for the sarcasm. MR. NADEAU: -- Commissioner Hancock, I had a very detailed site plan, but it was requested to -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Take it out? MR. NADEAU: -- minimize it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. That's a -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Why? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It has been effectively minimized. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Why was -- do you mind? Why was there a request to minimize it? MS. HURRAY: Most of your PUD master plans are pretty general. This is only a two -- less than two and a half acre site. The applicants indicated they weren't sure if they were going to do out parcels or subdivide. The first indication it was going to be a shopping center, the next indication it might be -- so rather than -- we just -- actually, what we did was verbalize that in the PUD document and show this master plan as just a general plan. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: You might want to recommend in the past that -- you did what our staff requested, so I don't -- yeah. But maybe bring as an exhibit for the board to see, because it does help us visualize the site. But I -- because of location, I'm sure this complies -- has to comply with the commercial architectural standards; is that correct? MS. MURRAY: Correct. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Which will forever be known as Hancock's Law from now on. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, the Hancock standard. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, would you like to hear from the next speaker -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- at this time? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Uh-huh. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Jim Siesky. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I had a feeling you weren't here just to listen, Jim. MR. SIESKY: Yes, Commissioner. Good morning, commissioners, Jim Siesky, representing Orangetree and Associates, the developer of Orangetree, the Orangetree area, along with Waterways. I don't represent Waterways. And also Francisco Colasso, the developer in the Randall Center PUD. We basically have two concerns. First let's say that we're not unhappy with the fact that there's development next to us. That's good. We're happy with that. It brings services that are need -- will be needed for the people in the area. What we're concerned about is first the -- the turn lane. Let's talk about that. Orangetree, in the past year, was in negotiations with the school board to sell the corner area to the school board for a new school. Those developments failed, or those negotiations fail. But while we were negotiating that, issues about the turn lane came up and how much had to be expended to put the turn lanes in. It was really quite a big number. It seemed like 300,000 or more. I don't recall exactly right now. But there was some complex negotiations on how much the school board would spend, how much Orangetree would spend, how much Randall Center PUD would spend. Now our neighbor's asking for access, but there's nothing in the PUD as there is in the Randall Center PUD and the Orangetree PUD that would require them to pay any portion of the turn lane cost. That's the first objection. With regard to the timing of those turn lanes, they are to be installed -- at least the responsibilities respectively are for Orangetree, when the residential development of Valencia occurs, and for the Randall Center PUD, when it further expands its development. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could I ask you a question about that? MR. SIESKY: Certainly. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: When -- because apparently that's like the key here is how soon can we get those done. When Orangetree starts Valencia? Which it's already got the golf course. MR. SIESKY: The residential development. When it starts the residential development. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And you represent them. Do you have any idea when that is anticipated to occur? MR. SIESKY: No. The developer's here. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: They're still doing -- they're still doing Waterways, which -- MR. SIESKY: He says three or four years. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And what about the Randall Center, when they expand, when do we think that might happen? MR. SIESKY: Probably when it's not cost prohibitive as it is right now. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because of the turn lane? MR. SIESKY: Because of the turn lane, yes. The other and more direct impact to the Randall Center PUD is the proposed connection where it's located, and that is directly behind -- or in front of, as you look at it -- the gasoline pumps, where all the traffic is coming into the Randall Center PUD. And this would propose to add further traffic right there as you turn into the gasoline pumps. We think that's just a traffic hazard and a problem. The document, as it's drafted, we don't have a problem with section 1.5 which says should an agreement be reached between the owners of Hit-Mar PUD and the owners of the lands to the east, there would be a vehicular interconnection. Because that puts it in our control as to whether there will be an agreement. And we can maybe take care of a lot of these issues by saying okay, we'll give you a vehicular access, but not right there at our gasoline pumps and yes, if you'll pay for a portion of the turn lanes. The problem comes, in my mind, with section 4.5(c) that says notwithstanding the provisions of the Randall Center PUD, for which this developer has no responsibility, such interconnection shall be provided at the earlier of either the developer's option, which meaning this developer, the developer of Hit-Mar, or at the request of Collier County transportation services to facilitate traffic flow. So that almost says that, at least the way I read it, that Randall Center PUD is at the whim of this developer and at the whim of Collier County transportation services. Both of those are unsettling and not satisfactory for my client. The other thing I wanted to mention, when we were talking about the turn lane with the school board, the transportation department was requiring those three parties to put in a box culvert at the canal there, an $80,000 expense that this developer is not being required to expend. And we think that's also unfair. I'd be happy to try and answer any questions for the board. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? That's right, stay there. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Siesky, if this parcel were not a part -- were not coming in today for any kind of development, that obviously doesn't change any of the commitments that Randall Center PUD made in obtaining its zoning. I guess my question comes in that I'm not sure that we can legally require this property owner to be lumped in with the Randall Center PUD and the commitments made by that zoning if it can be demonstrated that a safe vehicular access can be provided to the parcel. Absent something from our transportation staff that says what is being proposed based on traffic volumes or warrants is unsafe, I don't know that we have the legal ability to make them share in the cost of the turn lane for Randall Boulevard. And that's not so much a question as it is -- I'm just trying to walk through the process. Because obviously what I'd love to see is one single improvement at Randall Boulevard and shared access for all sites, because it just makes the best sense transportation-wise. I'm not sure that we have the legal authority, if it can be demonstrated that safe access can be provided. And it may not be optimum, but safe, that we can force them to be a part financially of the commitments made in the Randall PUD. MR. SIESKY: I don't necessarily disagree with you there, but if you leave it within the owner's control of Randall Center PUD to negotiate an agreement, he can take care of that. If it's within the whim of this developer or the Collier County transportation department as to whether that interconnection is made, then he has no bargaining power. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you have proposed wording that you think corrects that? MR. SIESKY: I think if you just eliminate the language in section 4.5(c). As long as you have the language at the beginning that says where there's a negotiated agreement. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Have you discussed this with Mr. Weigel or staff prior to the meeting? MR. SIESKY: No, I've submitted a letter of objection but had no correspondence in return. MS. MURRAY: Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. MS. MURRAY: First of all, Ed Kant's on vacation. I know that's no excuse, but he's in Europe, so my apologies for him not being here. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Get him on the phone. MS. MURRAY: I contacted him about a month ago to be sure he was going to be here. Regardless, this -- this whole transportation section was reviewed by him. In fact, you know, if you look at 4.5(d) -- and I believe Commissioner Hancock, that's exactly what was probably going through his mind at the time was -- and one of the stipulations in there that he wanted to see was that there should be no direct access to Randall Boulevard permitted for this site. And he didn't feel the need to assess this property owner for intersection improvements or turn lane improvements. If you all want to do that, you certainly have that right, but he did not at the time of his review. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Siesky has a point, as I read 4.5(c). It is a little -- I think it goes outside the bounds a little bit of what we normally do. Page 38, where it says shall be provided at the earlier of either the developer's option or a request by the county transportation services department to facilitate traffic flow and safe operations. You know, what does that mean for the Randall Boulevard center when our transportation director says no, I think it's important for us to facilitate traffic flow that there be an interconnect at this location? That in essence is taking the development of one parcel and imposing a restriction on an existing zone parcel. So I think I understand that point. We want to leave it available. And I'd like to find a way to -- to be honest, I'd like to require an interconnect, as long as it's mutually agreeable in a mutually agreeable location, because that takes the rest of the issue away, in my opinion. That way transportation's not getting involved down the road saying you have to interconnect, you know, if -- we can't do that, because we're only looking at one piece of the puzzle today. But that wording -- that wording does seem to open up doors down the road that are rather nebulous, I guess. MS. MURRAY: I think the -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: At the same time, that sounds like -- we don't want to repeat the mistake of the past -- COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- where we haven't been able to get this roadway improvement that's already desperately needed. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. MS. HURRAY: I think the intent of that language was basically to establish a time frame. And perhaps that could be clarified a little bit just to take into account what's described earlier in the earlier portion of the document that -- with consent of the adjoining property owner. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Ms. Hurray, what does -- the item right above it, item (b), 4.5(b), talking about the adequate turn lanes? MS. HURRAY: I'm sorry, what are you asking me? Are they -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Are they going to be -- is this related to the Randall Boulevard -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, that's exactly what I was talking about earlier when I was trying to kind of nail it down today what the turn radius -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- is and whatnot. That's typically done as a site development plan stage where they bring in a detailed plan and transportation looks at it and determines if the volume of traffic is commensurate -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is going to -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- with the turn radius -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and so forth and so on. I was trying to kind of nail that down on the front end to get a picture. I know our staff is going to address it, I just was trying to see if we could get more information early. That's as I understand it, Ms. Hurray; is that correct? MS. HURRAY: That's correct, yes. MR. HULHERE: For the record, Bob Hulhere, planning director. I just wanted to add one comment on item (c) on page 38 under 4.5 that we've been discussing. One of the -- I think that it's important that the county have some authority for requiring that interconnect in a timely manner, and if left solely -- and in the past I think there have been some PUD's that have been approved which provided for interconnect, but left it up to the discretion of the property owners. And we have situations where one property owner attempts to hold the other property owner hostage in order to obtain that access. And since the genesis of such a stipulation is to benefit the community, Collier County traveling public, so that we, you know, minimize the impacts on the roadway, the external roadway system, I think it really is important that we maintain that authority at the county level for when that access at a minimum -- you know, if the developer wishes to do it prior to that point in time, so be it. But that if the county goes in and says we need this interconnection at this point in time, it gives us the teeth to be able to make that happen. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree with that. I just think the wording in 4.5(c) just leaves it a little open. That needs to be altered a little bit. I don't think that the property owner here should be able -- should have the authority or even the perception of the authority to require an interconnect for the adjacent property. However, our transportation staff, which in their foresight has said an interconnect at some point is going to be a good idea here, that right should be reserved to them. But it needs to be done at the expense of -- you know, I see we have like a drainage swale in here. Well, we're not going to pay to put culverts in and to create the interconnect. That's a design issue for the property owner to deal with. But if we could leave in the county transportation services department but take out the developer's option part of that, I think that gets us part of the way there anyway. MR. SIESKY: Commissioners -- excuse me, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me just suggest a change that might help you a little bit, Mr. Siesky, is instead of having it at the earlier of either the developer's option, have it at the earlier of an agreement between the adjoining property owners, or at the request of the county transportation services. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Siesky? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like that. MR. SIESKY: I like that. But I wanted to also go further with what Commissioner Hancock said, a mutually acceptable location, which currently drawn with the arrows right at the front of the property -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The gas pump thing. MR. SIESKY: -- that's a real problem. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, yeah, but see, what I said was it would be an agreement between the two property owners. If you don't agree, then our transportation staff steps in and says you put it in, here's where you put it in. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In a way it says -- MR. SIESKY: I agree with you. All I was asking was take the arrows off the drawing. So we're not -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't having objections taking the arrows off of that piece of paper. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, me neither. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Maybe we should have taken the arrow off at -- it says potential future access, you know, at some point on the eastern property line, I mean, if that makes you feel better -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- to make it to say that it can move one way or the other. They're going to have to factor it into their design. And if they build first, it's somehow probably going to get locked in at some point. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They're built. They're built? Siesky's -- No, no, I meant Hit-Mar. Well, but yeah, they're built. Okay. So is that clear enough -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Sies -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- direction to staff? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let me just ask one question. How far back does that property go, the Randall Boulevard center? How -- if you look at this drawing that we have and where they currently have the arrow, the east-west arrow, how far back does the property go? So if you were to interconnect, where else could you connect? MR. SIESKY: Commissioner, I wish I could answer that question. I can't. But I think Mr. Nadeau says that it goes all the way back. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: As deep as the -- MR. NADEAU: MS. MURRAY: MR. NADEAU: owners. MS. MURRAY: CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So in other words, the fact that the arrow is located where it is, that could just as well be moved working -- in other words, if people could agree and work on the site itself, they could agree that it could be moved elsewhere? MR. NADEAU: Yes, Madam Chairman. For the record again, Dwight Nadeau, representing the petitioner. I obtained a copy of the site development plan for the Randall Boulevard PUD. And the only logical place for that arrow was on the frontage on Randall Boulevard. There would be -- there's some drainage swales and there's some water retention requirements -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: At the back of the property. MR. NADEAU: -- that are required by the Randall Boulevard Center PUD that may or may not preclude the interconnect -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, let me -- MR. NADEAU: -- to slide back and forth. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- just ask a question. Is this pertinent at all? Does that depiction of the arrow on the -- have any weight? MR. NADEAU: Keeps me out of a PDI. MS. HURRAY: Susan Murray, for the record. I think we could accomplish the same thing by removing the arrow and putting language in -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay, fine. MS. HURRAY: -- the document that says along the eastern property boundary. I don't think we need to design the site. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But I like Commissioner Norris' verbiage change, because it says either you kids go figure out a way to do it, or we're going to figure out a way to do it for you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Worse than Dad. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I like that. That says either work together or we're going to make a decision, and you don't want us making a decision, if you can come to it yourselves. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I like that change. And both parties have agreed to that change? Because I know Mr. Siesky said it was okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: One's more begrudging than the other, but I think we're as close as we're going to get. It makes sense, anyway. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Do we need both parties' acquiescence, Mr. Weigel, or are we still waiting for Mr. Nadeau's? MR. WEIGEL: Well, if Mr. Nadeau can speak on behalf of his party, then you've got the record you'd like to see, I think. MR. NADEAU: I can represent for my petitioners that we will -- are agreeable to the new language such that would -- if I can have it restated for me, Susan? MS. HURRAY: It's my understanding that -- MR. NADEAU: Notwithstanding the provisions of the Randall Center PUD for which the developer has no responsibility, such interconnection shall be provided '- MS. HURRAY: Either at the earlier -- Of? -- of -- -- either an agreement between the two property Between adjoining property owners or the transportation services department's request. MR. NADEAU: Or the request of the county transportation. MS. HURRAY: That's correct. MR. NADEAU: Okay, so we're only inserting agreement between the two property owners. MS. MURRAY: That's correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And removing either the developer's option. MS. HURRAY: Correct. MR. NADEAU: And removing at the developer's option. MS. HURRAY: That's correct. MR. NADEAU: Yes, we have no problem with that. And we'll remove the arrow from the plan. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And insert language into the document indicating a future interconnect along that property line. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that's the only place that it could have done -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, right. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- the only place they had joined -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm just saying that there has to be a reference -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Something in the document. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- to an interconnect, either in the document or on the master plan. MR. SIESKY: He's talking about the eastern property. MR. NADEAU: Okay. So we just insert in eastern property line. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There you go. Right there in that -- MR. NADEAU: In that same -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- second paragraph. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And what will happen eventually, I'm sure, is the Randall Center PUD comes forward, our transportation staff is going to either dictate where that interconnect occurs on good transportation planning, or you guys will work it out ahead of time. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Do we have any other public speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: No others. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Well, this -- I have no problem with the rezoning, but I sure do have a problem with the traffic situation. But I'll support -- as I said, I don't have it with the -- going from the Estates to the PUD because that's consistent with the master plan. So that's -- I'm looking strictly at that. But I'd like to add a footnote that this traffic situation out in that area has got to be addressed quickly. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Close the public hearing? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Then I'll make a motion that we approve the PUD-98-4, changing the language in section 4.5(c) to reflect the discussion that we had earlier that Ms. Hurray has reiterated for us. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, and removing the arrow from the map as well. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And inserting in that same language, because I don't think Ms. Murray actually said it, come to think of it, that this would be pertaining -- in 4.5(c) would be pertaining to the eastern property line. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, sir. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. If there's no further discussion, all in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Thank you very much. MR. SIESKY: Thank you, commissioners. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Maybe that could be sort of a prototype, you know, for this kind of language in the future? Yeah. Item #1283 ORDINANCE 98-73 RE PETITION PUD-87-33(2), HR. BRUCE J. SICILIANO, OF AGNOLI, BARBER & BRUNDAGE, INC., REPRESENTING MR. URI ELI-AV, ELIAS BROTHERS, INC. REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE "WINDSONG" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), ORDINANCE NUMBER 93-74 FOR THE PURPOSES OF ELIMINATING THE MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING TYPES AND THE ADULT CONGREGATE LIVING FACILITY (ACLF) UNITS AND IN ITS PLACE PERMIT SINGLE-FAMILY DWELING UNITS UTILIZING THE ZERO LOT LINE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THEREBY INCREASING THE NUMBER OF DWELING UNITS FROM 134 TO 145 UNITS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF RATTLESNAKE-HAMMOCK ROAD AND COUNTY BARN ROAD - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, the next item is PUD-87-33(2). This is an amendment to the Windsong PUD. This is not the Windsong on Immokalee Road, this is the Windsong down at the northwest corner of Rattlesnake-Hammock Road -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's not the same old song. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's not the same old song. -- and County Barn Road. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Somebody had to say it. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Same 'ol same. I've -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: This is actually the eliminating and increasing and so forth. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- I have had conversation with the property owner. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: As have I. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: As have I. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Representative of the property owner. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have spoken with the petitioner myself, yes . CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, all persons wishing to speak to this item, would you please rise and be sworn in by our court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows of planning services staff. The petitioner is requesting to amend the Windsong PUD to delete the multi-family tract and delete the ACLF tract and to convert that ACLF tract, which is four acres, into residential, which would allow for three additional units per acre on that four-acre tract, or 12 additional units. This would in fact increase the density from 134 units to 145 units. As you can see on the original approved plan, the master plan showed an access point off of County Barn Road. This has been deleted. The conservation area here has been moved around this side. The currently approved master plan shows a centralized lake system. In addition, the retained native vegetation has been increased from six percent to 16 -- not to be less than 16 percent. The Collier County Planning Commission reviewed this and approved it by a seven-zero vote. No letters against have been received. I'd be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Bellows, you said -- I thought I heard you say this increases density? Numeric -- MR. BELLOWS: It doesn't increase density, it increases the total number of units. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. But what was the -- how many ALF units could be built? Was it still capped at 134, no matter what? MR. BELLOWS: Well, the ALF units were at 104. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, because when I -- 104 ALF units, but now we're scrapping ALF. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So those units are gone. And in the end we're going to have a maximum of 145 units total built on this site, right? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Where previously, including ALF and the others, we could have had 238? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That looks like a reduction to my math. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, that's what the summary says as well. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I wanted to clarify that, because when you said increase --MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, they're increasing the total number of units, but the actual density of the project is reducing by .13 units per acre. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The only way you can say they're increasing the total number of units is if you don't count the ACLF units? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct, it was not counted. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: They're -- ALF -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They're increasing residential. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They're losing the -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I understand. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I mean, 104 ALF units probably has the same traffic and external impact as 25 homes, but still, I think it -- overall it is a total reduction in intensity, as I looked at it. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, the traffic counts are slightly lower for the single-family versus the 104. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I just wanted to clarify, because I was thinking along that path and you sidetracked me with that, so -- okay, thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just read you a line from the summary, and you tell me if this is accurate. As a result, the new project density of 3.86 units per acre is .13 units per acre less than the residential density allowed in the currently approved PUD. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: This looks like a no-brainer to me. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's pretty close. I do have a couple of questions for the petitioner. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Petitioner, front and center, please? Just state your name for the record? MR. PICKWORTH: For the record, I'm Don Pickworth, representing Elias Brothers, the contract purchaser of the property. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm looking at this, and on the little map that we're being shown here, I don't see a right turn decel. lane? Do you have a right turn decel. lane? Are you going to -- MR. PICKWORTH: The engineer is telling me yes, there is. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay, good. The other thing is, this piece of property is very heavily pine woods. What I'd like to have is a commitment from the petitioner that you will leave as many of those pine trees in place as possible. Not practical, but possible. MR. PICKWORTH: I think we had made that commitment, but yeah, we certainly will do that. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's all I have. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Hac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nothing. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, are we going to have a way to define that at all? Because I like that idea, but I -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't know that there's any way to define it in legal terms. It's just the words possible and practical are two different things, of course, but -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The problem comes in on a small home site. If you have to bring it up three feet, you can't build tree wells for COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I understand that, yeah. That's -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So the development tracts are probably going to be more or less nuked and replanted, because you have to bring the elevation up to meet South Florida Water Management -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I was really, really more concerned with what -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Boundaries. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: them. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- would be along Rattlesnake-Hammock, and I had that same question when I met with I was kind of pleased with what I heard. -- and County Barn. So the retention -- MR. PICKWORTH: We've done that. In fact, the actual native preservation has increased four, 500 percent over the previous -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. MR. PICKWORTH: -- over the previous plan. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: True enough, what I think I'm looking for, and possibly a couple of the other commissioners as well, is we'd like to see a lot of that left along the roadways so that you have a buffer from the roadways -- MR. PICKWORTH: Yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- in particular. MR. PICKWORTH: Yeah, it definitely will be. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. MR. PICKWORTH: It will be left, plus enhancements along there, because that's obviously our front door. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Remember, as was pointed out to me, some of this along the roadway is actually melaleuca. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, I'd like to see that go. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So unfortunately I think people are going to see a reduction in vegetation on the roadways, but that's the melaleuca I was told that they would -- the pines -- because I asked the same thing about the pines. I said, you know, in those landscape buffers, if you can protect the pines in there, and they assured me that they would, so -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the native vegetation. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All melaleuca can go. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. MR. PICKWORTH: That goes. And the biggest buffer area's along the side there, and that is the better stuff over there that is going to stay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Gotcha. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Their lots are going to sell for a little more. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have any public speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: We have none. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have no public speakers. If there's no further questions for staff or for the petitioner, I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion to approve the petition, along with the commitments made by the petitioner. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: much. We have a motion and a second. Motion carries five-zero. Thank you very Item #13C1 PETITION SNR-98-4, DAVID SCHMITT, P.E. OF Q. GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, P.A., REPRESENTING ROBERTO BOLLT OF ORANGETREE ASSOCIATES, REQUESTING A STREET NAME CHANGE FROM RANDALL BOULEVARD TO VALENCIA PARKWAY, LOCATED IN VALENCIA PARKWAY IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES - DENIED The next item is SNR-98-4. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can we make this name change conditioned on building a couple of turn lanes out there? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'd like that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My only question on these is letters of objection. I haven't received any, but if anyone living along Randall Boulevard using that as an address has objected to the name change. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning. MR. GOCHENAUR: Good morning. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Identify yourself, please. MR. GOCHENAUR: For the record, Ross Gochenaur, planning services. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Have you received any objection to the name change, sir? MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, ma'am, we have. I've received a petition that contained 97 signatures from property owners in general. I received a second petition containing 30 signatures from property owners who actually lived on Randall Boulevard. I also received two letters from organizations; one from our own Planning Department, Mr. Kant, expressing some concern about the renaming, and also from the Florida Division of Forestry. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Why would you not -- did you get all that after our agenda was put together? Because none of it's in my packet, anyway. MR. GOCHENAUR: No, ma'am, this was all after the advertisement for the public hearing that these -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So in the future -- MR. GOCHENAUR: -- were received. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- could we have gotten that information, Mr. Fernandez? I thought this was a simple memorandum. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did you get those letters before last Wednesday? MR. GOCHENAUR: The letters were received before last Wednesday, that's correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's just helpful if we have those in here -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- so when I read it over the weekend, I see Division of Forestry and why they object. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: For future reference, it helps. MR. FERNANDEZ: We'll get those into your packets. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why would the Division of Forestry object? MR. GOCHENAUR: It was more an expression of the impact that this would have on what they were doing, given the amount of material that they had with the current Randall Boulevard address. The other objections were from Mr. Kant; were more on the concern of the actual property owners who were addressed off Randall Boulevard as opposed to absentee property owners; and also the fact that the Valencia project only occupied a small percentage of the total five miles of Randall Boulevard, when the petitioner's reason for the request was to direct the public to Valencia Golf Course and community. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: To get to the petition, to the petition process, to get in front of us, it requires 50 percent of the property owners on that street to sign a petition in favor of the change. MR. GOCHENAUR: No, 50 percent plus one, sir. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. Did -- have you had a chance to cross check the names of those 30 who objected against those who have signed the petition in favor of? MR. GOCHENAUR: No, sir, I have not done that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Wasn't there 97 and then 30, so a total of 127 signatures against? Granted, I don't know they all live on Randall, but did I hear you correctly on that? MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes and no. Of the 90 signatures on one petition, there was some overlap with the 30 signatures on the second petition that involved only persons addressed on Randall Boulevard. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The 97 was not exclusive to Randall Boulevard, the list of 30 was? MR. GOCHENAUR: No, sir -- exactly, correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What I'm wondering is that I would hate to have -- and this is from a newspaper clipping that someone who had signed in favor a year ago now has some genuine concerns and has signed the objection form, and I think before we should be considering this, we should be very sure that more than 50 percent want that. And at least one of those people who signed that has now rescinded their signature. And I wondered if we might not at the very least continue the item and make sure that there are adequate signatures to do that when we cross those names. Secondly, I have a concern about changing from name to name. I understand the rationale on the numbered streets where there are five or six different streets all called Tenth in the county. But going from a name to a name, we've had some limited success, David C. Brown Highway and Immokalee Road. Particularly when it's being done on a -- no fault for trying, but particularly when it's being done to benefit a particular development before it's really even going. I mean, for commercial gain. And that's where I guess my concern is, we're looking at changing an existing named street for the convenience of commercial gain. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, was it named when the PUD came in? I mean, was this a -- was this -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Randall Boulevard's been -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is an existing -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- there for ages. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, it was preexisting to the PUD. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, it's an old -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Prehistoric. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It goes back -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Prehistoric. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- I think -- it goes back to when Gulf American Land laid out that area out there -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- if I recall. It was the name of one of the individuals that was involved. I don't know if he was an engineer or whatever, but he was involved at that particular point in time. I have some real concern. Randall Boulevard, can you roughly tell me the distance when it leaves Immokalee Road and goes on out, how -- what's the distance from there on out to DeSoto? MR. GOCHENAUR: It's approximately five miles. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's a long stretch of highway that has a lot of home sites on it. And I'm -- all due respect, I'm just not convinced that either the people got the word or whatever. Because I just question the accuracy. And it's through nobody's fault, necessarily, but that we haven't gotten a good representation of the people that live along that roadway. And also, there are some -- at the very beginning of it, which we mentioned this morning, you do have some businesses right at the very beginning. I mean, granted, it's limited at this point, but it's going to be more, but -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I wonder if we have any public speakers on this. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- I'm concerned about this. MR. FERNANDEZ: You have three. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, at this time, let's go to the public speakers, please. MR. FERNANDEZ: First speaker is Rebecca Winans and the second is Roberto Bollt. MS. WINANS: Good morning. Thank you for letting me speak. I'm Rebecca Winans, and I live on Randall Boulevard. And I've petitioned everybody in my sector. I live from the canal all the way back to DeSoto. And I wrote everybody in my sector, which is 65 people, and got some responses back, and they were mailed directly to Ross. And I've got some here. And I'd like to put in (sic.) petition in for your records. The ones that do not live on Randall, is over 200 of them, and the ones that live on Randall itself, the houses on Randall is over 30 of them signed right here that says we do not like to have it changed. And I'd just like to have you -- let you know that, you know, we don't want to go through the hassle of changing everything we own to say Valencia Parkway, or whatever. We've already went through the hassle to say Randall Boulevard. You've got to change your license, you've got to change your everything. And we don't want to go through the hassle, when it's only going to help them out on their name, you know, to advertise their golf course. We bought a long time ago and we don't want to move. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I can -- MS. WINANS: Thank you. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- under -- I can understand that point of view. Since I've lived in my house for 20 years, I've had four postal zip codes and two area codes on my telephone, so I can understand the problem when you have to go around changing your address for one of these things. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Question. Of the 30 who signed, what -- do we have any idea -- maybe staff would know -- the total number of residences on the road? We got 30. MS. WINANS: I can tell you how many homes actually live on Randall -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could you? MS. WINANS: -- Boulevard. There is 40 homes. Six of them right now are vacant, two of them are rentals. They signed -- the rental people signed on the ones that actually didn't live on Randall because they don't -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I got you, they -- MS. WINANS: -- own. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- don't own. MS. WINANS: So we -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But out of 40 houses, you have 30 who -- MS. WINANS: Over 30. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- don't want the change? MS. WINANS: Right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just -- MS. WINANS: I mean, we've done some work trying to -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sounds like it. MS. WINANS: -- keep our name. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just -- I just went and based on the plat map that we have counted the number of lots, and I know some are subdivided below the five acres, but assuming the five -- there's only 126 five-acre lots on Randall. MS. WINANS: But 65, there is -- all of them own the land from the canal out to DeSoto. There's 65 individual homeowners -- landowners on just my section. I know because I had to fight to get electricity out my way. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, but they don't front on Randall. In other words, they're -- MS. WINANS: Yes, sir, they do front on Randall. They're subdivided and most of them are 75 foot wide lots. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, those are the one and a quarter acre ones? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. MS. WINANS: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. MS. WINANS: But there is 65 homeowners from the canal to DeSoto Boulevard. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: How did we get to 167 people signing it saying they want the name change? Where are these folks coming from? MR. GOCHENAUR: According to the property appraiser's office, there are 299 property owners in -- pursuing Mr. Kant's question, I matched the people who are actually addressed on Randall Boulevard against the ones who had signed the petition in favor. Of 167, only 11 actually had Randall Boulevard addresses. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Seems odd. Okay, thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Would that have meant that they could have had a P.O. box? MR. GOCHENAUR: It's possible, but I don't recall seeing very many P. O. boxes. MS. WINANS: Can I tell you how that comes about? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Sure. MS. WINANS: We wrote all the way up to Canada on our petitions to get people to sign -- send back for going against it. Because we had the response back. Because Florida Power and Light told us that we couldn't have electricity, there was no development out there, so we wrote everybody and we wrote all the way up to Canada to people that owned property on Randall Boulevard. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Probably would have been easier just to change your driver's license. I'm sorry, I had to say that. MS. WINANS: I'm sorry, but I went through this hassle living on Randall, and I don't want to change my name. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I understand. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Roberto Bollt and then David Schmitt. MR. BOLLT: How are you, commissioners? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning. MR. BOLLT: My name is Roberto Bollt, I'm with Orangetree Associates. As far as the name change from Randall to Valencia Parkway, we started this process in 1996 when we first came to the county and asked permission, could we consider changing the name of Randall, after we looked at the historic value and name -- and history, I should say. Back then we were given a tax roll and we had 320 property owners living on Randall Boulevard from Immokalee Road all the way to DeSoto. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Living on or on it? MR. BOLLT: Just property owners themselves. When we did the initial petition back in January, we came up with 1 -- I should say 137 petitions came forward, four against it and two were no longer property owners, which did not constitute the majority necessary to bring it before this commission. The breakdown of what we have based on those tax rolls is, is that we had 13 people on it who actually had an address on Randall Boulevard; 11 voted for, two voted against. We had 55 people on the tax roll that lived in Collier or Lee County; 35 of them voted for, 20 voted no. We had 52 people who were residing in the State of Florida -- excuse me, 53; 52 voted for, one voted against. And as the lady previous to me said, we did go throughout the whole country and we had 150, that 69 came back as yes, one came back as no and 80 just did not respond. So we had 145 people who did not respond. We are trying to get this name change as an identity to the community as a whole of Orangetree and Valencia. As we've talked previously, we will be doing and are obligated to do extensive roadwork to both the Immokalee/Randall Boulevard intersection and to Randall Boulevard itself. The total project comes out to about $650,000 we'll be spending, between turn lanes and redoing Randall and putting a bike sidewalk on the side of it. We've gone through the democratic process. We've sort of gone through all the people. If it's a question of somebody needing to be, you know, compensated for their time -- and I understand the additional hassle somebody may have to go through to get a license change or bank checks changed; we're certainly willing to work with them to compensate them for any monetary cost that's involved in that. We're just trying to bring some identity on what we're doing out there as far as affordability, which is the whole theme of Orangetree going back from 1985. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I appreciate what you're trying to do. I just think we can and should distinguish between a citizen initiative like those off, say, Logan Boulevard and a commercial enterprise. We declined a name change on the Oaks Boulevard Extension a few weeks back, a couple of months back, that would have been solely for the purpose of changing to be compatible with the same name of Cypress Woods Lane, or whatever it was going to be. And -- because it didn't make much sense to take an area which is known as Oaks Boulevard and you drive across the intersection and then it's something different. And here you have a five-mile stretch that is known and has been for 33 years as Randall Boulevard. And I have a problem with that. I appreciate you're trying to move your enterprises forward and do what you want to, but not being a citizen-driven initiative, and particularly not coming from someone who lives on Randall Boulevard, I have a real hard time with moving forward with that. MR. BOLLT: I guess indirectly I live on Randall Boulevard, but by virtue of the project. I understand. Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have any other public speakers? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel, you want to see if we have any other speakers? MR. WEIGEL: Well, there was one more. MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. David Schmitt. MR. SCHHITT: I'll decline. MR. FERNANDEZ: No others. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner, any other questions or thoughts, concerns? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I just -- you know, the -- I understand your point. I don't disagree with it. It's just when you go through the process and the numbers that Mr. Bollt indicated were strongly in favor of a name change, I don't know, it just -- to be honest, I'm in a quandary, because we now have 30 residents that live on Randall signing petitions saying no, thank you. Just -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, I'm going to have to probably say that I'd give residents who actually live there a little more weight COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: someplace. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. -- than I would an absentee from Canada or Yeah, I agree. That's kind of -- in a way it's like a couple years back I had a lady call me up and said I just moved into town, I live on Rattlesnake-Hammock. I want you to change the name because I don't like the idea of having to live on a road that's named after rattlesnakes. People have all sorts of reasons for changing names. I don't know, but the, you know, Rattlesnake-Hammock is probably -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When is that initiative coming forward? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I don't think that one's coming forward, but I think it was named Rattlesnake-Hammock before you were born. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I hope so. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't think, you know, that we need to throw historical names away. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Agreed. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I appreciate the fact, you know, of certainly what's taking place at Orangetree, and there's been a lot of good things out there. I don't think anybody disapproves and objects to the things that are taking place at Orangetree. At the same time, when we did change the names on the streets off of Logan, you were not looking at roadways that were five miles in length that extended as far out. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Neighborhood streets. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: These were a neighborhood street. And as you pointed out so aptly, that they were numbers that were almost duplicated in other areas, so at times it was confusing. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to know who Mr. Randall is. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I just read this. This lady, I'm sure, could tell you. MS. WINANS: I turned in the paperwork that has -- the cutting has it. The paper clip cutting has the name of where it came from. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Was he the engineer? MS. WINANS: He was one of the engineers in the office. They asked what was his middle name, they named it Randall. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Because they had to name the streets -- MS. WINANS: Right. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- and so that was part of it that came about. This was back in like -- in the early Sixties. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Unlike others in this town, he didn't have enough daughters to name all the streets after his daughters, so -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, it was when Gulf American was laying out the Estates, and so they had to -- you know, they had to name them to get them on the books. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Obviously, I'd love it if it were someone who was -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Anyway, I will now close the public hearing. Do I have a motion? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to decline the -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- petition. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second to decline this particular petition. Any further questions or comments? I'll call for the question. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. And the next items, 13-A-l, 2 and 3 have all been either deleted or continued or withdrawn entirely. Item #14 STAFF'S COHMUNICATIONS - DISCUSSION REGARDING MARCO ISLAND LETTER REFERENCING MEETING WITH COHMISSIONERS We'll then go to any staff communications. Mr. Weigel, do you have anything that you'd like to add? MR. WEIGEL: No, nothing, thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, the only thing I have is a brief update on the Marco Island meeting status. I have a fax response to the letter that we sent asking for confirmation that the request to meet was established by the Marco City Council, and secondly, to send us an agenda. The letter gives us a number of dates that would not be in conflict with their schedule. Mr. Moss also indicates that he will be sending a draft list of agenda items for our review, and he says as we may recall, the board first proposed a joint meeting. The Marco Island City Council agreed to meet at such a time as the county administrator and the city manager deemed appropriate. So we still don't have an agenda from Marco Island at this time. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But that's forthcoming. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So when we do we'll talk about it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: When we get the agenda, then we'll set the meeting. Okay, Commissioner Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just wanted to be sure everybody had heard about the Diamond Jubilee dinner on the 17th of September. It's going to be -- I'm getting information to be sure that everybody here gets a copy of it, but it's going to be wonderful, I think, because in addition to the dinner, it's going to be sort of an old-timers discussion. They're going to talk about how Naples used to be and how Collier County was founded, and -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Where is this going to be? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: At the Naples Depot, in the Norris room, 6:30 on Thursday, the 17th, 17.50 a person. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're going to go way back, like five years ago? Like how it used to be? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, I mean way back, like 75 years ago. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Twenty years ago. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's also the 75th anniversary of another major item in Collier County, and that would be -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: same year? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Besides John? -- Collier County. Collier County. Yeah, and I wish we were doing -- Weren't the city and county formed in the Yes. Yes. And actually, the city didn't have its first meeting until two years later. They were created but didn't meet to form themselves as city council or mayor for a couple of years. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've got to bite my tongue. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I've got to bite my tongue too on that one. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Here, here. Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I just wanted to alert Mr. Fernandez, in particular, and the board members that due to a death in our family, I will probably in all likelihood not be here next week. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. All right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry to hear that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My condolences to Inez. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Nothing. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Something very near and dear to my heart is the joint advisory committee on youth activities. It's something I co-founded over the last four years with the City Council that has brought junior high and high school students together to help our park staff and whatnot, you know, kind of get on the train in what kids are looking for. Obviously, I will not be able to continue in that after November. The committee consists of a councilman, a commissioner, the parks and rec. staff, the sheriff's office and junior high and high school students. I'll be asking someone on this board to take that up. It's something that has resulted in summertime and spring break and Christmas activities, concerts at the Naples Airport hangar. It's actually even changed the way we do some planning in our parks and rec. staff dealing -- you know, trying to create unique and different recreational opportunities for kids, and one of the things I'm very, very proud of. So if you guys will think about it, I would really like someone to take that to heart and continue pushing with it. Because I think it's one of the few things we can do to really serve the kids in the community well. And we'll have -- I'll have one more meeting and I'm going to try and get things up and running for the next school year so that all someone has to do is kind of step in and learn along the way that year and then go from there. So if you guys will think about it, I'll be asking you in the next few weeks for someone to be appointed to that. That's all. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Very good. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Ms. Filson? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Ms. Filson? MS. FILSON: I have nothing, thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: With nothing else to come before this iljustrious body, it's adjourned. Commissioner Hancock moved, seconded by Commissioner Constantine, and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent and Summary Agenda be approved and/or adopted: Item #16A1 BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING SIDEWALKS IN THE CDBG SHELLABARGER PARK PROJECT Item #16A2 RESOLUTION 98-368 APPROVING THE AMENDED LOCAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN (H.A.P.) FOR FISCAL YEARS 1998-1999, 1999-2000 AND 2000-2001 AS REQUIRED BY THE FLORIDA STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES (S.H.I.P.) PROGRAM AND THE FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION Item # 16A3 RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF WATERWAYS OF NAPLES UNIT FOUR - WITH CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND ESCROW AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS Item #16A4 RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF WATERWAYS OF NAPLES UNIT THREE -WITH CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND ESCROW AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS Item #16A5 RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF SAPPHIRE LAKES UNIT 3-C - WITH CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND ESCROW AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS Item #16A6 ALTERNATE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND ALTERNATE PERFROHANCE BOND FOR PORTOFINO AT PELICAN MARSH Item #16A7 - CONTINUED TO 9/15/98 Item #16B1 ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSALS FROH TAMPA BAY ENGINEEERING, INC. TO PROVIDE ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE RELOCATION OF COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER FACILITIES REQUIRED BY IMPROVEMENTS TO STATE ROAD 45 (U.S.41) FROM SOUTH OF MYRTLE ROAD TO IHMOKALEE ROAD TO 887 (OLD US 41); STAFF TO PREPARE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $156,840.47 Item # 1682 JOINT SUPPELHENTAL INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH LEE COUNTY FOR ROADWAY MAINTENANCE OBLIGATIONS FOR BONITA BEACH ROAD, WOODS EDGE PARKWAY AND VANDERBILT DRIVE Item #1683 TASK ORDER #WD-PSI-98-I TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC. FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF UNDERGROUND FUEL STORAGE TANKS - IN THE AMOUNT OF $122,151.14 Item #1684 PROPOSALS RECEIVED FOR RFP 97-2725 COUNTY WATER DEPARTMENT SOFTWARE REJECTED; AND STAFF TO RE-BID AT A LATER DATE Item #1685 BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE UPGRADE OF THE HANATEE ROAD POTABLE WATER SYSTEM PUMP STATION Item #1686 AMENDMENT NO. FOUR TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HAZEN & SAWYER, P.C. IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,875,255.00 FOR CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR THE NCRWWTF 5-HGD EXPANSION Item #1687 STAFF TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE CITY OF NAPLES TO PURCHASE PROPERTY DECLARED SURPLUS BY THE CITY - CHAIRMAN TO SIGN A LETTER ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD REQUESTING THE NAPLES CITY COUNCIL POSTPONE OR CANCEL ITS BIDDING PROCESS IN THIS MATTER Item #16C1 Moved to Item #8C1 Item #16C2 BUDGET AMENDMENTS RECOGNIZING ADDITIONAL TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX REVENUE IN THE AMOUNT OF $29,400.00 Item #16D1 SATISFACTION OF LIEN DOCUMENTS FILED AGAINST REAL PROPERTY FOR THE ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE Item #16El BUDGET AMENDMENTS 98-356, 98-396 AND 98-405 Item #16G1 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the various departments as indicated: Item #16H1 Moved to Item #11A1 Item #16H2 BUDGET A_MENDHENT FOR THE USE OF CONFISCATED TRUST FUNDS TO PURCHASE SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT BY THE COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE Item #1611 STIPULATED FINAL JUDGHENT RELATIVE TO THE EASEHENT ACQUISITION ON PARCEL NOS. 93, 93.1 AND 93.2 IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V. RICHARD B. SIZER, JUDITH SIZER, ET AL., CASE NO. 91-2775-CA-01 (PINE RIDGE INDUSTRIAL PARK HSTU) Item #1612 STIPULATED FINDAL JUDGHENT RELATIVE TO THE EASEHENT ACQUISITION ON PARCEL NO. 291 IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V. GEORGE NISNICH, ET AL, CASE NO. 91-2776-CA-01-DRH (PINE RIDGE INDUSTRIAL PARK HSTU) Item #17A RESOLUTION 98-369 APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT FOR AS THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL TO UTILIZE THE UNIFORM METHOD OF COLLECTION FOR SOLID WASTE DISTRICT NO. 1 MUNICIPAL SERVICE BENEFIT UNIT SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LEVIED AGAINST CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY Item #17B RESOLUTION 98-370 APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT FOR AS THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL TO UTILIZE THE UNIFORM METHOD OF COLLECTION FOR SOLID WASTE DISTRICT NO. 2 MUNICIPAL SERVICE BENEFIT UNIT SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LEVIED AGAINST CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY Item #17C ORDINANCE 98-70, AMENDING ORDINANCE 89-05, AS AMENDED, RE PETITION CPSS-98-01, GERALD AND MARION BRAY AND GEORGE CANAAN, PROVIDING FOR A SHALL SCALE AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE HAP AND THE RANDALL BOULEVARD COHMERCIAL DISTRICT HAP OF THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN OF COLLIER COUNTY'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN Item #17D RESOLUTION 98-371, RE PETITION V-98-12, GAVIN AND SUSN WIDOH REQUESTING A 5 FEET 10 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK TO 24 FEET 2 INCHES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 404 BAYSIDE AVENUE, FURTHER DESCRIBED AS LOT 6, BLOCK K, CONNER'S VANDERBILT BEACH ESTATES, UNIT 2 Item #17E RESOLUTION 98-372, RE PETITION CU-98-16, DOMINICK J. A_MICO, JR., REPRESENTING COLLIER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE "2" OF THE INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR A DAY CARE FACILITY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SOUTH HORSESHOE DRIVE ON LOT 32 OF THE EAST NAPLES INDUSTRIAL PARK Item #17F RESOLUTION 98-373· RE PETITION V-98-9, JERRY AND SHELBY DELASHHENT REQUESTING AN AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE OF 1.6 FEET FROM THE REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK OF 10 FEET TO 8.4 FEET AND 0.5 FEET OF THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 7.5 FEET TO 7.0 FEET FOR PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS THE WEST 54 FEET OF LOT 12 AND THE EAST 10 FEET OF LOT 13 OF THE GORDON RIVER HOMES SUBDIVISION There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:45 a.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL BARBARA B. BERRY· CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on presented or as corrected · as TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, NOTARY PUBLIC