Loading...
BCC Minutes 03/10/1998 R REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 10, 1998 OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS LET IT BE REMEMBERED, 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: CHAIRPERSON: Barbara B. Berry Timothy L. Hancock Pamela S. Hac'Kie John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine ALSO PRESENT: Robert Fernandez, County Administrator David C. Weigel, County Attorney Item #3A AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning. I'd like to call the March 10th meeting of the Collier County Board of Commissioners to order. Would you please rise for the invocation by the Father William Kehayes of St. Katherine's Greek Orthodox Church and remain standing for the pledge. FATHER. KEHAYES: In the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, amen. Oh, God, our Father and Savior who, for thy goodness, has watched over us during the past night and brought us to this day, grant also that we may spend it holy in thy service. Let us not think or say or do a single thing that does not tend to thy service and submission to thy will, and thus so our actions may aim at the glory of thy name and salvation of us all. And as thou does give the light of the sun to this world, so enlighten our minds and hearts by thy spirit that he may guide us in the way of thy righteousness to whatever purpose we apply our minds. Hay the end intention be thy honor and service. Hay we expect happiness only from thee. Let us not attempt anything, oh God, that is not pleasing to thee. Grant also that, while we attempt to labor for the maintenance of this life and its concerns, we may raise our minds above them to the blessed and heavenly life which thou has promised to thy children. Be mindful of the residents of this county and state, of our county administrator and board of commissioners. Bless their efforts for the common good. Endow them with health, wisdom, patience, integrity, leadership and service. Grant that, in the midst of our work, we may find rest and peace in thy presence and joy in all that ministers to thy service, for thou art our strength and our great award, amen. (Pledge of allegiance recited in unison.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Father Kehayes. Before we get started this morning, it is my privilege to welcome to our county commission meeting the students who are with the Know Your Government group. If you could just stand, all of you together here, for just a moment so we can see who you are. We're very pleased to have you with us this morning. (Applause.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We'll all try to be on our good behavior to give you a good impression of the county commission this morning. Mr. Fernandez, do you have any changes to the agenda, please? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, I do, Madam Chairman. Good morning. The first is to add Item ll(A)(2), which is approval of court services, 20th Judicial Circuit invoices. The reason for this is that we still don't have payment of those invoices, and we felt that, in the consideration of those vendors, to get payments to them, to add the latest list of invoices to the agenda. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Will the Clerk be here today? MR. FERNANDEZ: I have invited the Clerk. I didn't get a response to the invitation. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why don't you put a call in and tell him the board would like to see him here for that item today? MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. I'd be glad to. The next is to withdraw Item ll(A)(1). This is to approve the lease agreement for office space to be utilized by the Sheriff's Office. This is withdrawn at the staff's request. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is that a continuance or a permanent withdrawal? MR. FERNANDEZ: I would request to withdraw because it may come back in a different form. It may not be the same recommendation. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just curious. MR. FERNANDEZ: To continue -- the next is to continue Item 12(B)(5) to the March 17th, '98 meeting. This is the petition PUD 9718, Signature Community's requesting a fezone from RHF-6 -- RHF-12(6) to PUD to be known as the Dunes PUD located on the northwest corner of llth Avenue North and Vanderbilt Drive. It is at the petitioner's request; wasn't able to be present today. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Did we -- excuse me, Mr. Fernandez, would that not be lllth Avenue North? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's actually Bluebill. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, but -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: lllth sounds like the other side of -- MR. FERNANDEZ: It sounds like that's more correct. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I believe so. MR. FERNANDEZ: lllth. Sorry for the typographical error. The next is to move Item 16(E)(10) to 8(E)(1). This is the request to the board to adopt the company resolution approving the transfer of waste water Certificate Number 065 from Rookery Bay Utility to Rookery Bay Services, Inc. for the continued provision of waste water services to the approved service area. This is at the request of staff because a number of citizens have expressed an interest to speak on this issue. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Any changes, Commissioner? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: None, thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I will have an announcement to make this afternoon under 15. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Under 157 COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Uh-huh. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Representative Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: BCC communications. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to add under 10(C) discussion on direction regarding the epic drama. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No additions. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No additions. Okay. Do I have a motion? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'll make a motion we approve the agenda and consent agenda as amended. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and second. All those in favor? Opposed? (No response). CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. Item #4A & B MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 17, 1998 AND FEBRUARY 17, 1998 WORKSHOP - APPROVED AS PRESENTED COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Madam Chairman, I'll make a motion we approve the minutes of February 17th regular meeting and February 17th Palm Cottage meeting. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and second. All those in favor? Opposed? (No response). CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries unanimously. Just a quick announcement, too. Several of you may be new here today and this may be your first commission meeting. If you wish to speak to any item on the agenda, I would ask that you register now or at least prior to the item being heard. Do not register during the time the item is heard, but register ahead of time so we have an idea, then, of how many speakers we may have on any particular item. Did you have a question, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. I needed Ms. Filson. I'm sorry. Item #5A1 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF MARCH 8 - 14, 1998 AS KNOW YOUR COUNTY GOVERNMENT WEEK - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. Moving on then, proclamation proclaiming March 8th through the 14th, 1998 as Know Your County Government Week. Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. We have a room of folks interested in this item, and we have three in particular who are going to join us for the proclamation; Kenson Polite, Lonnie Santos and Brandy Kitwan. And if you would come up here, and after we'll let you go back to the podium to -- come up for the proclamation and turn around so everyone in television land can see you. The proclamation reads as follows: Whereas county government is a complex and multi-faceted process which affects the lives of all residents of Collier County; and whereas, an increased knowledge of how various aspects of county government work can enhance an individual resident's quality of life in Collier County; and whereas, it is desirable for all county residents to be knowledgeable of the county's government and how it works, now therefore be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that the week of March 8th through 14th, 1998 be designated as Know Your County Government Week. Done and ordered this 10th day of March, 1998. Barbara B. Berry, Chairman. Madam Chairman, I'd like to make a motion we approve this proclamation. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and second. All those in favor? Opposed? (No response). CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. (Applause.) MISS KIRWAN: Good morning. My name is Brandy Kirwan. I'm from Baron Collier High School. I've been in 4-H -- this is my seventh year in 4-H. This morning we wish to thank the commission, the county manager, all the participating officials, the League of Women Voters, the adults from 4-H and Collier County Public Schools who have all worked together to make the Know Your County Government Program possible. Thirty teens from across the county have been able to participate in the program this year. We are representing Immokalee High School, Baron Collier, Naples and Saint John Neuman as well as home-schoolers. Some of the things that we have learned this year include -- all the places that we've been, we've learned various things, but one of the things I felt were most important is coming to this government complex. I did not know all the things that were included in this whole complex. I thought the only things that were here were the jail and the courthouse. I had much to learn. We visited a lot of people here. We went to the tax collector, the property appraiser, the 911 dispatchers, I didn't know all these people were here, the health department. It's kind of embarrassing, but I really did learn a lot. We went to the landfill. That's also part of the government. I didn't know that. I thought it was Waste Management, that was it, and I thought that was totally separate, but it's not; it's part of the government. The pipes that go into the landfill and methane gas, I didn't know anything about that. Those are some of the things that I learned. Thank you. (Applause.) MR. POLITE: Good morning. My name is Kenson Polite from Immokalee High School, and I'm proud to be accepting this proclamation on behalf of the Know Your County Government Program. This has been a very exciting experience for me because I have learned a lot of important things, which Brandy has mentioned. I now see that your job is not as easy as I thought it was. A problem -- a big problem that the board -- that I see the board is facing is the growing rate of Collier County. More people are coming to different parts of Collier County every day and new additions have to be made in order to deal with the increasing amount of people. Some of the problems that come from the growing rate of Collier County are establishing, enforcing zoning regulations, over crowding in the schools and making sure that everybody has clean water to drink. Another problem that I see is the decline in agriculture and farming in Collier County, throughout Collier County, but especially in Immokalee. This problem, the decline in the farm industry, will cause economic problems everywhere. It's not just a problem in Immokalee, but everywhere. The only way I think this problem will be able to be resolved is by Naples and Immokalee coming together and figuring out something to do about it. Okay. In conclusion, I think that the only way that some of these problems will be resolved is by us all coming together to find a solution because we're all -- because all of us -- all of us are one county and every city and community contributes something beneficial to the other. And what I'm going to do with the information that I have learned from this program is spread the word, and thank you very much. (Applause.) MISS SANTOS: Good morning. My name is Lonnie Santos, and I'm a senior at Baron Collier High School. This is my first year as a 4-H member. Today we are also looking forward to advancing our knowledge which was stimulated from this hands-on program of Know Your County Government. We look forward to working though our government for the betterment of our county and country through the spectrum of our legal system, including voting, petitioning, lobbying and law enforcement. I recommend that Know Your County Government be included in all senior's curriculum. It is a must. I cannot impress how this important learning process has affected me. It has been a present and rewarding experience, however brief. In addressing the board, we are also able to add another component to our learning process. This -- after this, we will meet the Clerk of Courts and also visit courtrooms in session. Then we are looking forward to having lunch -- to join all of you. Again, thank you very much for your support. (Applause.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's always refreshing to hear from these young people, and we certainly thank you, Mrs. Denning. I know you're highly involved in this project, as is Mrs. Straight (phonetic), who just walked out the door. I see Ms. Lubonic (phonetic) back there. I see some of the teachers from -- I know one from Naples High School and one from -- I think, is it, Baron Collier. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: It most certainly is. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We're very pleased to have you here this morning. I think already some of you have a better understanding of our government than perhaps many of the adults in Collier County do, so I compliment the instructors here for working with the students and also coming down and seeing firsthand exactly what goes on down here. So again, thank you very much for being a part of this this morning. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, we will be breaking today at 12:15, I assume, for a 12:30 luncheon with these young people? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Exactly. We will do that, so we'll look forward to having lunch with you later, a little bit later. Thank you very much. (Applause.) Item #5A2 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF MARCH 15 - 21, 1998 AS JUVENILE JUSTICE WEEK - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Hoving on, then, to a proclamation proclaiming the week of March 15th through the 21st as Juvenile Justice Week. Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you, Madam Chairman. It's my pleasure this morning to have the opportunity to read this proclamation into the record and to recognize Mrs. Pat Barton, the chairman of the Juvenile Justice Council. Pat, if you could, I'll ask you to come forward and get your -- your just two or three minutes of fame for today. Proclamation reads as follows: Whereas the state's juvenile crime problem has ramifications far beyond the juvenile justice system and affects the heath and integrity of the state's business, community, education and family institutions; and whereas, the state, as well as Collier County, must therefore employ a comprehensive strategy to address the problem of juvenile crime if the problem is to be effectively solved; and whereas, Collier County will not tolerate the criminal activities of our youth, present company excluded; and whereas, the citizens of our community need to have a heightened awareness of juvenile justice issues; and whereas, Collier County will work with the Department of Juvenile Justice, Collier County Juvenile Justice Council and local businesses on programs for the prevention and intervention of criminal justice. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that the week of March 15th through 21st, 1998 be designated as Juvenile Justice Week in Collier County and urge all citizens in our community to take part in stopping or preventing juvenile delinquency and to make a conscious effort to learn more about the programs for prevention and intervention. Done and ordered this 10th day of March, 1998. Barbara B. Berry, Chairman. Madam Chairman, I'd like to move acceptance of this proclamation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and second. All those in favor? Opposed? (No response). CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. (Applause.) MS. BARTON: I will be brief. The young people here are a hard act to follow, but I did want to thank you publicly not only for the proclamation and the recognition of Juvenile Justice Week but also for the partnership that we have formed with the County Commission over the past several years in bringing together a system for juvenile justice. And I cannot -- I must take advantage of the opportunity while I'm here to urge your help in solving the water management problem that we have that has delayed the construction of the detention center over here adjacent to the new jail. You are unaware of it? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I am. I didn't know about it. MS. BARTON: We've been delayed for almost a year, and our money has been diverted to Charlotte County. It is still waiting for us, and we can get it back, but there are retention ponds that must be set in place before we can build a detention center, and it has really been bogged down in the bureaucracy. I won't say it's just county bureaucracy; it's the state bureaucracy as well. So if you could facilitate some of that discussion -- and let's get the show on the road so we can go ahead and get that in the assessments that are in place, we'd sure appreciate it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a sneaky feeling to the County Administrator's Office that probably will be happening this afternoon. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you for bringing it to our attention. MS. BARTON: I appreciate it very much. Thank you so much. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Ms. Barton. Item #5B EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED Moving on to the service awards. Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Ms. Chairman. We have two of them today. Our first one is James Kerrigan from Building Review and Permitting for 10 years of service. (Applause.) COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We also have Gregorio Flores today for 15 years of service. (Applause.) Item #5C1 AMY TAYLOR, PLANNING SERVICES, RECOGNIZED AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR MARCH, 1998 CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And this morning, it is my pleasure to present the employee of the month, and we have Ms. Amy Taylor. And if she would come forward, please, and come up here and turn around and face the camera. Amy has recently been involved in the management of several key metropolitan planning organizations also known as the HPO activities, most notably, completion of the application for the U.S. 41 Tamiami Trail scenic highway designation. Amy has been responsible for the nearly year-long public involvement process and has served as a staff liaison to the citizen advisory group in this effort. She's demonstrated ingenuity and innovation in finding ways to expand staff's assistance on this project. Amy has helped negotiate a general service agreement with FDOT to assist the citizen advisory group in the completion of Phase II of this project. She's also served as HPO staff liaison to the HPO citizen advisory committee and should be recognized for completion of an information packet which will be used by new advisory committee members to learn more about the functions of the HPO. And this document has been so well received that the FDOT has requested copies to use in their training efforts. So this morning, I would like to nominate Amy Taylor as our employee of the month for March of 1998. (Applause.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Amy, we have a plaque to present to you and, of course, the letter that goes with it, but most of all, a check. So enjoy it, and thank you so much for your efforts. For the benefit of the students that are here, if you will look down when you go down the elevator or maybe -- I don't know if you use the stairway or not, but at any rate, down on the first floor by the elevator, there is a plaque down there. And every month, the employee's picture is placed down there, and that picture stays there for a month, and there is also a metal tag that indicates they are the employee of the month, so that's designated. Item #5C2 PRESENTATION OF THE FLORIDA SCHOOL TO WORK ZONE AWARD All right. Moving along, then, to presentation of the Florida School to Work Zone Award. Commissioner Mac'kie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is Joan Mayer here? Thank you. Come forward. She is the recycling coordinator for Collier County and appearing here on behalf of the Solid Waste Department who is receiving today an award, the Florida School to Work Zone Award. This is an award that each year, the Solid Waste Department's Recycling Section qualifies for this under a state program by donating approximately 500 hours of time, about $7,000 worth of in-kind and other contributions to the public schools to -- in order to promote proper solid waste management and recycling programs. It's a complicated undertaking. They have to provide a curriculum for teachers to use, for -- regarding solid waste management and recycling for fifth grade and K. through 12. They have field studies. They have in-school programs, exhibits and demonstrations, field trips and landfill tours, which you guys had the thrill of recently, and then also an important mentoting and career development program for role modeling. So I'm proud to present to you this plaque, Florida School to Work Zone in recognition of outstanding employer participation. This is to commend Collier County Solid Waste Department for extraordinary commitment and involvement in assisting students to make the connection between the classroom of today and the job skills required for tomorrow. This is presented by Governor Lawton Chiles, Commissioner Frank Brogan (phonetic), from the Department of Education, and Secretary Doug Jamerson (phonetic) from the Department of Labor and Employment Security for the State of Florida. If you will come and accept these two plaques. (Applause.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you very much. Item #6B COHMISSIONER BERRY APPOINTED AS REPRESENTATIVE TO THE AUDITOR SELECTION COHMITTEE IN COMPLIANCE WITH FLORIDA STATUTE 11.45 Moving on, then, to Item 6(B) to appoint a representative to the auditor selection committee in compliance with Florida Statute 11.45. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may ask, Madam Chair -- Mr. Fernandez, in the past, when we selected the auditor, do you know who sat on that selection committee? I assume it was somebody from OHB? MR. FERNANDEZ: I don't, but Mr. Smykowski is here and he might be able to help us. I don't see him in the audience. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is there an appointment, a staff position or a commissioner? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's a commissioner. MR. FERNANDEZ: Commissioner. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I attended a preliminary meeting the other day over in the Clerk's office regarding this -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If you would be willing to serve -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I would be willing to serve on this. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Then I nominate -- COHHISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I guess I got a job. That's what you get for going to a meeting. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That will teach you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Anyway, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Opposed? (No response). CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. I will be happy to serve on that committee. Item #7A MS. DEDE POELTL, COLLIER COUNTY MEDICAL SOCIETY ALLIANCE FOUNDATION REQUESTING A WAIVER OF PERMIT FEE FOR WOHEN'S HEALTH WEEK RACE - APPROVED Under public petitions, Ms. Dede Peoltl, Collier County Medical Society Alliance Foundation. Is Ms. Peoltl here? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I hope she won't mind, that -- we can sort of jump ahead, and I'll make a motion we approve this. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second. This is a request, I believe, that's come before us in the past, so we have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Opposed? (No response). CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. Item #BE1 RESOLUTION 98-68 APPROVING THE TRANSFER OF WASTEWATER CERTIFICATE NO. 065 FROM ROOKERY BAY UTILITY COMPANY, INC. TO ROOKERY BAY SERVICES, INC. FOR THE CONTINUED PROVISION OF WASTEWATER SERVICE TO THE APPROVED SERVICE AREA - ADOPTED Moving on, then, down under county administrator's report, Item 8(E)(1), Rookery Bay Services, waste water service. Mr. Wallace, good morning. MR. WALLACE: Good morning, Madam Chairman. For the record, Bleu Wallace of the Office of Utility Regulation. Rookery Bay Utility is a waste-water-only utility that serves the area south of U.S. 41 and east of 951 in south county. Rookery Bay Utility has been the subject of an enforcement action with both the Department of Environmental Protection and the Office of Utility Regulation and the Collier County Water and Waste Water Authority. To find a remedy for this enforcement action for a utility operating without a permit from DEP, a -- the utility opted to sell the utility to new owners. DEP thought that was acceptable because they want -- they found a new owner that was committed to bring the utility into compliance to get those permits and to run a top-notch organization and utility. We think that Rookery Bay Services is committed to doing that, and, as a result, there was a joint application submitted for transfer of the certificate that was issued by this board last October to Rookery Bay Services, Inc. The application was received on the llth of February and the Authority had a hearing, a duly advertised hearing, on the 23rd of February. They considered those items that are in your packet that are required by the utility ordinance, the utility regulation ordinance. At the close of that hearing, after hearing from the public, staff, DEP and everyone concerned, all the parties, the Collier County Water and Waste Water Authority issued its preliminary order recommending board approval of the transfer, and that's what you have before you today, the resolution to approve that transfer. Last week, I was contacted or found out about some customers that were concerned about this transfer, and I contacted the folks on Friday. I met with them on Friday. I met with them yesterday, and they still wish to address the board. They're here today. Also here is the buyer of the utility, the prospective buyer. It's a trust, and the trustee is Mr. Hark Woodward. He's present if you have any questions for him. But staff would -- would recommend that the board adopt the accompanying resolution as recommended by the Collier County Water and Waste Water Authority. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez, do we have speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, we do, Madam Chairman. First speaker is Henry Kast, and the second speaker is Carol Gilfedder. Sorry. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This obviously is not Henry, so we'll assume this is Carol. MR. FERNANDEZ: This must be Carol. MS. GILFEDDER: Yes, it is. Carol Gilfedder, president of Imperial Wilderness Condominium Association, and I thank you for allowing us to address you. I have a question to pose and maybe this should go to Mr. Woodward. After we have reviewed the information that Mr. Wallace had allowed us to look at, we noticed that we were not mentioned in Exhibit C of the purchase and sale agreement. We don't appear in the tabs at all. Are we part of this contract when they sell it to Rookery Bay Utilities or Rookery Bay Services? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Woodward. MR. WOODWARD: My clients -- my name is Mark Woodward for the record, and I am the attorney and also president of Rookery Bay Services which is the purchasing company, and we are purchasing the entire franchise area of the old Rookery Bay Utilities Company, which does include the area that's being questioned. MS. GILFEDDER: Thank you. I appreciate that. At this time I would like to thank Mr. John Norris, Hike HcNees and Bleu Wallace for their quick response to our inquiry. And I would like to request that Imperial Wilderness be kept informed if the county decides to proceed with the acquisition of Rookery Bay Services. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam chairman, I'm assuming Mr. Kast has waived his opportunity to speak. MR. KAST: Yes, I have. MR. FERNANDEZ: The next is H.J. Hammond and then Bruce Anderson. MR. HAMMOND: My name is Michael J. Hammond. I reside at 44 Turquoise Avenue, Naples, Florida. I represent Enchanting Shores Co-op, Inc. with offices at 17 Turquoise Avenue in Naples. During the first week of January, we met with Collier County Waste Director of Collier County Public Works Division and at that time, they assured us that plant that we were affiliated with was in proper and better-than-average working order and they saw no reason to change -- they saw no reason there would be a change in the foreseeable future. Therefore, we rise to oppose the resolution to permit this sale. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry, because -- MR. HAMMOND: I'm sorry? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What is the reason for opposing the -- MR. HAMMOND: The reason is that we feel that the facilities that we have at the present time are adequate and it would cost us considerably more, according to the folks that we have met with. And, obviously, for financial reasons, we're opposed also. But it's -- our facilities work perfect at the present time. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Mr. Hammond. MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Anderson has waived, and that's our final speaker, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We've heard the public speakers on this particular issue. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let's have Mr. Wallace respond to that last comment. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. WALLACE: This action, should the board approve the transfer, would not change the rates. It would not change the service territory, and I don't know what the gentleman is talking about because I wasn't in that meeting. However, Rookery Bay Utilities has been operating without a valid DEP permit since June 17th, 1997, and that was the subject of the long-ensuing enforcement action that the Authority has been trying to remedy and we viewed this as the remedy. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Just to make it clear, though, Mr. Wallace, this is not going to affect rates? MR. WALLACE: No, sir, it will not. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. Motion to approve. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and second. All those in favor? Opposed? (No response). CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Fernandez, would you come here for a moment, please? Item #9A LEGAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH FIXEL & MAGUIRE AS LEGAL COUNSEL TO REPRESENT COUNTY RELATING TO COUNTY'S PROPERTY ACQUISITION INTERESTS INCLUDING EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS FOR THE LIVINGSTON ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BETWEEN RADIO ROAD AND GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY AND THE SIX-LANING IMPROVEMENTS FOR AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD BETWEEN PINE RIDGE ROAD AND VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD - APPROVED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Next on the agenda, Item 9(A) is a recommendation to approve a legal services agreement with Fixel and Maguire as legal counsel to represent the county relating to property acquisition better known as eminent domain. MR. WEIGEL: Better known as eminent domain. Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, it's pretty straightforward stuff here. We have eminent domain; we need outside counsel to do it. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I do have a question about it, though. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. My only question is what s our experience with Fixel and Haguire? MR. WEIGEL: Our experience with Fixel and Haguire goes back many years. We have never had failure with them in any of our eminent domain proceedings. They are experts. This is all they do. And they are also our counsel working in regard to the landfill site selection process. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My question is just about the process; how do we go about selecting attorneys and is there -- because the hourly rates of 200 and 235, I think are kind of high for Collier County. It may not be high in Leon County, but -- what's the selection process? MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, the selection process is one in which I review firms that are available. We have potentially, to my knowledge, only one firm available in Collier County where there is expertise in eminent domain. That firm has significant other projects and contracts and matters that come before the Board of County Commissioners, and our experience with Fixel and Haguire has been very, very good. Our office working with Fixel and Haguire over the years has been one where the County Attorney Office attempts to do and, in fact, does perform many of the local services in coordination with the firm to keep the expenses down, but -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there a bid process or something? MR. WEIGEL: No. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How do you become aware -- how do you shop for law firms? We can talk about this later if it's not so -- let's talk about it later, Dave. MR. WEIGEL: We solicit, but I will tell you that the firms that have come to our attention were in Tampa and no closer than Tampa, so that way we're clearly dealing with someone outside of the Collier area, in any event. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess I'd be interested in looking at whether or not if some sort of RFP process, the way we do engineering firms and that kind of thing, might be appropriate, but we can talk about that later. MR. WEIGEL: Certainly. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Just a minute. Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second the motion, but just seems to me if we have a firm that works and has worked consistently for us, these can turn into pretty big-dollar items. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, yeah. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Much like we say a government ought to run like a business, if it's not broken; let's not fix it. If we have something that's working really well, let's keep doing it. I trust, Mr. Weigel, what you said is true. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and second for approval. All those in favor? Opposed? (No response). CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you. Item #10A RESOLUTION 98-69 APPOINTING KAREN ACQUARD TO THE GOLDEN GATE ESTATES LAND TRUST COHMITTEE - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Next is the appointment of a member of the Golden Gate Land Trust Committee? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: One vacancy and one applicant? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's correct. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to approve the appointment of Ms. Karen Acquard to the Golden Gate Land Trust Committee. All in favor? Opposed? (No response). CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. Item #10B COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COHMISSIONERS APPOINTMENTS TO U.S. ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS ADG - EACH COHMISSIONER TO SUBMIT TWO NAMES FOR APPOINTMENT NEXT WEEK AND COHMISSIONER HANCOCK TO WORK WITH THE CORPS Next item is the Collier County Board of Commissioners appointments to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ADG. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Question. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, ma'am. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Do we have any indication from the Corp that they have accepted the proposal that we made about a third, a third, a third? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: To be honest, when I read the agenda on Thursday, it was the first I saw this item. I understand there are some concerns out there that the Corp may be on a specific track that is not appropriate. My concern right now is that, after we had that meeting with Lee County, the reason the Corp didn't jump in lock, stock and barrel with our six, six, six proposal was that the scoping process had to be completed to know whether or not Hendry County would be a part of the study or whether or not -- how much of Lee and Collier and whatnot. And quite frankly, if this thing is 90 percent Lee and 10 percent Collier, I think we would want to effect the representation to reflect the scope of the study. So it has been my understanding that until the scope of the study was established, the exact makeup of the ADG would not be on the table, understanding this board and Lee County has expressed their strong desire for equal representation, equal appointments with the Corp. I haven't heard anything to change that. We don't have the scope refined yet. It would be my preference that we table this matter. I do have a call in to the court today to try and verify -- there have been some rumors, to see -- you know, to understand what track we're on, but I find it difficult to believe that they would move ahead on the ADG side without contacting me with -- as appointing me as a liaison to the Corp, so that's really all I have to say. I didn't come today prepared to make appointments to the ADG -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is that a motion to table? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we could have a little more discussion -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- before you railroad this. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm willing to railroad it, but that wasn't my intention. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I hear something quite differently. March 17th, a week from tomorrow, they are scheduled to announce what that scope will be. What we've been told through the grapevine from a couple of different fairly good sources is they have some interest in appointing the ADG at that time or announcing the ADG at that time, at the same time. When we had our joint meeting, we talked about a third, a third and a third. There was no objection from the Corp at that time. A day later in the newspaper, you all may have got the same phone call I did from reporters wondering what our reaction to the Corp saying, well, we're not so sure we want to do a third, a third, a third or we're not so sure we want to have the county make appointments. I was very disappointed that they wouldn't say that to our face and that they said that to a reporter less than four hours after they raised no objection with us. It just seems to me if they're going to make their scoping announcement next Wednesday, it would be in our best interest to have our folks selected and ready to go and on board when the train leaves the station rather than trying to play catch-up after the fact. I know that the Lee board has talked about a couple of different scenarios of five citizen appointees and for just a five-member appointment from them or the scenario of a six -- I'm sorry, a seven-member appointment, which would be five citizens, their planning director and someone from their County Attorney's Office. So it just seemed logical if we go ahead now -- I don't see any detriment to appointing them sooner rather than later. I do see the possibility for some harm if we just wait and see what happens. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't have any objection to -- I mean, I haven't spoken to the person I wanted to suggest. I'd be happy to tell you who that is and to, you know, make that request of that person to serve. I don't have any problem with making a list and saying this is, you know, who we would like to appoint. I don't see anything wrong with that. I just, you know, doubt that it's going the way that you're worried it's going. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess -- and there's not harm in us going ahead. I'd love to know, and I know I've had at least half a dozen letters and probably at least a dozen phone conversations or conversations out at -- of public groups of people who would like to participate and would like to be appointed, and I'm sure all of you have, too. So, I mean, if you have some idea, and I think each of us has certainly given it some thought up till now, so at least we ought to be able to put pen to paper and put who our preferred names are and we can pass that on. That can be part of the process when they do their announcement next Wednesday. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine, if I could offer a process that I had envisioned us taking this and see if this is acceptable to everyone, is between now and next Tuesday for each of us to offer two names, people we find acceptable to serve on the ADG. My concern is that when we make this appointment as a group, that we, as a county, want to be balanced. I think we can already anticipate that the Army Corp of Engineers is going to appoint state and federal regulatory positions. I think we can see the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and we can see the South Florida Water Management District and we can see regulatory agencies receiving appointments. I don't think the makeup of the Corp's appointees is going to be much of a surprise. My goal is for the five or six or seven, whatever the number may be, let's assume six, individuals we appoint to be appointed in such a manner that we achieve a balance in the committee as much overall as possible. In order to do that, I'd like to look at the pool of individuals first so that we understand what's out there as opposed to each of us making an individual appointment. We may not achieve as much balance in that because I may be concerned about one or two different areas and then if Commissioner Mac'Kie's appointment covers one of those areas of concern for me then it allows me to, you know -- I want to be a little more interactive with it. If I could suggest we put them to paper by next Tuesday or just bring them with us next Tuesday to have a couple of individuals that we then discuss them and then designate a group as a pool of appointees; I think that would work well. In the meantime, I will work with the Corps of Engineers to find out if there is any validity whatsoever to, I guess to what you have heard, because, again, if there is, I think we've got a problem out of the chute regardless of who we appoint. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree. Whatever we hear from the Corp, I think it would be a mistake for us to take too long in doing this process. I think it's better to have those done early, but I don't understand how thinking about it and bringing back names to talk about is any different a process than talking about it right now. So if we have some published piece that we can all review, that's fine, but if we're just going to bring back and talk about it, well, let's have that conversation right now. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, I said -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You said either scenario. I'm just saying the first scenario is acceptable. The second scenario of just thinking about it and coming back with those names next Tuesday really doesn't accomplish, I think, what you described. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My preference is that we submit two names by Wednesday to Ms. Filson for her to prepare in to -- for inclusion in next week's agenda as a pool of individuals to discuss for potential appointment to the ADG. Does that conflict with anybody's desires or wishes? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And make those appointments next Tuesday? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. And I will have -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- discussion with the Corps of Engineers, in the meantime, understanding those appointments are tentative until the makeup of the ADG is confirmed by the Corp. We have to have at least that done, but we can at least indicate the six individuals consistent with our direction at the joint meeting. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would just express some concern when you indicated, well, that if the percentages are off that Lee is probably going to want more. I think if it is in any part in Collier County, we need to have a balanced voice on there, and I think Lee is in agreement with that. I think commissioners have all been very clear, but I think -- if they want to make that argument, let them make that argument, but I would hope that as representative of Collier County, you will just kind of hang in there and we'll have an equal voice in the process. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That shouldn't be an issue for you. My concern -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It is an issue for me because it's a Collier County -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Please, let me explain. If you are going to direct a comment at me, allow me to respond to it. My concern is not so much geographically how much Lee County or Collier County has in it; the point I made initially was we don't know if an element of Hendry County is going to be in this study. And what I don't want is this committee to be 30 individuals that gets absolutely nothing done because it's too large and too unwieldy to accomplish anything. So we're right now talking about a moving target. We don't even know the total number of the ADG. We don't know the geographic scope of the ADG, and for us to assume a given number to Collier County at this point I think is premature. If that's what this board wishes to do, fine, then I will try and facilitate that. I'll try and get as much information from the Carp as possible to make sure it's consistent with what may eventually, but as far as my giving things away to Lee County or not standing in there, I just think that's inappropriate. That hasn't been what I've done in the past and won't be what I do in the future. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just making a request. I'm not suggesting you've done anything to the contrary. Your comment earlier was not limited to Hendry County. Your comment earlier, if -- we can read back the record if you want -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I fully understand what I have said, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine. I'm going to repeat it for the public since you've just distorted it, and that is you also said 90 percent -- if it's 90 percent in Lee and 10 percent in Collier maybe we don't want as many. And I'm saying if it's anything in Collier, I want as many participants in the process as possible. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's your opinion, and I have a slightly different one. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe you don't want Collier to have that many participants, but I will agree with your suggestion that we bring back this exact same thing with each of us having written down a couple of names, submitted them by Wednesday, so that we can all read the agenda over the weekend. That's fine. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would like to request, in the future, if there is an element dealing with the Carp study, if the board took the care or at least the thought to appoint me as liaison to the Carp, that I be involved in an item coming on the agenda dealing with the Carp study or at least be informed of it before it shows up on the agenda so I have the opportunity to discuss that with the Corps of Engineers to get the information to try and be factual in how we approach this. It's simply a request in the future for any matters similar to this. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Within the confines of the sunshine law, we'll certainly do that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't think we need a motion on this necessarily. I think a consensus on getting the names to Ms. Filsan will take care of that. We'll get those names in as quickly as possible. Are we going to be able to review those names ahead of time? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's the idea is that it be compiled by Ms. Filsan for inclusion into the agenda so when you receive your packet on Thursday, there will be a list of names, hopefully two appointees from each individual. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I know that when I -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Excuse me. I know that when I saw this, it took me by surprise and I tried to do a little scrambling when I saw this agenda on here to try and get people contacted and so I got a couple of names, but at the same time, I thought we were going to handle this a little bit differently. Okay, so get your names in. MR. WEIGEL: Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: Just a little follow-up. The procedure with the submission of names -- the submission of names in a printed form for transmittal to someone else within government, of course, makes those names as public record, so they will be subject to a request to review even before a printed agenda is out. I don't know if that -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So please sign your name to the papers? MR. WEIGEL: Well -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, gosh. MR. WEIGEL: -- that's important, too, but I just want you to know that it will not merely -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It will be in the newspaper before we get our packet. MR. WEIGEL: That's exactly right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which is fine. MR. WEIGEL: The timing may be a little different than you might expect if you are just looking for when the agenda packet arrives with the material inside. And, yes, I would suggest that you affix your names -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, please. MR. WEIGEL: -- to your -- any transmittal that you have, including this one. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Let me just raise one more question. Since this will become public before we deal with it, what are we going to do about any names that may not appear on there and people who wish to be considered? Let's -- we need to talk about that because I will tell you that as soon as this list comes out, you're going to be hearing from other people who may think they would like to be on this list. What's -- what will be our procedure? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I'm sure we've been contacted by individuals already. I mean, there's probably at least ten people that have called me or said something to me about wanting to serve on this committee. So I guess from our standpoint, if there is something to say that we would kindly ask that the media portray is, individuals who have not expressed an interest to date to either a commissioner, to any commissioner, needs to do so before Wednesday because otherwise, you know -- again, because of the timing of this, we'll be making those decisions by then. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We're saying only two names, though, are going on the list? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That would be -- again, we're only going to appoint six. I mean, we could all probably come up with six or ten people, but we need to keep the process as simple as possible. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So I figure two -- two each would give us a variety of individuals to choose from and to obtain whatever balance it is we're seeking that way. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine, a question. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just as far as that process, if someone comes next Tuesday and says during the public meeting, gee, I'd like to be considered, I assume this is nothing that prohibits us from considering them as part of that process. Obviously, they have a slight disadvantage if we haven't been considering the names since we get the agenda Thursday, but that would -- I assume that would be failsafe if someone missed that opportunity and wanted to come in, they could at least offer themselves up. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Very good. All right. Moving on, then. Next item on the agenda. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, Mr. Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: I assume since you did not follow through with appointments on that item, it wouldn't be appropriate to take the speaker that is registered to speak on that last one. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We can hear the speaker, certainly. Sure. MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Ty Agoston. MR. AGOSTON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Ty Agoston. I live in Golden Gate Estates, you know, the endangered one, and I'm speaking for T.A.G. I attended the same meeting all of you have attended that was in conjunction with the Lee County Commission as well as the Army Corps of Engineers. I'm somewhat older than you guys and my memory may be faulty, but I seem to remember that the Army Corps was looking for group membership, and there were even specified that they're going to look at the size of the group as a membership, but then I could be wrong. We at TAG would like to be part of this process being that I believe most of us at TAG believe that there is an underlaying element to this study being the fact that this is a unique, quote, unquote, study the Army Corps is engaging and the fact that there are varying Ms. Hac'Kie's -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mac'Kie. MR. AGOSTON: Mac'kie, sorry. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's only been four years. MR. AGOSTON: I have a problem with this language. Sustainable South Florida participation makes this whole process somewhat suspect in my eyes at least that there is an agenda here that is not apparent; it is not on a table; and we'd like to know just exactly where it's heading. I also believe that the Army Corps have been -- at least been being very polite, at least disingenuous, because at the meeting, they specified that they are going to go along with the one-third allocation of the assigning of the members, and the next day, the newspaper said something entirely different, and that they hold the veto power over the members. Consequently, guys who disagree with their agenda, probably will be blocked out. That that's a forecast, maybe a pessimistic one, but I wanted to make the point. I'd also like to know -- at this point in time, you have made some exchanges here that is the final decision of the board is that individuals must come to you or the groups, per se, is sufficient? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We don't appoint groups, Ty; we appointment individuals. MR. AGOSTON: Individuals. So then we have to reapply as individuals? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Like anything else, Ty, all we're saying is if you're interested in serving on it, submit your name. I mean, it is really not a big deal. MR. AGOSTON: Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: You have no other speakers, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No other speakers. Item #10C DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION REGARDING THE EPIC DRAMA - NO ACTION TAKEN All right. Next item on the agenda added by Commissioner Constantine has to do with the epic drama. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, we're all aware of the concern about the expenditure of some of the TDC funds that were given to the epic drama. I have particular concern after reading an article in this past week's newspaper where there was a conversation with our county administrator, and it appears -- and I just thought this was appropriate for discussion with the board, because it appears from that article that the direction is to simply audit to see if the claimed expenses actually occurred, and that is not my only concern. Obviously, if we've spent money, we want to make sure the service was provided. However, if you go back to the minutes, I think the date was November 5, 1996, when Mr. Compton came before this board and Mr. Hart (phonetic) with him, and on Pages 38 and 39 of those minutes, it is very clear that Mr. Compton promises that this will not be the Compton Family Relief Act of 1996. I asked a very pointed set of questions expressing concern as to how much money will be going to Mr. Compton and to Mr. Hart, and on the record, he is very clear where he promises to take no more than $3,000. Now, either it means something when somebody stands at that podium and gives us their word or it doesn't. I hope that it does. So I don't want this just to stop, and I just wanted to see if the rest of the commission felt the same. I don't want this to simply stop with an audit to see if the performance was actually occurring. I want the word we were given at that podium to be kept, and in my opinion, the Compton family owes the taxpayers about 23,000 bucks because their promise was to only take $3,000 and they took considerably more than that. And so I, for one, and obviously we need three of us, but I, for one, feel very strongly this could not simply be an audit, but we need to go ahead and make sure the word that was given to this board at that podium was kept. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. I agree with that. Not only is it the word given at the podium, but it was drafted as a specific condition in the contract, and that sounds, to me, like a lawsuit for breach of contract where we recover. I mean, there seams to be a straightforward track for how we go about recovering this money unless this group -- you know, unless the Compton family wants to make -- make it right. So far I haven't seen anything that sounds like they want to make it right. I'm wondering -- I know they met with you -- or Mr. Compton met with you -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- Mr. Fernandez. Did you have any indication that they were going to be writing a check to the county? MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, Mr. Compton indicated to me that he would do anything necessary to clear his name. He didn't get as specific as writing a check. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what it takes. MR. FERNANDEZ: However, I believe I have to accept some responsibility in this. Mr. Compton requested to come before the Board of County Commissioners, and I felt that this was a matter that could be handled at my level; that it's something that involves the implementation of the contract, and we had our discussion in an effort to try and specifically address the issues. We found out, at that meeting and just before that meeting, that the Clerk had initiated an audit. I understand the audit entrance conference is this afternoon at 1:30, so that process is beginning. If there is a requirement for the board to have a public discussion with Mr. Compton about this, I'm sure he's willing to do that. In fact, he initiated the effort to have that, and it was by my action that we ended up in an administrative kind of setting rather than a public forum. So if it's the board's -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't mind if it's an administrative hearing or public hearing. I don't care either way. My concern after reading the article was that it appeared that you and staff's primary concern was to make sure the work was actually done. I wasn't there so I don't know. I wanted to stress my concern, and what I've heard at least one other Commissioner say is that it's not simply whether the work was done but whether that -- and I haven't read back through the contract and you've said that's a specific line item -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It is. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and that needs to be adhered to, and the oral contract that was given to us from that podium needs to be adhered to. MR. FERNANDEZ: In that regard, that particular provision, the limit of $3,000, will be a very specific issue in the audit. I have talked to the internal auditor, and he has assured me that is an issue that will be addressed through that process. I just felt it was a very straightforward, objective way to get at the issues that had been raised. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If Mr. Compton said he'll do anything to clear his name, then -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just write a check. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- we can give very clear direction; write a check for the amount over the three-thousand dollars back to the county. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Period. Perfectly clear, and that's -- I appreciate your bringing it up because I want to be sure, and I'm still not positive I understood, Mr. Fernandez, and I know you don't control this department, but that the audit is not just to question whether or not more than -- whether or not work was done for the twenty-three, twenty-four thousand dollars, but is the question whether or not more than three thousand dollars was paid to Compton. MR. FERNANDEZ: Right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that is already an answered question. If we have to go administratively through some audit process to confirm that, is that what you're saying we're doing now? MR. FERNANDEZ: I think there is a question -- Mr. Compton indicated in our discussion that, in fact, his wife's company was separate from his company -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't care. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- and they are separate. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Don't care. MR. FERNANDEZ: That -- and I think because of that, he argues that he did not violate the contract provision. I think the audit will clear that up. The audit will determine once and for all whether or not that payment does violate the intent of the contract. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I suspect if my wife had a contract with a local developer, I would probably have to conflict out when that developer brought things before this board. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris. COHHISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, if what we're hearing about this particular item turns out to be, in fact, correct, does that constitute contract fraud? And, if so, then does the entire amount of the contract, that full $69,000, need to be reimbursed to the county? MR. WEIGEL: I think that the answer is the elements of contract fraud require a determination or an ability to prove to an extent that someone, a judge or a judge and jury will determine that you have states of mind at a particular point in time. And the question is whether -- a question is whether there was a state of mind for fraudulent inducement to enter into an agreement at the time it came before the board or at some point thereafter in the process. So it's not clear-cut, but it's certainly an element that would be reviewed, and our office is going to be reviewing this very, very closely as to any elements of breach of contract which includes both two or three types of fraud than interpose themselves either early on or later on in the contract process. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, that comment brings to mind part of my thought process in holding the meeting with Mr. Compton. I had a prior meeting with the internal auditor and clearly, I stopped short in my meeting with Mr. Compton of requesting a check and a dollar amount because absent the audit, we don't know that that's all of the concerns or the questionable expenses. There may be more. And because of that, I withheld asking for a check for $23,000 because, in fact, we may be looking at other contractual obligations that may not have been followed through. So that's why I thought it was appropriate to defer to the audit. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think the manner of going through the audit is the appropriate first step, makes the most sense, and we should pursue that. I have a suggestion and a brief statement. The suggestion is, I've been contacted by an attorney who's a board member, I think his name is A1 Brueggemeier (phonetic), to meet with me. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: He's not an attorney. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: He is not an attorney? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: He is not an attorney. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. My point being, at this point forward, any meeting I have regarding this issue with anyone, I'm going to ask for the county attorney's presence because there's the potential for litigation here. I don't know if that's a wise move for everyone to undertake, but I personally will be exercising that, so if Mr. Compton or Mr. Brueggemeier or any other board members want to meet with me, it will have to be done in the presence of the county attorney. I just feel much better about that because of the situation we're dealing with now. The second one is that we have had promises in Category C events that have not been fulfilled. Whether it be through ticket sales or funds or people that show up for room nights, a lot of projections that fall short or something that's akin to a promise that isn't fulfilled. That's not acceptable, but it has happened. What makes this so much different for me and so much more egregious is personally benefiting from those tax dollars. It's one thing for your event to fail. It's one thing for you the miss the mark. It's another thing to -- I think the word was lame that you used, Commissioner Constantine, as far as a lame excuse. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: But to personally benefit, you or your family, through the use of tourist tax dollars is a discretionary -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Particularly after promising on the record that you won't. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. It's an unbelievable discretionary error is the mildest way to put it, and just as the gentleman -- remember all the fall over the guy who had $1,500 for Michael Coleman who then went to Pennsylvania or something with the Marco Island Sports Festival and they wrote how many articles about it? We're talking about $23,000. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: At least. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is something I think if we don't take a stand on this and be very, very strong and very united in it, we might as well just stop collecting Category C dollars and put them into beach renourishment because there's just -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Funny you should say that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Funny you should mention that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: At any rate, I did get the call a week ago Sunday night from Mr. Brugermyer who requested that this -- he would have liked to have this placed on the agenda last Tuesday. When I came in here on Monday, I spoke with Mr. Fernandez and the decision at that time was made that Mr. Fernandez would more or less deal with this initially. I thought that, too, that it was kind of a step situation; in other words, it should be handled in a very systematic manner and agreed with Mr. Fernandez in the fact that it was a contract dispute, for one thing, and this was a logical first step to take. And after this point, certainly, you know, it can be heard by the board and probably should be heard by the board. But at least at this point in time, I think it's headed in the right direction, and a Sunday night call to me, I wasn't quite sure that it necessitated adding on -- being considered for an add-on item on the agenda. So if it was a wrong decision, then I'll certainly accept that blame for that. Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think it was at all. I think it was the right decision, and I think handling it administratively and doing the audit is the correct thing to do. I just -- after reading that article in the paper, was concerned as to what the substance of that audit was. I think we've all been fairly clear. And Mr. Fernandez, you've put my mind somewhat at ease now that we're headed in the right direction. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: At this point, the comment that I hear a lot of board members saying, to clear the matter up, we need to have him return the money. I'm curious if someone should hold up a convenience store and subsequently get caught and give the money back, does that clear the matter up? I'm confused about that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If you are his attorney, it does. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No. I understand what you're saying. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. Out of the audit, if there is any potential criminal liability here, I think it will appear in the audit. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any other comments or questions regarding this item? I don't think this requires any action at this point in time; is that correct, Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's correct. I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sounds like we are. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Item ll(A)(1) was withdrawn. Item #11A2 APPROVAL OF COURT SERVICES (20TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT) INVOICES - TABLED UNTIL 2:00 P.M. BUDGET TO BE AMENDED FOR COURT SERVICES AS PROVIDED IN EXHIBIT 1 WITH CHANGE; THAT THE PURCHASING AND PERSONNEL POLICIES BE APPROVED AND THAT DETAILS BE PROVIDED We'll move on, then, the item that was added regarding the court services invoices. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Fernandez, did you have any luck getting a hold of the Clerk? MR. FERNANDEZ: The Clerk was in a meeting. I left a message with his secretary. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I would really request that the Clerk be here. MR. FERNANDEZ: I understand Mr. Smykowski also made the same call and left a message. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's correct. For the record, Michael Smykowski, OHB director. I did contact Mr. Hitchell's office. It was indicated he was in a meeting with Mr. Brock. I then called Mr. Brock's secretary and she informed me that she would let him know that his presence was requested by the commission. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He's a deputy -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Cross, are you aware of the whereabouts of the Clerk, please? Could you come up to the podium? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We could continue this to later in the meeting if that's what it takes to make it convenient for him. MR. CROSS: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Jay Cross, executive assistant to the clerk. The message was communicated to Mr. Brock this morning, and his attorney, Mr. Pires, is here if you would like to talk to him. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Tony, is there some reason why Dwight doesn't want to come over? MR. PIRES: I think there is a fundamental issue with regards to, you know, communications and persons of the board. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think there is, too, but you need to -- MR. PIRES: I'm sorry, for the record -- thank you, Mr. Norris. For the record, Anthony Pires, Jr., the law firm of Woodward, Pires and Lombardo. I think part of it is that late yesterday, March 9th, Mr. Brock received a memorandum of Mr. Fernandez suggesting that Mr. Brock attend to today's County Commission meeting and suggesting that Mr. Brock's attendance would facilitate a discussion. And Mr. Brock also understands that the board has made a similar request this morning. Mr. Brock, based upon the recent diatribes emanating from this room, particularly after his staff and lawyer left the room, declined. Last Tuesday, March 3rd, 1998, it appeared that the actions of that date would resolve certain issues, not all, with respect to court services. However, it is unfortunate that after the meeting of last week, various county staff took it upon themselves to wait three complete business days and then by facsimile transmittal at approximately 4:15 p.m. on Friday March 6th, 1998 deliver what is presented as being a document reflecting the actions taken by this board last week. This document is not what it purports to be. It is not the panacea it purports to be. Previously, hoping to ensure that there would be a communication, that is, dialogue, and that there would be no misunderstanding and concern that there might be mischief that could ensue in the preparation of this instrument, I, on March 3rd, 1998, after the board meeting prepared and faxed to Mr. Weigel, to Mr. Geraghty who is Judge Starnes' lawyer, to Mr. Greg Stewart (phonetic), your outside counsel and others a memorandum recapping the results and action taken by this board on March 3rd. Silence from all was the response obviously confirming the accuracy of my memorandum. There was no communication with myself or with my office. Maybe the county attorney, the Office of Management and Budget, the county administrator and judge's lawyers were too busy drafting and crafting this instrument. That's not a way to resolve this dispute, continuing to play those kind of games. The document that arrived late on last Friday afternoon continues a philosophy that the board is unilaterally responsible for the expenditure of county funds and the spending of county funds ignoring the fundamental checks and balances and the Clerk's constitutional and statutory obligations and responsibilities in the same manner as was the case involving the county's derivatives. It's the continuation of an attitude that, at the last minute, for unknown motives, removed a universally accepted solution from the table, such as what happened last October when all parties agreed on a resolution and was pulled the Friday before, November 4th, 1997. As to this document when it was arrived -- when it arrived, no exhibits were attached. The original with the exhibits were delivered only this morning to the Clerk. The detail line item has not been adopted nor incorporated; it's merely referenced. You approved incorporating the already-existing detail that would make the budget proper and lawful that uses the statutorily-required uniform chart of accounts. What is written does not incorporate that detail, and from what the Clerk's Office had been told, none will be. Nor does this agreement have the county identifying the purchasing and personnel policies; it merely has court administration confirming what they have. The process agreed to by the county and the judge does not allow the Clerk to act in conformance with law. As opposed to being a document that honestly addresses the issues, it's a document that manifests disregard for any resolution that would impose the accountability constraints required by law. It is our opinion that, while your staff may advise you, this paper does resolve the Clerk's concern. Please, be advised that it does not. We timely and properly provided you and your staff with a manner in which to resolve the matter. The failure to do so precludes the Clerk from spending any further efforts other than that afforded by the courts and the legislature. The fact this paper does not resolve the concerns nor comport with the law is not an opinion and belief held only by the Clerk and his counsel but also that of the Florida Association of Court Clerks and Comptrollers and their counsel. The Clerk has its constitutional and statutory duties and obligations. And while the Clerk prefers not to unnecessarily spend money in this dispute, as with any other such disputes, it is a matter that is more appropriately resolved and to be resolved and continues to be resolved in the forum of the court and by going to Tallahassee to advise the appropriate agencies and offices of the inability of this county to recognize the legal requirements for a budget or, if recognized, to take the action appropriate and necessary. In conclusion, at the time that your staff is directed to honestly attempt to resolve this dispute, the Clerk will be back at the table, even as you continue to utilize this mechanism to engage in vitriolic attacks on the Clerk in an attempt to vilify the Clerk or his staff. That accomplishes nothing just as unilaterally attempting to impose a solution not in conformance with law accomplishes nothing. When the Clerk sees evidence of an honest effort at resolution, a willingness for true dialogue, the Clerk will be present. Until that time, he respectfully declines. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Tony, it's kind of funny, I guess, that you say we're unilaterally deciding. Since the Clerk won't even come and talk to us, it's hard to have that conversation. Your accusation of playing games and diatribes and then accusing us of vilifying and saying things about the Clerk is kind of ironic, I guess. You're standing here, in essence, attacking us, and I might say portraying our action last week inaccurately. But you're attacking us and then complaining that we're attacking the Clerk. We're doing no such thing or, to date, have done no such thing. We would like him to actually come and talk to us. I don't think that's an attack. However, the following statement might be. I think it's a disgrace that an elected public official refuses to meet in the public forum and instead chooses to hide behind his taxpayer paid attorney. That is absolutely inexcusable. MR. PIRES: I believe he's been here -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And the meter continues to run. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: As I listen -- I don't know how long it took you to prepare your statement, Tony, but obviously, when the Clerk received a fax at 4:15 on Friday, by your indication, and it was not sufficient, here we sit Tuesday morning without a response from the Clerk's Office on that. The entire litany you just went through, I have to say, is suspect based on just one thing I heard that I know to be patently false, and I'm embarrassed that you would restate it, and that is that the Clerk did not receive the county's administration policy but received instead a verification of the court's policy and that that was unacceptable. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Isn't that what you said in your statement, Mr. Pires? MR. PIRES: No, I said -- with the document that was received Friday -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But a restatement -- MR. PIRES: -- there was nothing attached. It was merely a fax transmittal of a document. The document with the materials attached came in this morning to the Clerk's Office. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let me just ask -- MR. PIRES: Furthermore, it did not identify -- the board's action was that the board would amend the agreement to identify the personnel and purchasing policies to be utilized. The agreement does not identify them. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And that was to -- it said identify. It was written there. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let me read it to you. A new Paragraph C -- I just asked for this and got it, and let's see what's wrong with these words. A new Paragraph C is hereby added to Section 7 Human Resources and reads as follows: C, the court administrator and chief judge hereby confirm that the Human Resources, paten, personnel policy used for court services, paten, personnel is entitled Court Administration 20th Judicial Circuit Personnel Policy and is attached hereto as Exhibit C. You would have liked it better if it said -- MR. PIRES: The county identifies that it calls for making the expenditures. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. MR. PIRES: It does not appear in there. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can we add those words? I mean, why is this so hard? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We identified in the public hearing with Mr. Mitchell by that back door that it would be the court's policies CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I mean -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that would be used. We said it. It's on the record. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that's part -- I mean, you can't say that this -- MR. PIRES: The agreement -- once again, the attorney for the Florida Association of Court Clerks and Comptrollers has the same concern that it doesn't identify -- it's a statement that the court administrator and chief judge say this is the policy. The county doesn't say we identify this is the policy to be utilized. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So if question change the words -- MR. PIRES: That and -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is that the only problem? MR. PIRES: That and with regards that it does not incorporate the detail into the budget; it merely says pursuant to Section 2 of this agreement, the county hereby incorporates the court services program format with line item expenditures. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But, Tony, you know -- MR. PIRES: It doesn't say we incorporate that into the budget. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But you '- MR. PIRES: No, because the question was asked of Mr. Smykowski of whether he would have 11 cost centers and the answer was no. Mr. Mitchell asked him that. One cost center, one fund. And that doesn't work. That's not this detailed line item budget then. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Just a moment, Commissioner Hac'kie. Mr. Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: Just a point on the communication, Madam Chairman. This document was faxed Friday afternoon, and this is the first feedback we've received on the document from Mr. Pires. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Tony, why is that? MR. PIRES: This is a document that -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I was in on Friday and signed this document so it could be transmitted. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You obviously had enough time to prepare your seven-minute read response there. I wish that time, at taxpayer expense, had been trying to solve this problem instead. MR. PIRES: We have, Commissioner Constantine, and, once again, there is no communication, no dialogue. Obviously, receiving a document almost 4:15 on a Friday, we have the fax transmittal to confirm that, showed it was a done deal. It was signed by all the parties. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But I don't understand. We sat here in these chambers last Tuesday -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We worked so hard to work it out. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- and everybody walked out of here, and we were to the point were Mr. Hitchell was going to be ready to write the checks that afternoon. We had two young ladies out here that had addressed this board and stated their situation. They heard what was said, and I'm sure they understood the direction of this board up here. Did you not? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sure they did. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: They heard that direction. Others who were in attendance heard the direction of this board. Mr. Hitchell stood there; others stood there, and everybody was shaking their heads up and down. And I made the ridiculous comment that if this wasn't done, heads were going to roll. I still kind of like that idea. And here we are one week later and not a darn thing has changed. MR. PIRES: Commissioner Berry, after the meeting as I mentioned in my presentation -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But why didn't you say it at the meeting last Tuesday, Tony? MR. PIRES: No, everything was fine, what was approved, but this document does not reflect what was approved. I forwarded a memorandum to Mr. Weigel that afternoon, last Tuesday afternoon. I've heard nothing from Mr. Weigel on this memorandum. I've heard nothing from Mr. Stewart on this memorandum. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And, likewise, Tony, we haven't heard squat from you or the Clerk on the document Friday at 4:15, which is the agreement that you have taken issue with in your prepared statement for today. What Commissioner Constantine said was that if I'm the clerk, I'm just going to play clerk today, and I want to make sure these ladies get an opportunity to pay their rent or mortgage or car payment, which means I want to resolve the problem, we're going to assume that's the case because I'm not really sure, but let's assume it for discussion sake, when I get a document to resolve an issue and I find elements in that document insufficient, if I want to resolve the matter, I send a letter right back and say, hey, here are the point problems; here is what you need to include in order to get this done. Instead, I choose to send my attorney with a prepared statement to the board on Tuesday saying that what you sent, now, what, four, five days ago, let's just say two business days ago, is insufficient. That's how we solve a problem? You're not responsible for being here as much as the Clerk is responsible for you being here, but since we can't get him to talk to us, Tony, you're it. And this is grossly unacceptable. It is ridiculous. And for anyone in this community to look at this and say that's how government should operate, this isn't Washington, D.C.; we don't hide behind attorneys. There's only 200,000 people that live here. We should be able to talk as constitutional officers. We want to do it; the Clerk doesn't, and it's just sickening. MR. PIRES: The Clerk does, Commissioner Hancock, and I take issue with -- once again, I had a communication that was sent, and I referenced what it was -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The amendment is the response to your communication. MR. PIRES: Well, then, it's not consistent with the communication -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The contract -- MR. PIRES: -- no phone call. Mr. Weigel hasn't talked with -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I don't understand that -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, stop this petty picking. I mean, this is garbage. Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Tony -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: David, why haven't you called Tony? MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I mean, I've heard that a lot, and I'd like to know. MR. PIRES: Well -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Please, just a moment, Tony. MR. WEIGEL: The drumbeat continues. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What continues? MR. WEIGEL: I said the drumbeat continues, doesn't it? Wednesday afternoon, I received a fax memo from Mr. Pires stating it's been something -- the words to the effect it's been a day since the meeting; I haven't an agreement yet; where is it. We have to work with the judge, his attorney, as well as compiling the language ourselves to make this agreement copacetic. In the course of the last three days following Tuesday's meeting, as well as Tuesday afternoon, I met with the judge twice, talked with Jim Mitchell various times, met with Mr. Fernandez, met with Mr. Smykowski, but, quite frankly, the recurring memoranda and requests that are coming from Mr. Pires from a timing standpoint and from the language included in them I consider self-serving documents that are, frankly, in part sent to create a record which often, or in part, misstates part of what the board's determination or discussion was. Last Tuesday when we had this meeting, we all, I think, left the meeting indicated that if the parties would execute an agreement, and the parting comment was and we don't know what the judge will do, that the checks would issue. We worked as adroitly, as facilitatively as we could among the parties that have to sign the agreement to get it done, including sending over Friday afternoon an executed -- a facsimile executed document. Now, the question of getting the exhibits over was rather difficult because it was late in the day, but Mr. Mitchell had said he was willing and able to cut the checks and he was going to keep his staff available on Saturday to cut the checks if we got the agreement. I really don't believe there is any question as to what the exhibits were going to be. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Come on, of course there is not. MR. WEIGEL: We talked about for a year -- for six months now the fact that so-called program format line item detail that was excluded from the budget process in which normally would come to the board in the workshop early in the process of the budget meetings that are held every year, that that needed to be included. We have included that as an exhibit, and there was never any question as to the identification of that exhibit. The purchasing policy and personnel policies Mr. Pires himself was aware of had been adopted by the Supreme Court and it had affirmation that the 20th Judicial Circuit was using that, and that's what this document purports to do, the amended agreement, is to indicate that that's what the court services is using, the court and the judge, the chief judge, are using in their administration of this. We felt it inappropriate, and we're being very touchy about semantics here, evidently, but we, on the county's staff side, felt it was inappropriate for the county, as a party to this agreement, to identify and -- or adopt a purchasing policy that was not its own. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But pause right there because we were very careful that we said we hereby identify this as, and now the one little thing that I can see that is a little overkill, but can't we say the county, the Clerk and the judges hereby identify this as, Exhibit C, as the personnel policy and procedures that apply? MR. FERNANDEZ: We could do that. Madam Chairman -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is that all you need, Tony? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: I think the test here is whether this amendment reflects the intent of the Board of County Commissioners with their action last Tuesday. It was our effort to do that. Mr. Pires indicates that it is not. You are the Board of County Commissioners. You are the ones that can answer that question most directly. The representations that were made by Mr. Pires and Mr. Mitchell at Tuesday's meeting after the action was taken is that if what you have just discussed takes place, checks will be written as soon as the documents are in hand. The documents were in their hands Friday afternoon. And I offered those documents do, in fact, reflect the intent of the Board of County Commissioners. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'll say this '- MR. FERNANDEZ: And you are the judge of that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: This business about -- you asked us to identify the personnel policies. We have done that so thoroughly that we've attached those personnel policies as an exhibit to the contract. We haven't just referred to them and made reference. They are attached. That's as identified as you can get. You're holding them in your hand. MR. FERNANDEZ: Those are also the subject of a previous public records request from Mr. Pires. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So basically, we can take and we should take responsibility and blame for the checks instead of being cut on Tuesday, being cut on Friday or, at worst, Monday. But here we sit on Tuesday being told that what we sent over doesn't -- it does not reflect what we meant to send over. What we don't have is a letter from Mr. Pires that says if this, this and this are amended in X fashion, we'll cut the checks. We don't have anything to that effect, nothing, zero. In three days, our county administrator negotiated and worked with the courts and judges and got a document out, and in two days, we can't get a response. So rather than sitting here, you know, we keep -- this back and forth -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- is ridiculous. I think someone out there is thinking charter government right now and I'm with them 100 percent. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm sure they are. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But this is ridiculous to have this kind of fight when the people who are getting hurt are sitting here watching it and have every right to be crying their hearts out right now. I'm this close to asking if we can appropriate funds out of reserves to do something to get people paid because it's obvious that whatever we send to the Clerk's Office at this point is going to be picked apart and kicked back if a period is omitted or an apostrophe is in the wrong place and that's not how you treat people. It's just wrong. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Interesting that the Clerk won't come and face those people in real life. I just -- Tony, it's disgraceful. What you read, you closed your comments saying that when the Board of County Commissioners indicates it's willing to have an open dialogue with the Clerk he'll be more than happy to do so. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're here. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, if you recall my comments from last Tuesday, I said, if for some reason this agreement doesn't work out, why don't we have the Clerk come over and we'll sit here and we'll talk about it until we get an agreement as long as it takes. I don't know how much more of an indication you need than that. And why the Clerk refuses to come and continues to hide behind an attorney, I have no idea. I just simply don't understand it. If the objective is to fight and scrap, that's fine. If the objective is to get a solution and pay these people, and by the way you're still getting paid, aren't you? MR. PIRES: I haven't checked the latest invoices. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Again, sounds funny to you, but to these people who aren't getting paid it's not funny at all. MR. PIRES: It's not funny to me. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You've had $23,000 in invoices; you're getting paid. You're paying your car payment. You're paying your mortgage. They're still trying to put groceries on the table. I think for the Clerk to just pick apart little parts and refuse to even show up here is disgraceful, for a public official to essentially refuse to do his job. Come face the public. MR. PIRES: I'll communicate that to him. One thing, I need to take issue with Mr. Weigel. I see a double standard here from the standpoint Mr. Weigel being taken to task for not writing a letter between 4:15 and 5:00 or even yesterday responding back with what I perceive and understand to be deficiencies in the agreement. And Mr. Weigel says he's not going to respond back to my memorandum that's replete with mistakes and self-serving -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Tony, when did you read the statement -- when did you write the statement that you read this morning? MR. PIRES: This morning. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You know what I don't understand, I believe we have a mechanism called a telephone. You know, I just don't understand why people can't simply pick up a phone and say, you know, I've read this and there is still a couple of areas here that I'm not real happy with. I -- that just absolutely baffles me. MR. PIRES: Actually, Commissioner Berry, without getting -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We do it with the tax collector and the property appraiser and the sheriff and the supervisor of elections. We use that phone. Maybe there is not a manual over there on how to do that. MR. PIRES: Commissioner Berry, a reply to that without getting petty, but my phone calls to Mr. Weigel -- I've talked to Mr. Manalich in the past with regards to this litigation, but not have talked with Mr. Weigel -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Have you placed calls to Mr. Weigel? MR. PIRES: Yes. Going as far back as when we initially filed this complaint, I asked if they would accept service to avoid the necessity of sending a sheriff to serve the chairman or vice chairman. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How many messages have you left? MR. PIRES: I quit calling awhile back, Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ballpark, more than three? MR. PIRES: Yes. MR. WEIGEL: Let me respond to that. His first call which was in December, approximately December 18th of '97, was would we accept service instead of -- at the County Attorney Office rather than the board receiving service on a lawsuit that I thought was inappropriate to be filed in the first place, but that's my personal, professional thought. I told Ramiro Manalich to return the call for me because we knew what the question was and we provided the answer and that was if they were going to serve, they would serve it on the board and let the board know about it initially, and that's what they did. I'm really not aware of any other phone calls that I have not responded to because I ran using my electronic while-you-were-out software to determine because this issue has come before as to phone calls and there weren't any. And I really take umbrage with this discussion being had now. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: At least you show up on Tuesdays and he gets to see your face. MR. PIRES: I have no phone calls from Mr. Weigel. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's more than we can say for the Clerk. MR. WEIGEL: And I'll tell ya, the reason -- we worked very diligently this last several workdays on this project, even after hours, and the fact is that I knew from the memo that Mr. Pires provided and the language, specific language in there, that we were not going to be providing him exactly what he was looking for because what he was looking for was not merely in the interest or the legal liability of the county but it was not my understanding of what the board had determined last Tuesday. MR. PIRES: Nor was this communicated to any of us and we get out of the blue an agreement. Mr. Mitchell attempted to call Mr. Smykowski Friday afternoon, was unable to get him as Mr. Smykowski was not available. Mr. Mitchell then talked with Mr. Weigel and it was also then on the phone with Mr. Fernandez and Mr. Smykowski and expressed the concerns. There was communication. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You got an agreement out of the blue? MR. PIRES: Yes, 4:15 on a Friday afternoon. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Out of the blue? I think that agreement was pretty much exactly what we indicated Tuesday that we wanted to do, so I would hardly say that's out of the blue. MR. PIRES: As far as when we received it, I had no idea it would be coming at that time. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that matters because -- I mean, does business close at 4:147 I don't get the point. So it showed up at 4:15 on Friday. MR. PIRES: Late in the day on a Friday afternoon. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's obvious here -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Tony, that was now over 90 hours ago. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And this matters so much and -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And it's, excuse me, but it's a very simple little document. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Three pages. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's double spaced. It has very few words on it, but it has -- what it does is accurately reflect the intent of the board in last Tuesday's board meeting. Ninety hours, is that sufficient to look at this little document and see if you want to make any corrections to it? MR. PIRES: I think I already made my comments to the board as to the concerns we have, and obviously Mr. Fernandez and the board disagrees as to what the intent is or what it says. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tony, we never talked about eleven funds. I mean, that just didn't come up last Tuesday. MR. PIRES: But the detail -- the detail that's in that previously imputed detail line item budget imputed by your staff works. It complies with the uniform chart of accounts. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Tony, when you do billing, when you do your hourly billing for your attorney -- do you stop at 4:15 on Friday? Anything that you do for business after 4:15 on Friday do not bill for? MR. PIRES: I bill, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm wondering what is the time -- MR. PIRES: I don't see the relevance. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me finish my question. I'm wondering what the time and day has to do with anything. If it's 4:15 on Thursday, if it's 8:15 on Friday, what difference does it make? MR. PIRES: It's a matter of presentation saying this is a done deal; please step forward and issue the checks; don't read it; basically, this is the deal. That's how it was presented. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You agreed to it verbally. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Absolutely. MR. PIRES: We never saw it, the final document. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez, you showed me a document this morning that was -- could you just hold that document up, please, and read from what that document is? Was this last years -- MR. FERNANDEZ: This is the comprehensive annual financial report for the year ending September 30th, 1996. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Are there any cost centers in that document? MR. FERNANDEZ: On Page 52 is the statement of revenues, expenditures and changes in fund balance budget and actual general fund for fiscal year ended September 30th, 1996. And listed under judicial are circuit court cost, courtroom operations and maintenance, county court costs, state attorney, public defender, clerk to the courts -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How many is that? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And this is the document that is submitted to the state; am I correct on this? MR. FERNANDEZ: Six. Yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is this a document that is submitted -- MR. FERNANDEZ: I believe it is. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- to the state. This is the accepted form for filing with the state to make sure that you have done what you are supposed to do; is that right? MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Smykowski can give us -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Can you tell me a little bit about that? MR. SHYKOWSKI: I believe there is a separate form. The Clerk is required by statute to provide an annual accounting for all the costs of the circuit and county court. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's what's in that document, for the most part. MR. SHYKOWSKI: I don't think that is the state, you know, form XYZ. That is the official tabulation of court costs -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- for the year. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: What do you use this document for? MR. SHYKOWSKI: That is the annual financial report of the county and it identifies -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Who is that prepared by? MR. SHYKOWSKI: By the Clerk. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: By the Clerk. That's amazing. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Last week, I made the statement, and I think it's been verified so strongly today it's stomach churning, that I felt like we were dealing with a moving target here. Mr. Fernandez and I going back, good Lord, almost a year now, seems like, sat in the Clerk's Office and he said if you can just get it off my books, so we found a way to do that. No, no, no, no, that's not acceptable. At that time, he also cited the State Clerk's Association as finding it disagreeable. Each time we have come back and said, okay, this is what we want to -- we think this is a solution. What comes back is, no that's unacceptable. Not, you need to amend Paragraph 4 to read as follows; not Item D needs to be revised as follows. We get back that is unacceptable. We get a laundry list of why, some of which conceptual, but none of which is detail specific to the point that allows us to move forward and get people paid. Today is a perfect case of that moving target. If there were issues with what was sent -- and Mr. Pires said he was given something and told sign it point blank, you know, this is our final bit, unless that's in the cover letter -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is it? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- my understanding is if a document is submitted and the other party finds it disagreeable, you identify the areas of disagreement and you offer solutions. Okay. That didn't happen here. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Or you take your ball and go home. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Or you say we'll see you in court because for some reason, that seems to be an advantageous position. I'm concerned right now that no matter what we do today, we are going to relive this discussion in a slightly different form next Tuesday or three weeks from now or six weeks from now because I sense absolutely no cooperation in the sense of trying to get this worked out. We don't have a letter. Mr. Fernandez, you have not been given anything even today after Mr. Pires's comments of what he finds unacceptable that details how he thinks this document can be changed so that it is acceptable. Do you have anything in your hand that allows us to go in and fix this on the word processor and have it back here in two hours for this board to look at? MR. FERNANDEZ: No, I don't. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's how we get things solved. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, how about -- what if -- I just have a funny feeling that the Clerk is watching this on TV, and I would like to point out to him again that this board is very willing with open arms, we are anxious to discuss this matter with you and resolve it today, Dwight. Please come to this meeting before it's over and let's discuss it. And I wonder if it might be worthwhile to -- certainly we've got to adopt, you know -- approve the list of checks that the county administrator, thank God, brought to us today so these people can get paid through that method instead of through the method of resolving the whole problem, but that we designate a time at the end of the -- you know, 2:00 today, or whatever time we think we might be done, and ask the Clerk again if he'll come and talk to us today. And maybe during that period of time, Mr. Pires could draft an agreement or, you know, take a red pen to this agreement and tell us what's wrong with it. You know, I just, like, refuse to give up on the -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner, I don't know if you are aware of this, but there was a point in time, I believe, was it, a week ago, when the attorneys -- there was a conference call, and at that time, there was an executive summary in our book, and that was picked apart for verbiage and be -- but those changes were made over the telephone. I mean, they were things that everybody could agree to, and those changes were made over the telephone. That's the reason I'm amazed this instrument couldn't have been used to have somehow come together if there was an ongoing agreement. But what troubles me even more that our direction last Tuesday, which everyone sat in this room and everybody seemed to be in agreement on what was going to be in the agreement, which we have here in front of us, and now this week it's not acceptable. I don't understand that. What don't they understand what we've said? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What I'd like to do is to challenge Mr. Pires on behalf -- as the attorney for the Clerk to take a red pen to this agreement and before the meeting is over, give us a draft, show us a revision that's acceptable to you that incorporates -- that still reflects the position that the board took last week. MR. PIRES: I need to talk with my client about that, but I would be willing to do that, yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: One thing I want to make note, I do not want the position of this Board of Commissioners compromised in this agreement -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- and the County Administrator's Office. MR. FERNANDEZ: That comment right there reminds me of the conversation Mr. Smykowski and I had with Mr. Mitchell late Friday afternoon when we were trying to discuss why he felt it was essential to have 11 cost centers and why we felt it was not essential and why it was not consistent with the board direction, and the conversation ended kind of abruptly when he said, well, I've got to consult my attorney before we go any further. So now the attorney is saying he's got to consult the client -- MR. PIRES: Mr. Mitchell is not the client; it's the Clerk. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- and we keep going back and forth and the problem is it's impossible to get on the phone everybody that we need to have on the phone every time that we need to discuss an issue. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So let's see if we can do it -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Hold it. Hold it. It's just -- we're not getting anywhere with this. We're going to keep pointing fingers at each other and all that. It's very clear the clerk has no intention to settle in this matter. He has no intention. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sure seems that way. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Last week, Tony, you sat here and verbally agreed to what we verbally said we would do. Here is the document memorializing what the Board of Commissioners said it's going to do. Now you show up and say that's not acceptable. It's very clear the Clerk has no intention of settling this, so what do we do? Do we have any legal remedies? What can we do? MR. WEIGEL: Well, one legal remedy is to go back to the courts. In the initial complaint filed by Mr. Brock against Collier County and Judge Starnes was the prayer of the plaintiff, Mr. Brock, for the court to authorize the payment of the invoices so it wouldn't have to come back to the board and be held hostage to the board agenda process. We, on behalf of the county, have had resistance in saying, and we have said numerous times, let's use the court and not have to come back to the board so there can be a continuous ongoing payment of those checks. This has been refused by Mr. Brock in the court process. We can go back, although we're the defendant, and make that clear. It won't be instant. We'll have to get into the court and the hearing process to do that, but that's one way to try to keep it going and not have it come back as a repetitive board item. And, again, I passed up to Commissioner Mac'kie a copy of Mr. Pires's memo that he had sent to me, and please look at Paragraph 5, Number 5 there, particularly the last two or three lines, because you will see that it provides for supposedly and purportedly based on the understanding of last week's board meeting on this item that, in fact, after the county attorney being designated once again officially to review and approve the costs, that they would come back for ratification by the Board of County Commissioners, which is precisely no different than what we're forced to do with the add-on agenda item today. So this is one of the reasons that I got about my task in working as quickly as I could with the judge, Mark Middlebrook, court administrator, our budget office, Mr. Fernandez, outside counsel for Judge Starnes so that we could provide a document executed by Friday afternoon because the dialogue that we are going to have in regard to this was going to be with intransigence, I really believe. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we table the item until 2:00 at which time Mr. Brock will join us here. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. Did you speak to him and he agreed to that? COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: He'll bring over a checklist of things he would like to see us agree upon, and we can deal with them. We'll stay here until we get it fixed. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We've got to do that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and second to table this item until 2:00. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: You have two speakers. Would you like to take them now or 2:00? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We'll take them now so if they don't wish to stay, they don't have to. It's up to them. AUDIENCE MEMBER: We'll wait to speak. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You'll wait till two? AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We'll wait, and right now we're going to take a break. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Shouldn't she call the question? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Don't we need a vote on that? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, we need to vote. Call for the question. All those in favor? Opposed? (No response). CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero to table. (A brief recess was held.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'd like to reconvene the meeting. Item #11Bi&2 MARY DUNIVAN VOICING CONCERNS RE THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT USING COUNTY SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT RELATIVE TO SCENIC HIGHWAY 41 AND REGARDING ATTENDANCE OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF AT A DEP SEMINAR At this point in time in our agenda, we're ready for public comment. Do we have any registered speakers, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, ma'am; we have Mr. Gil Erlichman -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Mr. Erlichman. MR. FERNANDEZ: And Mary Dunavan. MR. ERLICHHAN: Good morning, Commissioners. Gil Erlichman. I reside in East Naples. I was going to make a comment, but seeing what you people have gone through this morning, I would not risk my comments at this point, and, to me, discretion is a better part of valor. Thank you very much. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker -- (Applause.) MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Mary Dunavan. MS. DUNAVAN: Good morning. I'm Mary Dunavan, and I'm speaking for myself today. And I would like to find out if this county board would investigate the Planning Department, especially on scenic Highway 41. A secretary has been working for almost two years on that, and they are using office supplies, office equipment, their letterhead is on most of the stationery that's sent out, and this is my second time, I believe, that some of us has requested this to be looked into. Also, on the other side is the -- on the Planning Department, the Florida DEP has held some meetings, particularly one that I went to in July last year, I believe it was the 14th, it was on a Friday, all-day seminar, and the Planning Department was there. There were maybe three workers attending that meeting, and it was to promote ecosystem management or to get ecosystem managers. And they evidently was on tax payers' money for that also. So I would like to see if you would investigate these items. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez, would you be able to get any information on that for the commissioners? MR. FERNANDEZ: I think that's your wish -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think that might be MPO. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm sure it is MPO, but -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: MPO because there is a potential designation being -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- bandied about for a roadway in Collier County -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- so it's under their jurisdiction. The question of are they spending an appropriate or the minimum amount of time necessary sounds to me to be the most reasonable comment. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But the best thing to have addressed by Mr. Fernandez and then just bring it back to the board -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- and we'll get an answer for your question, Mary. Thank you very much. Item #12B1 ORDINANCE 98-16 RE PETITION PUD-90-36(1), DWIGHT NADEAU OF MCANLY ENGINEERING AND DESIGN, INC., REPRESENTING COLONIAL EQUITIES, INC., REQUESTING A REZONE FROM PUD TO PUD FOR THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS SADDLEBROOK VILLAGE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF RADIO ROAD AND DAVIS BOULEVARD - ADOPTED Okay. We're to the public hearings section of the agenda. The first item is petition PUD-90-36 having to do with a fezone Saddlebrook. All those people who are wishing to speak to this issue, would you please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter? (Speakers were sworn.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: One further thing, do we have any commissioners who have anything to disclose on this item? Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have had outside contact but will base my position on what I hear today. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll comply with state law. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You usually do. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You kind of caught me off guard there. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because most times you're well outside state law on decisions. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, usually it's way away. I think I have talked to Dwight, but obviously we'll base our decision as required by state statute. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I believe I had a brief discussion with the petitioner on this. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I'm not sure if I did or not, but whatever it is, I'll comply with the state law as well. Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Yes. Ron Nino for the record, Planning Services Department. The petition before you asks you to amend the Saddlebrook PUD specifically to decrease the minimum size of floor areas for multi-family dwellings from 750 to 600 units. To eliminate a stipulation from the current PUD that required this PUD to establish a public street that would -- that would connect with the Palm Springs Subdivision and to replace the master plan with a more detailed master plan in view of the increased knowledge we have about the location and wetland conditions. I would also remind you that only a short while ago, you approved the affordable-housing density bonus agreement for this property. There is no -- this amendment does not affect dwelling units. The Planning Commission reviewed this petition and unanimously endorsed the revisions to the PUD, and I'd be happy to answer any questions you have. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Nino, just how small is 600 square feet? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Twenty by thirty. MR. NINO: Twenty by thirty, but that happens to be the minimum size that we allow in the land development code for multi-family dwelling units in RMF-12 and RMF-16 zoning districts. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Also happens to be one hundred and fifty feet smaller than what this PUD allows right now. MR. NINO: Definitely. Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: When I looked at that, I was remembering back to when I was twenty-two out of college getting my first apartment by myself, and to be honest, I really didn't need the dining room. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Didn't have any furniture to fill it up anyway. No, it was just a liability. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thanks for sharing. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: A bedroom, a living room, a front door, a bathroom, that's about 600 square feet. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Are there any questions for the petitioners? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There are no bars involved here, are there? I just want to -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Hancock will give us a rundown on those later. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Nadeau, what would be the effected impact or why was the request made to lower that by 20 percent? MR. NADEAU: Well, actually, Commissioner -- for the record, Dwight Nadeau of McAnly Engineering and Design representing the petitioner, Colonial Equities, Inc. In response to that question, the original PUD did not allow one-bedroom units. The proposed amendment would include one-bedroom units, and based on the square footage of market and affordable units, 600 feet was found to be appropriate and consistent with the land development code. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Nadeau, even though we're just talking about the reduction of the units, I just need to be clear on something, if I can. The required interconnection to the adjacent neighborhood, obviously this is the -- no better term -- the intersection from hell where Radio and Davis come together out there. Do you anticipate the project using your interest predominantly or once the adjacent parcel is developed that that access would be used for entry and exit based on the future configuration here? MR. NADEAU: Commissioner Hancock, the subject property will only be accessed by improving the Radio Road corridor for exclusive use by the Saddlebrook Village PUD. And, in fact, it was at the request of the land trust in the Palm Springs subdivision here to the west that interconnections would be precluded. Mr. Fitzgerald had contacted me and entered a letter into the public record, which Mr. Nine has, who -- they do not have any desire to be connected to the Saddlebrook PUD at all. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was referring to the correction the other to the east. MR. NADEAU: The connection this way? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The connection, excuse me, yes. MR. NADEAU: There is industrial zoning to the north, and there's a hiatus, a small agricultural piece, to the east as well. The public road would serve no public service. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What I'm getting at here, Mr. Nine, is you're stubbing out at the eastern perimeter, eastern boundary line there. Do I see that correctly? MR. NINO: No, that's just a turnaround, Commissioner. MR. NADEAU: That would be a temporary turnaround. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, so there would be no interconnect to adjacent properties at all? MR. NADEAU: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason I just bring that up is I don't know what the future configuration of this intersection is, but the further east we could create the access here away from the intersection, the better. I don't know what tools we have at hand right now to make that a better situation. If we have none, then we have to move ahead. But before moving ahead, I would like to clarify that if possible. MR. NINO: Perhaps Mr. Kant can shed some light on -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I thought he might get an opportunity to speak on this. MR. KANT: Edward Kant, Transportation Services. For the record, I was not sworn because I had not planned to speak, but if you wish to, we can go through that. (Speaker sworn.) MR. KANT: We're presently studying that particular intersection. There is a possibility that the -- where Radio hooks to the south to join up with Davis Boulevard may be moved slightly to the west depending on what the final configuration looks like. That's also complicated by the fact that FDOT has presently got a contract out on the street for -- poor choice of words -- for the examination of what they want to do with Davis Boulevard and that S curve. You may remember several years back, they presented some information to the MPO they were going to consider trying to take the heavy S curve out of there and try to straighten that road out. That's presently in the works, so there's still, in my opinion, some question as to what's going to happen out there. We examined this when it came in for the rezoning. We were originally a little concerned about the loss of that interconnection. On the other hand, the two projects do seem to function independent of one another, and that, at this point, is the most information we have because none of those studies have been completed. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. With nothing else at our disposal to make a decision on, I can't, you know, I can't really think of any recommendation that would improve the situation, so that's all I have. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have any public speakers on this item? MR. FERNANDEZ: You have none of this item, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Close the public hearing then. Do I have a motion? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll move approval. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion for approval and a second. Comments, Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just thought -- I'm not really excited. I realize the 600 feet is consistent with our land development code and while it makes me claustrophobically uncomfortable, I'll go ahead and support it because it is consistent, but I just need to mention on the record my unhappiness, I guess, with creating things that small. I don't think we're creating a good situation here. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I wonder if we want to, you know, ask staff to look at that for the next cycle of amendments because 600 square feet, wow, I mean, that's nothing. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think if it were 600 square feet market rate, that's, you know, as opposed to affordable housing because, again, sometimes the only way to achieve the density necessity to make a project happen is by reducing the floor area. I agree with you, but as long as it doesn't become the standard, and we will ultimately control that, then I think we can limit it successfully so -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not going to vote against it because it is consistent with what we're doing -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- but I just -- overall have a concern with that one thing. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Opposed? (No response). CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. MR. NADEAU: Thank you commissioners. Item #12B2 ORDINANCE 98-17 RE PETITION R-97-11, DWIGHT NADEAU OF MCANLY ENGINEERING AND DESIGN, INC., REPRESENTING JAMES R. COLOSIMO, TRUSTEE OF ULTIMATE LAND TRUST, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM PUD TO "A" RURAL AGRICULTURAL WITH A "HHO" OVERLAY FOR PROPERTY ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES OF IHMOKALEE ROAD - ADOPTED WITH CONDITION OF INCORPORATING PHASE ONE SITE PLAN CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Next item is Petition R-97-11 concerning a land trust requesting a fezone from HUD -- from a PUD to A. Rural Agricultural with a HHO overlay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are you going to close the public hearing? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Unless there is something we need to get on the record, as much as I'm sure everyone here would love to speak on this, this is pretty much a straightforward slam dunk. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I'll close the public hearing if there's no questions from any of the commissioners. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Are there any public speakers registered? MR. FERNANDEZ: No registered public speakers. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The petitioner might want to talk. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The petitioner would like to say something, so I believe we will reopen the public hearing and allow the petitioner to make a point, at which case we need to swear in everyone, please, that wishes to speak. Please rise. (Speaker sworn.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is there any disclosure from any of the commissioners? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, good Lord, I've had so many, many, many, many hours of discussion with everybody from the Conservancy, the petitioner, a little bit of discussion with others, but I'll base my decision on all of the information that I have available. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have the same disclosure. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I'll comply with state statutes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You have to start paying attention. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Hello. Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're on 12(B). Okay. I was looking at 12(B)(3). That one I will call the slam dunk but -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I was wondering. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Sorry about that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We're on Item 2 here. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I have had discussions with the petitioner, Conservancy and members of the public on this. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is just good entertainment today. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, God. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Not my idea of entertainment. At any -- I have also had contact from the petitioner, and I'll do whatever's necessary according to state law. Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: We're ready to swear. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We swore. MR. NINO: Oh, I'm sorry. For the record, Ron Nino, Planning Services. I'd like to hand out notification for ownership changes on this project. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I promise to re-engage my brain here. I think I was at lunch already. MR. NINO: I'd simply add that this, from a planning perspective, is a rather straightforward petition, however other reasons -- other reasons may make it not so. The petitioner is asking that a PUD rezoning that you granted some three months ago be withdrawn and the property be rezoned back to agricultural. There are no consistency issues with that kind of action. The Planning Commission unanimously endorsed the petition. I'd be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is for Mr. Nino and perhaps for Mr. Weigel. Just from a practical and legal standpoint, I assume if the petitioner has decided that they don't want to use their land in a particular way, we can't really prohibit them from going to their original zoning, can we? I mean, that obviously we can if we vote that way today, but it doesn't seem practical if someone says, never mind, we don't want to do that after all for the board to stand in the way of their own purpose. MR. WEIGEL: You're essentially correct. I think Ms. Student wants to be a little more specific -- MS. STUDENT: For the record, Harjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney. There is case law in the State of Florida that you cannot impose PUD zoning on a property owner without their consent. For us to maintain that PUD zoning when the petitioners petitioned to have it go back to ag. would be in violation of that case, Porpoise Point versus -- I forget the name of the local government. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can we talk about that before you go, because I have another question about that. Do you mind? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, not at all. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just -- I desperately hate to give up the, you know, steps that we made toward positive environmental changes as a result, you know -- they were going to buy land; they were going to do native vegetation; there were just maybe like three-hundred-and-something acres that was going to be vacant and undisturbed is now going to be disturbed. We -- they consented to the PUD zoning. They requested the PUD zoning. Do we, at this point, have to agree to their request -- you know, I know the law is that I cannot take your property and impose a PUD on you, but my question is a little more specific and that is, having had the request made to fezone the PUD -- MS. STUDENT: They're unrequesting it now, however. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But is there a case on that? MS. STUDENT: No. The only case on is the Porpoise Point case, and I believe that case is where the local government took it upon itself to write a PUD and put it on the property. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. MS. STUDENT: Here we have a specific petitioner wanting to, if you will, unPUD his property. If we said no, we'd be forcing them to have a PUD on the property against their wishes, and I believe we'd be in violation of Porpoise Point. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How long after that approval was the request made by the petitioner, though? It was a matter of weeks, wasn't it? MR. WEIGEL: It was very quick. Again, as Mr. Nino approaches, I think the question Ms. Mac'Kie has raised is a very important and specific question which is not -- does not appear to be specifically addressed by the Porpoise Point fact situation. The response that we provide, our opinion is really analogizing to the best of our ability, taking into context our knowledge there was a very quick turnaround time -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But isn't all of that immaterial because this board authorized this reversal action? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We've already -- MR. WEIGEL: That is correct. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We've already dealt with it. MR. WEIGEL: That is correct. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Did not the petitioner come before this board and ask this board to authorize the process to go forward to reverse the PUD action? MR. WEIGEL: That is correct. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So everything else is moot. MR. WEIGEL: Actually -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That would probably work against us in the case, but -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's what I mean. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, I understand. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, I'm looking at the site plan that is behind you and it shows a lot of what was in the PUD as far as preservation of existing wetlands and vegetation and whatever. In the process of removing the PUD, can we require the attachment of the site plan to this action, or can we request the attachment? I'll make it that way. MR. WEIGEL: Clearly, you can request, and I'm not going to opine that you can't require the site plan to be a part of your decision process. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But should we make that request and the petitioner agree to it, not specifically as a condition of the action, then the site plan will be incorporated as a referenced document. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: At least we know we have this instead of the grid pattern of -- MR. WEIGEL: My concern with this is, are we, in fact, getting ahead of the staff administrative review with a site plan that the board may be looking at and approving at this point in time. Based on my review and preparation for the agenda item today, it's my understanding that staff is prepared to tell you that what is proposed with this site plan does, in fact, meet county standards and has been reviewed by staff. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If that's the case, then we can incorporate it similar to what if we were doing a zoning, so -- MR. FERNANDEZ: I believe you can. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That's all I -- because Commissioner Mac'kie, you said you didn't want to go back against strides we'd made and -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, that -- we still lose with this plan. The environment still loses with this plan, but it certainly loses a lot less than it would if we just go with the traditional grid development. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: They don't -- we don't lose at our hands; we lose at the hands of a couple special interest groups. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Granted. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's the whole point. I don't think the Board of County Commissioners' actions based -- we're not losing on action that we have taken. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Heavens, no. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We're losing because of outside interest that __ COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Or another way to look at that is that we're preserving the best-case scenario considering those outside interests. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Agreed. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, what he said. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good point. We'll hear from the petitioner at this point if there is no further questions from the commission. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: None. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Madam Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Bruce Anderson on behalf of the TwinEagles Development Company, Limited, and I do regretfully appear before you this morning to ask that you restore the zoning that previously existed on this property before it was zoned PUD. The purpose of this request to down-zone the property is quite simply to render moot two lawsuits that were filed challenging the county commission's approval of the TwinEagles' PUD. I would like to give to the court reporter and introduce into the record copies of the complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief and the petition for writ of certiorari that were filed against Collier County and the prior owner of this property, Ultimate Land Trust. These two lawsuits sought to have the TwinEagles PUD declared invalid and the prior agricultural zoning restored on the property. The opponents are going to get what they asked for. I am pleased to tell you that TwinEagles Golf and Country Club is going forward without the planned unit development zoning and will be developing as fully allowed under the agricultural zoning district as a golf course, residential development with single-family homes on five-acre lots. I will also give to the court reporter and make a part of the record, and I will distribute to each of you, a reduced copy of this site plan that we have up on the board at present. This is for Phase I of TwinEagles. It covers approximately 475 acres of the original 1,375 that constituted the PUD. The remainder of the original PUD anchorage will be similarly developed with five-acre residential lots and golf course and preserve areas. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How can we preserve -- how can we make that a commitment -- where is Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Right behind you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh. How can we -- I know by attaching this site plan, we can do that as to Phase I. Would you think of some language that we could craft in a motion to require that as a -- MR. WEIGEL: You can't. You lose that -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- as a condition of the fezone back to ag. that this is the methodology, this is the pattern by which it will be developed, all the property, not just this one phase? MR. WEIGEL: Beyond Phase I, you mean. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, sir. MR. WEIGEL: Well, I certainly think you can do as Phase I, and I would hope that the record could reflect the comment from staff in the review of this Phase I so that if the board adopts that, we are not getting ahead of any process where other people might have had the opportunity to address it at the staff level. But for Phase II and Phase III, I don't think that we can, although in any situation where you have a petitioner, petitioner's representatives addressing the board, they can -- they can position themselves as far forward as they wish to. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He just stated that, and what I want to do is just be positive that's clear in the record and therefore maybe should be incorporated in the motion, and I was going to ask you for some language to support that. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. It sounds like you have got a pretty good handle on the language right there. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Hac'Kie, unfortunately, we lose the specificity we gained -- with the PUD -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and I think the strongest thing we could to is reference his comment to that effect and request that similar preservation techniques on the balance of the property be utilized that were utilized for Phase I. Beyond that, because of all the other action, we've lost specificity that made the project so sound the last time we looked at it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I tell you something, I mean, you guys know I'm on the Crew Trust Board, and what we have lost in addition is purchase of a piece of land to be donated to Crew Trust that would have become a part of that system, and that's just shameful. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's all for good environmental reason, I'm sure. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How many acres was that that you were going to buy and give to Crew? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The exact number had never -- had not been determined because we were going to go through the permitting process and see what we saved and what we developed on, but, in general terms, it would have been probably a minimum of 100 acres. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And then there was the preservation of this site down below that now is going to be houses, as I understand it? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That is correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's, what, 250 -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 260 acres, yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Lost. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Chalk one up for the environment. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, it's a clear case of county commissioners trying to do what was best for the environment in Collier County with the inevitability of this action going forward, and was thwarted ironically by the knee-jerk mindless reaction of some of the environmental groups. It's just a real shame. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I need to be perfectly clear that we actually owe a lot to David Guggenheim and the Conservancy for trying to get us where everybody benefitted from this project, not the project itself and it's a shame that that work was all for naught. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Anderson, continue, please. MR. ANDERSON: Each -- just for the record, each of these lots in Phase I will have various restrictive covenants or easements on them such as golf course recreation easement, preservation/conservation easement, water management easement. I would ask Mr. Mulhere to confirm on the record that the county's Community Development Staff has reviewed this site plan and they find it to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and in full compliance with the land development code. MR. MULHERE: Bob Mulhere, Planning Director. We reviewed this plan, not only myself but Mr. Nino, Mr. Chrzanowski and Mr. Houldsworth on behalf of the Engineering Review Section and find no critical flaw that would cause that design not to be approved through a subdivision process. It meets the code as we see it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: In conclusion, we very much appreciate the work of this board and your staff and the Conservancy of Southwest Florida in forging what we all considered a victory for the environment and for common sense and for sound land use planning. It's merely unfortunate that those who did not agree, could not see either the forest or the trees that were to be preserved and enhanced as a result of this PUD. I thank you for your time. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Any questions? Commissioner Mac'kie, comments. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just -- no. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have any public speakers on this item? MR. FERNANDEZ: None. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Then we'll close the public hearing. Do I have a motion? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, I'd like to move staff recommendation with incorporation of the Phase I site plan and similar preservation techniques on the balance of the property. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and second. All those in favor? Opposed? (No response). CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. Item #1283 ORDINANCE 98-18 RE PETITION R-97-10, HICHAEL R. FERNANDEZ, AICP, OF PLANNING DEVELOPMENT INCORPORATED, REPRESENTING AJHES W. TOBIN, FIRE CHIEFT, REPRESENTING NORTH NAPLES FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "A" AGRICULTURE TO "P" PUBLIC USE DISTRICT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A FIRE STATION SOUTH OF PINE RIDGE ROAD, WEST OF 1-75 - ADOPTED Next item is Petition R-97-10. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This next item is the one I got confused and thought we were doing last time, and I think both Commissioner Hancock and I said it was slam dunk. I don't know how the board feels. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Agreed. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We might be able to move through that one rather quickly. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have had no complaints, no comments. I have had a meeting with representatives of the fire district, but I don't -- no one has raised any issues on this site to me. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Same disclosure. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Same disclosure. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Same disclosure. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I, too, have been contacted by the petitioner's representative. If there is -- do we have any speakers on this item? MR. FERNANDEZ: You have none on this item. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'll make a motion to approve R-97-10. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second for the approval of R-97-10, the rezoning from agriculture to public use district for the North Naples Fire District. All those in favor? Opposed? (No response). CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's amazing what lengths we'll go to just to keep Mr. Cardillo from the microphone, isn't it? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Anything. Item #12B4 PETITION PUD-82-33(1) MICHAEL FERNANDEZ, AICP, OF PLANNING DEVELOPMENT, INC., REPRESENTING HARIG MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM PUD TO PUD KNOWN AS WIGGINS BAY ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF VANDERBILT DRIVE AND WIGGINS PASS ROAD - DENIED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The next item on our agenda PUD-82-33(1). Harig Manufacturing Corporation requesting a fezone from PUD to PUD known as Wiggins Bay. All those speaking to this issue, please rise and be sworn in. (Speakers were sworn.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioners, do you have any disclosure on this item? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've got some correspondence on it on both sides, but -- and I have had a meeting with Mr. Fernandez as well. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Same disclosure. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Best of my recollection, I have had no contact on this at all, but regardless, I'll comply with state statutes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I met with the petitioner and I received dozens of letters, two of which were in support and well over 25 not in support of this particular request. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I have had contact by the petitiener's representative and have received correspondence on this issue as well, and I'll make my decision according to state law. Mr. Nine. MR. NINO: Yes. Ren Nine, Planning Services. This petition seeks to amend the Wiggins Bay PUD by deleting a three-and-a-half acre commercial tract and replacing it with multi-family units at 56 dwelling units or 16 dwelling units per acre, which is the maximum allowed under the future land use element for conversion of commercial to residential usage. And further, that that number of units occur in buildings not to exceed seven stories in height. The Planning Commission reviewed this petition and unanimously supported the amendment. There were people speaking for and against the petition. I'd be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Nine, I understand the compatibility arguments that are made in the staff report, and that's one thing. What came to mind, as I was reviewing this over the weekend, is, correct me if I'm wrong, this project lies within the traffic congestion management zone in our growth management plan; is that correct? MR. NINO: It does, but that question is really irrelevant at this point in time. I mean, it's the best PUD. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But let's -- for the sake of argument, that is the traffic congestion management zone which limits new development to three units an acre or less; is that correct? MR. NINO: Yes. Correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So if there were just a raw piece of land out there and somebody came in to rezene it, it would be at three units an acre or less? MR. NINO: That's correct. However, we're dealing with the FLUE, we're dealing with the commercially zoned piece of property and we're dealing with a FLUE provision that says you can convert it at a density of up to 16 units per acre. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Understood. I just think by comparison sake of property not previously zoned commercial to this, I mean, I think that's kind of important to look at from my standpoint. MR. NINO: Chairman, I forgot -- Madam Chairman, I forgot one issue that is important. The Planning Commission also recommended that any development of this property take their access from Vanderbilt Drive or Wiggins Pass Road. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: In other words, not use the other -- MR. NINO: It would not use the internal road system. Let me say that staff does have a concern with that, and Mr. Kant has also expressed a concern. That's not the most desirable thing in the world to have traffic exiting onto Vanderbilt Drive or, for that matter, Wiggins Pass Road. Staff would take exception to that, and would prefer -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because it violates our traffic access management guidelines wholly? MR. NINO: Yes. MR. KANT: Good morning, Edward Kant, Transportation Services. That's correct, Commissioner, there is a provision for driveway access at corner parcels. However, when you look at the way that was originally developed, had that not been a commercial piece originally, then, most likely, the access would have come in from that road, which if you look at the color picture on the wall, there is a kind of a gray going up at about a 45-degree angle there. Because that was a commercial piece, it was to have taken its access only off of Wiggins Pass Road because of the prohibition within land development code for accessing commercial through residential and vice verse. When we looked at this, we felt that, because of the type of use, the lowering of the intensity use, that it would make more sense to have that take its access from the internal road and truly be part of that community. We're very concerned about any access onto Vanderbilt Drive. If you will notice the -- it may appear that Mr. Fernandez has wiggled the green area there, but in truth, that is to provide for a right-turn lane on Vanderbilt Drive down near the bottom of -- the right-hand corner of that picture. So any driveway onto Vanderbilt Drive would, by its very nature, intrude on that turn lane. The issue with the access onto Wiggins Pass Road is that we only have about 400, maybe 500 feet, tops, of frontage, and you're going to wind up with a driveway, two-way driveway very, very close to that intersection, and that's an extremely busy intersection, gets an awful lot of use not only from motor vehicles, but there's a lot of bike traffic and a lot of ped traffic because of the Cocohatchee River Park. So that was the basis for our concern and our recommendation. This morning, before the meeting, Mr. Fernandez and I -- maybe I'll wait and see if he wants to mention this; I'm sure he will, handed me a proposal for some additional traffic stipulations that would have to do with the access off of Vanderbilt or Wiggins Pass, and I'll defer to him, but we're not real happy with these either, so I just want to get that on the record from staff's perspective. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine, you had a question. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure. Ron, you mentioned the FLUE. The FLUE doesn't relate specifically to height or to -- MR. NINO: It does not, correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're looking at the additional -- on just the additional part would be 16 an acre, would be at the -- MR. NINO: That is the request which is supported by the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess, and -- I was reading on the executive summary, let me see if I can get this right, relative to an assessment of consistency with other applicable elements of the GMP we find the conversion for residential uses as having a lesser impact. That's a general statement. That's where we arrive at our allowable change under FLUE is generally residential traffic will have a lesser impact than -- MR. NINO: Very much so. As a matter of fact, we doubled this not too long ago in context of a 15-story building, and I think that's, nevertheless, the same number of units, and you may recall that I think we advised that under that scenario, the traffic from a shopping center of, I believe, one could build a shopping center on this property of about thirty to forty thousand square feet, that that would generate ten times the number of average daily trips that fifty-six dwelling units would. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris, questions. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. Mr. Nino, you say under the FLUE that this property could receive at up to sixteen units, but you really didn't break it down. How would that sixteen units be arrived at? MR. NINO: There is no -- there is no methodology -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It's just a flat -- MR. NINO: -- for that. It's just a flat up to sixteen units per acre. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So it could be eight; it could be three. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sure. It's an up to. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'kie, questions? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Not right now, thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That up to 16 unfortunately was put in our growth management plan in the days of the evil commercial empire where we looked at all commercial zoning as being bad. And everything commercial meant strip commercial and whatnot. It was a little different than what we're dealing with now. I think we've come to realize that, in some areas, commercial is advantageous to 16 units an area, particularly when we're looking at transportation issues and whatnot. If commercial is done properly, it can be an asset to a community, not a detriment. That being said, Mr. Kant, I have a couple of questions for you, because I want to understand, if we're looking up to 16 units an acre, it seems to me the way we get there is we determine if there is going to be a change in zoning, what residential balance provides a neutral or beneficial element to the community. We've talked about transportation. If they access the internal road, we've got a lot of angry people who bought into a community by the end of a cul-de-sac that wasn't supposed to have additional traffic on it. They knew the number of units in there when they bought and it would be adding traffic to their internal roadway. So if it's going to be external, if this were to be developed commercial, would the only access be a right-in/right-out only on Wiggins Pass Road? MR. KANT: Excuse me. Before I answer that question, Commissioner, my recollection, and Mr. Nino just corroborated for me, was that the main access to that commercial was, in fact, from Wiggins Pass but there was to be some secondary access directly from the internal development. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: People who lived in the development predominately? MR. KANT: One would assume that, yes, sir. The answer to your other question, I just took the 56 units and being a multi-family or condo-type units; I come up with an estimate of about 360 trips a day, peak hour in the neighborhood of about 35 trips. In the grand scheme of things, that's not particularly excessive. Without knowing exactly how many other units are on that road or using that road, the fact that these 300-and-some trips are near the end of the road may, in fact, require that every trip pass every other one of those buildings to get there. Again, I'm not a planner; I'm an engineer. I'm just going to give you the numbers. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: No apology necessary there, Ed. MR. KANT: As far as the shopping center, that again, from a staff perspective, that's always been somewhat worrisome at this corner, and as the area has developed and as Wiggins Pass Road traffic is increased, frankly, in my tenure with the county, I've always been a little concerned as to what was going to happen up there. And I was pleased from, again, from transportation point of view to see this because there is a significant lessening in the volume of traffic from type of development as opposed to commercial. How many square feet did you say we're on? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Thirty thousand. MR. KANT: Something like that. Neighborhood commercial at possibly as high as fifty to sixty trips per thousand, you can do the numbers there, it's going to be about three times -- three to four times at an absolute minimum of what we may expect here. Typically, on the smaller size, neighborhood shopping centers, you get a much higher incidence of trips. We've seen numbers up in the 80's and 90's. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock, just so I understand your point that you were asking there as far as access, if there was commercial property there and there is access that occurs to the benefit of the residents who are already there; if there is additional residential and there is only internal access, that clearly is to their detriment. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct. The traffic comparison on the exterior roadways is one thing. The traffic comparison on the interior roadways is, indeed, another. And that's my point. The second thing is that when we start looking at three hundred and sixty trips a day from residential, they're going to be -- this is a generator. People live here; they leave from here and return to here. Thirty thousand square feet of commercial on a corner like this, even if it's right-in/right-out only, on the perimeter of the project on the two roads typically is a convenience commercial use. You may get a drugstore out of it at the most. Typically what you're going to get is a couple of smaller uses in there. And convenience commercial has the unique characteristic of capturing trips in that immediate area that otherwise may be using segments of the road to get elsewhere. People tend to stop at 7-Eleven on the way and on the way home as opposed to, you know, leaving the house to go to a Home Depot where you have to travel, you know, through several roads to get to it. So I understand the numbers on the exterior roadway, but for the neighborhood comparison people who live around there, I still feel that a small commercial center there with right-in/right-out only has some real benefits to it from, you know, from a trip standpoint of people who live in there now; where do they have to go to get a gallon of milk or where do they have to go to drop off dry cleaning and that kind of thing. That's kind of in line with what we've been doing the last couple of years trying to look at how we can place commercial appropriately to take the burden off the roadways in some cases. So it's a mixed bag, I understand. MR. KANT: Frankly, if all that that corner was going to have on it, if it were going to be commercial, if all that were going to have is something like these new Hess Marts or 7-Eleven -- like the new 7-Eleven we got, that probably could be worked out because they're relatively small, the type of stop is going to be in the morning typically just before the peak and in the afternoon typically just after the peak, so, you know, there are ways of evening that traffic out and there are probably ways of developing the approaches. We didn't examine that because we knew this was going to be -- we felt that this was a reasonable approach to the change. As I said, Mr. Fernandez has also apparently tempered their original request because as I look at -- as I reread his request as transportation stipulates, he's not talking about access off of Vanderbilt Drive; is that correct? MR. FERNANDEZ: That's correct. MR. KANT: So we're still concerned. We would still prefer and would let the record reflect that our recommendation is for internal access. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. Mr. Kant, I'd like for you to elaborate a little more, and perhaps you'll have to go to the map so that we can see, where under the existing PUD today, how would access be to that piece of property for commercial use? MR. KANT: Let me address that because there is some confusion here. The existing PUD provides no access from this corner. If it were to develop as commercial as they're currently allowed to do, they would still have to amend their PUD map to establish an access. For whatever reason, there was never any access on the original master plan, so they would -- I don't know that -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's zoned commercial but they -- MR. KANT: -- I don't know they fully intended that it be internally accessed. I doubt it. I think there was an error, but nevertheless -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Doubt it. MR. KANT: -- the current master plan would have to be amended and those same staff would not have a problem with it, I'm sure. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Kant, back over there again. Would you just, for everybody's benefit, show us what the proposed access might be? MR. KANT: As I understand it, the internal access that was presented and when we looked at the original staff view had a road coming out and connecting somewhere in this general vicinity and that would have permitted the use of this main gate. Their proposed access at present is, and, again, without trying to scale, several hundred feet from the corner, somewhere in this area. Obviously, the preferred access is as far to the east of that corner as can be made viable. The original -- there was a plan that I had seen a number of years ago which, again, showed an arrow which was to indicate access, and going back to Commissioner Norris' original question, I also -- it is my recollection, correctly or incorrectly, but it is my recollection that there was a smaller, lighter arrow to allow for some type of internal access here. But without going back and checking those drawings, I can't make that as a definitive statement. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez. MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: Good morning, Commissioners. Michael Fernandez representing the petitioner. First thing I'd like to do is pass out a couple of exhibits. First, a colored exhibit, Exhibit C to the PUD, which has been revised from the one originally submitted to be consistent with the Planning Commission request or desire to have its access directly from Wiggins Pass Road versus an internal access. And supplementing that, a stipulation -- some transportation stipulations that we proposed to Mr. Kant that would require any access off this -- off Wiggins be a minimum of 400 feet consistent with LDC standards from the corner and have a minimum throat depth of 75 feet with right-turn lanes as deemed appropriate by Transportation Services. And should this roadway be either four-laned or become a median, then that access would become a right-in/right-out only. Relative to the transportation issues, I think Mr. Hancock is on track from the standpoint that whether this gets developed as a residential or commercial project, assuming the site plan as shown is approved, there's going to be trips impacting Wiggins Pass Road. Our calculations that it's approximately, not ten times as many trips but maybe only eight, but it's still significantly greater amount of trips would be generated by a commercial development on this site. Relative to the project itself, what we have, of course, is residential versus commercial. This particular side is part of an existing PUD. We kind of look at it as an in-fill parcel. The original PUD has a density existing approved at 4.79 units per acre. This request for 56 units would raise us to 5.05 units an acre. Relative to the individual parcels within the site, our request is for 16 units per acre. Our understanding from staff is that the Princeton Place units, the ones that -- the three closest buildings, the ones in black there, are over 16 units per acre. And many of you are aware of the high-rises that are being developed by WCI. Those are occurring on these four parcels -- on these four parcels in this area, and those are being developed within the PUD at twenty-six units an acre. So we're consistent within the PUD as far as the intensity of development. We're also consistent with the land -- the other projects in the area, for instance, the Pelican Isle Club, which is across the street to the west, and it's also being developed at 16 units per acre. The other thing is that this is within a PUD. It's not a separate parcel as may come up in another petition. Because of that and because of the way the project was developed, its water management and open-space requirements are not internal to the individual parcel but actually located outside of it. Therefore, given an equivalency, this can be looked at not as a three-and-a-half-acre parcel but is a six-acre parcel handling the same number of units if this were on a freestanding site somewhere, which would lower our density intensity equivalent to somewhere around ten units an acre. This PUD was developed in 1982 and doesn't have the benefit of today's considerations of neighborhood commercial, standards that are being developed today and to be incorporated into the LDC. Therefore, it doesn't have the safeguards that hopefully will make those projects more compatible. That's not to say that a commercial development on this site cannot be compatible, but this gives us some safeguards. Our particular end user is the same end user or is the same person or same group or entity that is responsible now as the master developer for the entire site. And as such, they're looking at the interest not only of developing this parcel but how it affects the rest of the community. We've made a presentation to the residents. Those that attended the meeting were generally found to be favorable. Some of those people will be at the meeting today to speak on behalf of the project. There's others that are not pleased about the project, but, in general, from a planning perspective, I look at this as an in-fill parcel that has benefits to the community as to the internal PUD. Certainly, what we've come up with is a site plan that orientates itself as minimal -- as minimizes its impact on its adjacent neighbors and will have over 50 percent open space on the ground as opposed to a commercial site. With that said, if there is any questions or comments, I'm available to answer. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not right now. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Fernandez, looking at the original drawings -- well, I should say, it certainly appears that access was always intended to come internally through this spot. That's fairly evident from looking at at time drawing of what exists. If this is all in a single PUD, as you say, how did it come that this parcel got removed, in effect, from the rest of the PUD and not -- maybe not legally but, in effect, it's removed and to be isolated. How did that come about? MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: You mean from an ownership situation or developer situation? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, ownership might be the answer to the question. The question is why is this parcel being treated from the rest of the PUD since it's obvious that the original intent was to access it from the inside. MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: Yeah. The PUD is silent. It doesn't show any access, as staff indicated, on the drawing itself that would indicate that it has access to the outside. Now -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's my point. I'm asking why -- how did we get to that. MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: Exactly. We have surmised in talking with staff that was probably an oversight on the petitioner's standpoint. On January 14th of 1982, which was prior to the adoption of this, there was an ordinance adopted that said you cannot access commercial through residential parcels. That is now part of the LDC which would tend to say that that would be -- this approval, if it were only accessed -- if it were being accessed through a residential area would be inconsistent with that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine, question. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a yes-no question. You're looking to increase the density on this PUD? MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: We're looking to convert from commercial to residential. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How did I preface my question? MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: Did you say the word intensity? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I said it's a yes-no question. MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm sorry. As far as density, yes, it's going from zero to sixteen is the proposal. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hold on. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, sorry. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The overall -- you keep pointing out that it's an overall, this whole PUD. The overall PUD -- the overall effect would be to increase density as well? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: You're welcome. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm looking at your revised site plan, which I think under traffic stipulations, you indicated would be 400 feet from the intersection of Wiggins Pass Road and Vanderbilt Drive? MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: That's correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That's from the center of that intersection to the center line of your entrance; is that correct? MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: Graphic -- yeah, that's correct as -- by the way -- that graphically is shown in excess of 400 feet from edge of pavement to edge of pavement, nearest to nearest. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason I ask is because of the angle of what you have set up here which provides almost no throat length for turning movements. Actually, I think it's going to be less than 400 feet from physical use. It may be 400 feet from center to center but because of the angle and orientation, it's going to be considerably less than that, wouldn't you agree? MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: No, sir, but we can make it as much as 500 feet, I think, to the corner, so we have that play that when we come in for our SDP, we can make any modifications required. The stipulations that we're making it would be a minimum of 400 and that we would achieve a 75-foot throat length. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In the past, we've had petitioners come in and say, well, when you four-lane the road or you six-lane the road, if you have to close off our access, that's fine, but that's before the residents move in. Then what happens is the residents are in there and we go to four-lane it and then wait a second, the guy who sold you the property said it was fine to do this and they didn't mind. And the owners are never notified of that. They never hear about it, and we get -- you know, I get 56 angry households because it just doesn't make any sense. So -- that happens a lot, so the access question is of concern for me. Also, on your plan, you have an area between what you're proposing and the existing three buildings, and you state that areas of existing tree retention, that sounds great, except for required utilities, engineer site grading and building construction clearances. Engineering site grading means if the water has to run downhill to rip out the trees and grade it to make it run downhill. Really, I appreciate you hashing all that, but realistically aren't you looking at only saving only a very few trees at the very corner of your project, an apex at Wiggins Pass Road not really along the property line, I mean realistically? MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: Realistically, we're not going to save as many as that entire piece probably has in there. However, we do -- we're very fortunate that our water management has been handled off-site and we can put it together in a piping system and then have a singular pipe crossing over that piece of property. We essentially could change that terminology and call it a preserve area to be retained, and that may give you some greater comfort. The idea is to provide some mature vegetation between ourselves, our proposed development and the residential development that already exists in the immediate area. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: You're welcome. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have any further questions? If not, do we have any speakers on this issue? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, we do. First one is Sally Barker and then Dr. Frank Healey. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Could we ask the second speaker to move forward at this time, please, just so we can move it up. MS. BARKER: This thing is not set up for short people. Good morning, Commissioners. For the record my name is Sally Barker, and I have been authorized by the Board of the Second District Association to offer some thoughts on this project this morning. With our present-day population now in the vicinity of the 200,000 people, we are rapidly approaching the halfway point towards buildout, and many of the decisions you're going to be called on from here on out are going to have a tremendous impact on how we buildout, how we look at buildout. At the present time, at least for the last couple of decades, our development pattern has been essentially the urban sprawl pattern with residential here and commercial there and the workplace someplace else, all of them requiring you to hop in your cars and drive to wherever you want to go, whether it's to work or just to pick up a loaf of bread. But in the past year, through the focus process and through other processes, our population who is here and now seems to be saying that we want communities that are more compact, more with integrated, more livable, more walkable, more bikable. What does all this have to do with the project today? I'm sure you're going to ask that question. Actually, quite a lot. When this PUD was first planned out 16 years ago, it was unique in that it contained this neighborhood commercial component. While I don't know for a fact, I strongly suspect this commercial component was included because 16 years ago, Wiggins Pass Road was considered to be out in the middle of nowhere and why would people want to go live out in the middle of nowhere. So this was probably, and I hope I'm not making this up, I assume this was a selling point to have neighborhood commercial close by within walking distance so that people didn't have to drive all the way into town to get their loaf of bread. However this neighborhood commercial component came into being, it still remains an excellent example of the sort of compact walkable, livable, integrated community plan that we are hoping to encourage each developer to put in place now. Now, we have the situation where the successor developer wants to get rid of the neighborhood commercial component and institute residential instead. This, I think, could potentially put you, the commission, in kind of an awkward position. On the one hand, this could be considered a relatively minor change in just one PUD among the hundreds that you deal with every year, but if you agree to this one minor change, then you run the risk of someday in the future of being accused of not being really committed to reversing this urban sprawl that we've been experiencing. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Sally, you don't mean it. MS. BARKER: Yes, I do. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We'll be open to criticism. MS. BARKER: Gee, something new, huh? Anyway, the only developers who are currently contemplating neighborhood commercial components could come back at a later date and say, gee, folks, we've decided we can make more money on residential; we want to get rid of this neighborhood commercial component; and, gee, you did it for Wiggins Pass, now do it for us. And from the developer's point of view of converting to commercial, sounds logical on the surface, I guess. When we were discussing the 15-story building last year, we were told that neighborhood commercial is not viable at this location because the market doesn't exist at this location. Well, now we have Pelican Isle across the street. We have the Marina Bay Club and Anchorage. We have Tarpon Cove going in just across Wiggins Pass. We have all these new high-rises going in Wiggins Bay PUD itself. You know, these are hundreds and hundreds of people literally living within walking distance of this corner; people who would theoretically not have to get in their cars to go get their loaf of bread or their newspaper, whatever they want to go do. As for the access to the commercial area, I agree that having access within the PUD is probably not a good idea, probably inappropriate. I would hope that some kind of small commercial area could be worked out, some kind of access. I think my time's up. I will cut this short. Anyway, to sum it up, I want to say I am truly sorry that the owners of this parcel want to sell it and the only buyers they have found to buy it are those who want to convert it to residential, but we don't pretend to be smart enough to have all the answers, but we remain unconvinced at this point that two, seven-story residential buildings are the answer either. Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Frank Healey and then George Andelfinger. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many public speakers are we going to have, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Six more after Mr. Andelfinger. (Commissioner Constantine leaves the room.) MR. FERNANDEZ: This is taking your lunch hour. DR. HEALEY: Good afternoon, Commissioners, and this is taking your lunch hour. I want to thank you, first of all, for answering my previous correspondence. I really appreciate it. I live at 320 Horse Creek Drive, if I might show you -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Sir, excuse me, sir. State your name for the record, please. DR. HEALEY: Dr. Frank Healey. I live at 320 Horse Creek Drive. I live on the end unit. This will be right in front of me, and I'm for it. We must have at least sixty walkers a morning, sixty walkers an afternoon, and sixty walkers an evening walking down Horse Creek Drive. If you can allow these people to develop this property properly, and I am sure they will put in two, seven-story buildings, sixteen units in each building or fifty-six, I'm sorry, I'd be for it. But you have got to give them access off of Wiggins Pass Road. To put another hundred cars on that road when those five buildings of Princeton Place have one hundred and eighty-five units already, it's impossible. It would be one line of cars going down the street. It's a double-lane road with no sidewalks. So I'm for the project. I don't want a shopping center sitting in front of my unit. I'd rather look at a nice building, but I need access off of Wiggins Pass. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker, George Andelfinger and then Mat Loiacano. MR. ANDELFINGER: Madam Chairman and County Commission Persons, I guess, my name is George Andelfinger. I also reside at 320 Horse Creek Drive. I'm here to speak on my own behalf as an owner, and the main concern that I have with the project is to make sure that the ingress and the egress to whatever is developed out there is off of Wiggins Pass Road. One of the things that was stated before was that it's an intersection. It's not an intersection. The road dead ends at Vanderbilt Drive. Now, another thing that I think everyone should be familiar with is the fact that, as you head north on Vanderbilt Drive toward Wiggins Pass Road, one must go over a bridge. So what happens is that particular interchange of those roadways are blind to the driver as he comes over the top of that bridge and then comes down. Any access off of Vanderbilt Drive would be a mistake, but they must come off of Wiggins Pass Road to address a very serious safety hazard situation that would present itself if we had any more additional traffic on that little two-lane road that even when cars go to pass each other, it's a very tight situation that resides on either side of the road. So I just wanted to make that point that it's very important that we keep the ingress and egress only off of Wiggins Pass Road. Thank you very much. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Mat Loiacano and then Frank Beckerer. MR. LOIACANO: Commissioners, this will be real short. I am an employee of the petitioner. I have no comment at this time. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Frank Beckerer and then William Cotdiet. MR. BECKERER: Thank you. For the record, my name is Frank Beckerer. I am a resident of Building 3. I'm director and president of our board of directors representing thirty-seven happy condominium owners. I owe some ten years of my life to the fact that I found Naples in 1985 and got out away from the New England weather, and the ability to walk and ride my bike and paddle my kayak and to take part in community affairs. On Mondays I go out to Habitat for Humanity, help build houses. Our people, our seniors are the greatest asset, in my opinion, that you have in Florida and certainly in Naples. We help in all kinds of activities. We contribute huge amounts of money to your economy. I hate to tell you what four months happens to my -- brings to my checkbook coming down here. We buy condos. We buy cars. We go out to eat. We do everything that you want of us. I think we're -- I think, frankly, not to brag, but I think we're wonderful neighbors. I liken this idea of adding more traffic to Horse Creek Drive to taking away the oxygen from a poor guy who's suffering from emphysema. If you could see this road from early dawn, I leave for mass at 7:00 in the morning, and I have to dodge the people walking down from both sides of the road. I walk at nighttime, after dark. They tell me that, you know, if you want to keep your ticker going, you walk two and a half miles a day, and I walk two and a half miles a day. We have no room for sidewalks. I come from Connecticut where I served six years as an elected man, and I want to tell you I wouldn't take your job for all the tea in China. I am indebted to you for representing me down here. You do a marvelous, marvelous job, and I know your final decision is going to be in the best interest of the majority of the people. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Madam Chairman, give this gentleman another five minutes. MR. BECKERER: I don't want to overdo my time, but, seriously, we have no room for sidewalks. This walking is vital to our lives. At eighty-one, don't kick me out of Naples because, you know, I've only got another few years. Each day is ticking off, and the ability to get this exercise and to contribute as a community and to live with a great bunch of people is really fooling the old grim reaper. So you fellows will soon be in our position, please -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are there any vacancies in your building? MR. BECKERER: I want to tell you something. We changed our buildings to coral last year over the fight of a lot of people. Since then, the sales of -- prices have gone up 8 percent and we have doubled our sales. Anybody wants to buy, come down there. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are you trying to tell me battleship gray is not a good seller? MR. BECKERER: That's right. That's right. But, anyway, to get down to brass tacks, please, come down and walk the road, see what's there, and you'll understand that to add another car by an occupancy, a new building, to Horse Creek Drive is a mistake. In Connecticut, we allow -- the state allows 20 residences per cul-de-sac, 20, imagine. In our town of Eastland, we allow 15. We have gone from the days of having through roads, all this business about safety and firehouses and policemen and ambulance and so on, frankly, we'd rather go two miles out of our way, even if the ambulance had to come to us during a heart attack than to have cars streaming by your roads all day long. So please keep an open mind on this subject and vote for the majority. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you very much, Mr. Beckerer. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Based on his comments, I drove by at 7:45 along Vanderbilt Drive where I had to drop my daughter off, and the only place I've seen more walkers was on Vanderbilt Drive down at Vanderbilt Beach. I mean, it's just -- when he says a stream of people, he's not kidding. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker, Madam Chairman, is William K. Cotdiet and then John Liuzzo. MR. CORDIER: How would you like to follow Frank Beckerer? We're buddies, and my name is Bill Cotdiet and I'm an owner of Condominium 101 in the last building here, which is the one most directly impacted by this development. I certainly can't add anything to what they've all said about the absolute necessity not to add a third more traffic on Horse Creek Drive than already exists. It's already busy, not too busy, but busy, and it will get very much too busy later on. I have written five, I think it is five letters now, on this matter. The last of which went to Commissioner Hancock. I appreciate your response. I don't agree with my other friends that it's okay to develop this corner residentially. I prefer it very much that it not be developed residentially and here is my reason. In 1988, we came down here and found this little gem of a development, Wiggins Bay. Wiggins Bay is a unit -- development unit. It has some different condominium groupings in it, but you get the advantage of being there because there are open spaces and elbow room and it makes good sense. I think the average density there is below five. It's four units per acre. That's what makes it what it is. When we came in, that was one of our major attractions. Location was one of our major attractions. And that corner was a question we raised with our realtor, and we said, what is the deal on the corner. And he said, that is zoned commercial. Well, it doesn't take much business acumen to figure out when you have a corner lot in a predominately rural or residential area, it's going to be developed in a manner which is advantageous to the people who are around there because that's your market. I read very briefly out here the report from the Planning Commission in which they use as examples of what might go in there a noisy, smelly restaurant -- by the way, we have a restaurant on the property, and it's neither noisy nor smelling -- or a shopping center. No shopping centers are going in. Something convenient to the people there will go in if it's developed commercially. Please, don't let us further impact our viewscapes, complicate our lives with more traffic inside the property or even out. Most of my letters have dealt with the safety problems having to do with the traffic. As George indicated, that bridge is an accident asking to happen. We don't need 56 people going out those sides, and we don't need them on Horse Creek Drive. I think that little convenience store or the small office building is liable to be going in there as a commercial development will be very beneficial to all of us and not add to the problems that we could otherwise incur if we had developed residentially. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is John Liuzzo and William F. Coady, Jr. MR. LIUZZO: Thank you, Commissioners. My name is John Liuzzo and I reside at 380 Horse Creek Drive. A lot of my thunder has been stolen, and I don't want to be redundant, however, there are a couple of points that were made that I would like to call your attention to. Specifically, the statistic that was cited by the architect about the densities that are in the community at this point were not true. We're -- the overall PUD for Wiggins -- for our development is 4.67 density, and that's what it is. It's not 20; it's not 30; it's not 40, and they are asking for 16, which is considerably more. That's number one. Number two, as a developer up North, I have a feel for what could be going in to the corner lot commercially, and certainly you are in the going to get a forty, fifty, sixty thousand square foot building in that area. There isn't anybody -- there isn't a principal in their right mind that would support that. It lends itself to a neighborhood-type shopping, office complex and certainly that does not have a density, will not have the impact that the project would have right now that's being proposed. So all I can say is that if the developer truly wants to develop land he owns, and I'm not sure exactly the statistic is right, but he owns somewhere between 180 and 200 PUD units within the community that he can develop, he doesn't have to go outside the community to develop, but that's his business. Anyhow, I wanted to call this to your attention, and I thank you for your time. And I have to congratulate this board. You're a sharp group. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is William F. Coady, Jr. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is this our last speaker? MR. FERNANDEZ: He's the last speaker. MR. COADY: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is William F. Coady, Jr. I live at 380 Horse Creek Drive, Number 201 in the Wiggins Bay Community, and I am opposed to this petition for the following reasons. I and many of my fellows residents in Wiggins Bay Community quite strongly feel the total of 693 residential units as approved in the original PUD is the maximum this area should reasonably and comfortably sustain. Based on two persons per household, this extrapolates out to approximately 1,400 people. (Commissioner Constantine enters the room.) MR. COADY: It's our feeling that the addition of 56 more residential units, thereby adding another 112 more persons, strains the capacity of the area. This is not what we paid for when we purchased in Wiggins Bay. Secondly, Sally Barker pointed out quite clearly the adverse effect on the Wiggins Pass Road, Vanderbilt Drive area as well because it has now become quite, not congested, but quite crowded due to the addition of the buildings that she mentioned; Marina Bay Club, Pelican Isle, Tarpon Cove and the community park. But I will point out also a point that Commissioner Hancock alluded to, and that is the Vanderbilt Drive, Wiggins Pass Road not only has become a big exercise area, but it's also become a commuter's alternative to U.S. 41. You probably noticed that that morning you were there, there was an awful lot of traffic. And Mr. Liuzzo pointed out also the developer behind this petition presently holds title to several tracts in the Wiggins Bay area. We don't quite understand why he doesn't develop on those tracks rather than come into this other area which we would like to see held for commercial based on the fact that we need a commercial unit in the area. I urge you to listen to the concerns of the resident owners. Vote against this petition and not give into a developer's quest for profit. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. At this point in time, I think we'll close the public hearing unless there's any more speakers. We have an obligation that we must meet, and we're going to have to hustle right now, so I think we will -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If it's the board's desire, I'd like to at least craft a motion and put it on the floor. If there is consensus, great; if not, then we can have discussion when we return. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let me close the public hearing and I'll allow you to do that. Go ahead. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Based on what we've heard today, I think the rezoning of this property, in essence, sixteen units an acre, will exacerbate the current problems dealing with density and buildout populations that we've all been dealing with. Although it may be consistent with the FLUE, the F-L-U-E, it's just not consistent with what I would call in-fill zoning here. In-fill zoning isn't sixteen units an acre next to four units an acre. In-fill is ten or twelve units an acre sandwiched between commercial uses. I mean, that's typical in-fill. So the in-fill argument just doesn't fly with me. If this were four units an acre or five units an acre that was consistent with the adjacent property, I think I would be very comfortable with it, but at the high density that it's being proposed with the transportation issues that have been raised and with the desire of the adjacent community that when they bought in had certain commitments made to them by way of zoning, I will move denial. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to second the motion, and I'm going to state my reasons as well, and I did while I was back there. I did have the speaker on, and particularly enjoyed the third gentleman who was entrusting our good judgment. I don't know what face went with that voice, but I appreciate the comment. I have concerns on four different items. One is that the internal traffic questions that came up; second is the external traffic, and I disagree with the stated impacts that went on the record. Frankly, I have a question with compatibility and that goes, again, to your in-fill comment. And then I have general concerns about increasing the population or increasing density. That is one item which I don't believe in five years we've ever agreed to do is increase density on PUD. We have stayed very steadfast with that and very consistent with that, so on all four of those items, I have to agree, and I will second the motion to deny the item. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Commissioner Norris, do you have any questions or comments? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think most of my points have been already vocalized. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Same. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Likewise, I think the points made were extremely salient to the issue and voice my concern as well. We have a motion and second. I'll call for the question. All those in favor? Opposed? (No response). CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion for denial carries five, zero. We're going to recess until approximately a quarter of two, probably. (A recess was taken.) Item #12C1 ORDINANCE 98-19 AMENDING COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 72-1 AS AMENDED, WHICH CREATED THE COLLIER COUNTY LIGHTING DISTRICT BY DELETING COUNTRYSIDE UNITS 1, 2, & 3 AND ROYAL WOOD GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB UNITS 1, 2, & 3 FROM THE COLLIER COUNTY LIGHTING DISTRICT - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'd like to reconvene the Board of County Commissioners' meeting, and we're moving on to Item -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: 12(C)(1)? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, it's the item -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: (B)(7). CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- an ordinance amending -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: 12 (B)(7). CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- Collier County Ordinance Number 72-1, the Collier County Lighting District discussion. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. You're right. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: 12(C)(1 e COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: 12(C)(1). CHAIRPERSON BERRY: 12(C)(1). Okay. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We're doing that one? We're skipping -- oh, no. No. We're not skipping anything. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's continued. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't think we're skipping anything. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Why do these neighborhoods want out of the lighting district is my simple question? MR. KANT: The two neighborhoods in question, the -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Could you identify yourself, please? MR. KANT: I beg your pardon. Edward Kant, Transportation Services. Both the Countryside Units 1, 2 and 3 and Royal Wood Golf Club Units 1, 2 and 3 have private roads. And at the time they privatized those roads, there was not much thought given to the impact on the lighting district. And after we looked back on it, staff didn't feel it was correct to keep these on the general HSTU lighting district where the whole county is paying for it. Typically, whenever a developer comes in, has private roads, puts his own street lights in, we never see that. This was kind of like the backwards case where these roads were public and then they went private. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Close the public hearing first? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is it -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, we'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: All right. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion to approve. We have a second? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. All in favor? Or, I'm sorry. Do we have any public speakers on this, Mr. HcNees? MR. HcNEES: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I'll call for the question. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries four, zero MR. KANT: Thank you, Commissioners. Item #12C2 ORDINANCE 98-20 AMENDING THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD ORDINANCE BY PROVIDING FOR NOTICE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS BY POSTING - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Item 12(C)(2), an amendment to the Code Enforcement Board, Ordinance Number 92-80. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Close the public hearing, please? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. Is there anything you need to get on the record, Mr. Hanalich? MR. HANALICH: No, I don't think so. It's pretty self-explanatory. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. MR. HANALICH: It's just to provide an additional means of notice. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to approve. Any questions or comments? Hearing none, all in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries four, zero. Item #15(1) PROPERTY DONATED TO CREW TRUST FOR ASSEMBLY CENTER Moving on then to staff communications. Mr. Weigel, do you have anything that you would like to wish us today? MR. WEIGEL: Well, I always wish you well. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We need that. MR. WEIGEL: I would like to note that on the agenda Item 9(A) today, the county attorney item, that a cost center referenced on the executive summary was missing a number one which I have added to the copy that is provided for the clerk's record here. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. That's -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is a motion necessary to include that? MR. WEIGEL: I don't think so. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: I just want to make it of record. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Mr. McNees, do you have any words of wisdom today? MR. McNEES: As usual, no. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: As usual. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Don't plant corn in the winter or -- MR. McNEES: No wisdom whatsoever. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- anything like that? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have just a question for Mr. Ilschner because I'm worried about those pipes under the East Trail. Are we going to hear about that in time to get that amendment done to be able to get that drainage situation addressed while we're in the widening process? MR. ILSCHNER: (Inaudible, speaker not at the microphone.) COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you, sir. I just want to be sure we don't lose it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, ma'am, I do. I have an important announcement. I'm very happy to make it, too. Recently -- as recently as this morning, actually, a -- a private anonymous citizen donated some property to the Crew Trust in the name of the Assembly Center, 102 acres, which will take care of the mitigation for the Assembly Center and should be the last piece in the puzzle to make the Assembly Center go forward. (Applause.) COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's why I have an emergency Crew Trust Board meeting in the morning at 8:30. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's it. To accept that property. The Crew Trust does need to officially accept the property and the Corps has, I guess, verbally to a point -- as I'm told anyway, the Corps has verbally said that they are ready to issue the permit -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank God. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- assuming that the Crew Trust accepts the property. So, this seems to be it. And however long it takes to get the logistics of this transfer done, should be really short and -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sure should. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- we'll be ready to roll on the Assembly Center finally after five years of fooling with the thing. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Although I -- I was unable to attend the dinner, I understand there were a couple of individuals responsible for sizable contributions. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Millions. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And this thing has just taken off. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Absolutely was, yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Millions of dollars. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Reverend David Mallory and everyone associated with that, yourself included, Commissioner Norris, deserve a tremendous amount of recognition. That is going to be an asset and help us for years like no other similar situation that's been brought about can, so thank you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Particularly -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, thank you. That -- it's really -- it's the best example that we've had around here of -- of -- of why -- well, it's a manifestation of the way this board thinks that you should try to -- to cure problems as much as possible in the private sector. This is going to have very little government contact in this Assembly Center operation, primarily just the sheriff delivering the -- the homeless out to the center for treatment and help under the Norris Interplan. And that will be, really, the extent of the involvement, so, it's -- it's taken five years -- it's just about five years now that we've -- the -- first organized the committee to study the problem and here we are right now, finally ready to -- to get going, we hope. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just a congratulations from me, too, and that -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So, vote yes tomorrow and -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, I'll do my -- you can count on it. My -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not that she's pre-deciding but we think she's pre-deciding. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: This year's Laws of Life contest, the subject was perseverance and I think we ought to give a plaque to Commissioner Norris persevering on this one -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Absolutely. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- because it's taken a long time but it's a wonderful community benefit. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Excellent. That is good news. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Great news. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine, do you have any comments? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. Just I did have the opportunity this morning while we were in discussion to talk with Mr. Brock via telephone. I met with him prior to our lunch briefly and I can't -- he's -- there he is. He has promised to be here at two o'clock and he's here -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: He's here. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- so perhaps we can get this item behind us. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think we can. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Hancock, any comments? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just real quick. I was at the Do the Right Thing celebration yesterday and, again, whenever you can get to attend those, please do. Yesterday's was particularly moving. In addition to recognizing a young lady with cystic fibrosis, the Ricky King Fund made the first payment to produce a vest for her that will assist her tremendously, and it was just combining kids that are out there persevering, doing the right thing. As we speak of perseverance, in the generosity of the community, it just seemed like a theme today. And it was really moving so, again, that program is going along and thank you for the rest of the board for your support on that. Item #15(2) DISCUSSION REGARDING TORNADO AND RESOLUTION CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. I apologize for my not being there yesterday. We were working on a -- some of you may have gotten a phone call or at least got a message. We were trying to get a group of -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- commissioners together, and if that couldn't happen, we needed a signature on a resolution that was in regard to the clean-up effort and emergency management kind of things for the tornado that went through our community, so -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I -- can I take a -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: As chairman, you've got priority duties there and I -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- don't think you need to explain that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But I -- but I felt very badly about it because I -- that's an excellent program and -- as was the -- they did in the city for the Laws of Life. I thought that was an excellent program as well. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I just take a -- one second more of a privilege of communication and -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Sure. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- just to tell you guys that I got to -- well, spent the morning yesterday at Naples Land Yacht Harbor where most of tornado damage was. And it is -- it's almost impossible, frankly, for me to describe to you what an incredibly professional staff we have at EMS, what an awesome job they do. And not only just professionally dealing with a critical emergency potentially life threatening situation, but just the human side of it, too, how caring, how compassionate, how wonderful they are and the work that they do. I just wanted to get to say that on the record today. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: You forgot all donations can be -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Beautiful to watch. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- channeled through the American Red Cross. Just a reminder to -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And they were fantastic, too. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Very good. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. I'm done. Item #11A2 APPROVAL OF COURT SERVICES (20TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT) INVOICES - TABLED UNTIL 2:00 P.M. BUDGET TO BE AMENDED FOR COURT SERVICES AS PROVIDED IN EXHIBIT 1 WITH CHANGE; THAT THE PURCHASING AND PERSONNEL POLICIES BE APPROVED AND THAT DETAILS BE PROVIDED COHMISSIONER BERRY: I believe that concludes our communications part and we have Mr. Brock available. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion -- motion to -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm glad you're here. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do we need a motion to untable because I believe we tabled? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, we do. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, we do. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to untable. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to untable the item just dealing with the Court costs, which was Item ll(A)(2). We'll vote on that motion. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero to untable. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, one of the things Mr. Brock and I discussed and -- and agreed is to not spend a whole lot of time figuring out where we are or how we got where we are, but more importantly to spend the time figuring out how do we solve the problem. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And having said that, Mr. Brock, let's hear from you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can -- could I ask before -- if you don't mind, before we -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Sure. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- start? Just I know that, Mr. Fernandez took copies of the addendum to the contract. I wanted to have that in my hand to just -- hopefully that's how we're going to approach this is just go through the addendum, see what changes need to be made and MR. FERNANDEZ: I have the addendum and the original copy. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'll -- I'll wait. Okay. Great. We all have copies. We're being delighted. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You didn't make five copies. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sorry, Mr. Brock. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. MR. BROCK: No problem. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MR. BROCK: Commissioners, I was asked by Mr. Constantine to come over and explain to you from my perspective how we can begin getting the vendors paid. In terms of the contract that you have entered into with Court Administration, that is between you and Court Administration. There are two issues that I have to deal with as the Clerk before I can write a check. One is that there is a properly adopted county budget that includes all of the elements required by the statute; and, two, that that expenditure is approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Now, from my perspective there are essentially three ways that I know of and have looked at in which we can solve the problem that is before us. One is that we can -- or you can adopt the agreement that started out in October of 1997, which was signed off by all of the parties, which would accomplish all of the necessary things that would allow me to cut warrants. If that is an unacceptable arrangement, Mr. Mitchell sent to Mr. Smykowski an eleven cost center list, which is broken down in dollars, a copy of which is enclosed in the material that is before you. If you approve a budget amendment for those cost centers and not approving a budget amendment, which includes the itemized elements that's contained in the budget module that was put there by your staff in November of 1997, but incorporating that simply into these eleven cost centers so that we have the capability of identifying where this money goes, where these expenditures go in compliance with Division of Banking and Finance, Uniform Chart of Accounts. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Dwight, do you mind if I ask you questions as you go or do you have a whole -- MR. BROCK: No. Certainly. Be my guest. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would -- would it -- if we were incorporate this eleven cost center -- MR. BROCK: If -- if you adopt a budget amendment which conforms to those eleven cost centers, just as they are there -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So -- so, in this agreement that's drafted, Section i(A) says under expenses, the county will annually adopt a budget for court services. If we said, which includes the eleven cost centers enumerated on, and let this be exhibit whatever? MR. BROCK: If -- if you simply adopt a budget amendment here today that encompasses those eleven cost centers and incorporate into that the line item itemization that presently exists in the budget module, you have established a budget which is in conformance with the Chart of Accounts promulgated by the Comptroller's Office, Division of Banking and Finance. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What I'm looking for is how does that differ from what was proposed to us today? MR. BROCK: How does that differ? COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, sir. I'm sorry. Because I don't know about -- MR. BROCK: The budget amendment that I received contains -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Six cost centers? That one? COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: One cost center? Is that an important issue to you, Mr. Fernandez, the number of cost centers? MR. FERNANDEZ: The only thing -- MR. BROCK: Commissioner Hac'Kie, I can also tell you that in conversations that I have had with the Deputy Court Administrator, Mr. Middlebrook, who has apparently been in communication with Fort Myers, they want the eleven cost centers. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They do want. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's get the answer to your -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- question of -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that a problem for you, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Pardon me? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is the eleven cost centers -- I just want to check these off one at a time. Is this eleven cost center issue something that you have an objection to? MR. FERNANDEZ: The only objection I would have is if by adoption of the eleven cost centers, which include a line item in each of the cost centers for regular salaries, if that puts us in a position of liability for those employees. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If -- if we change the definition, if we change the line from regular salaries to just salaries in accordance with identified personnel policies and procedures, that would solve your problem, right? Identified personal policies and procedures are -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Of the Court Administrator. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- the court identified. They're Exhibit C. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would that satisfy us? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That helps. MR. BROCK: Does that conform to the Uniform Chart of Accounts? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess -- and this is -- is a question for Mr. Brock. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Or if that doesn't work, in the agreement, Mr. -- Mr. Weigel, we can define salaries in this -- well, does that work? Mr. Brock? MR. BROCK: You can call it -- what I'm looking for is the object code and that it's to go to pay -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Salaries. MR. BROCK: -- salaries for court personnel. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So, you don't care if we had -- MR. BROCK: I don't care anything about anything else. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. So, we can do that? Would that satisfy you, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: If in fact it doesn't put us in a liability position, then I -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel, does that -- MR. FERNANDEZ: If you'd like to ask Mr. Weigel -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- keep us out of a liability position? MR. WEIGEL: Well, the more indices or points we have of relation there, the more potential there is for liability. But, part of the constraint we had under the agreement was is last week's board meeting on this item was an amendment to a budget and direction to amend the agreement. The direction was not to amend with eleven cost centers in the agreement and I was constrained -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But we're not going to talk -- MR. WEIGEL: -- not to do that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- about how we got here. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. But -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay? MR. WEIGEL: -- I'm just saying -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's important to know what -- why we're going in the direction that we're going. MR. WEIGEL: And it will -- it does take a further amendment of the board to include those cost centers into the budget. This agreement cannot do that. It could not do that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So -- and that's why Mr. Brock is asking us to do -- in addition to an amendment to the agreement, he's saying you need to today adopt a budget amendment that incorporates these eleven cost centers. MR. WEIGEL: Yes. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: And -- and I -- if -- MR. WEIGEL: I think the language that you've suggested, if we can recapture that, assists somewhat -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I mean it lessens -- MR. WEIGEL: -- in trying to put the distance that we can among expenditures that once -- once appropriated, the county has no further ability to touch and designate. But I -- I will say that by approving the cost centers, you have also indicated additional direction in appropriation it would appear, notwithstanding that the agency using those funds can ultimately through its own internal mechanism and through amendment change the uses of those later on. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hay I point out one very obvious thing, to me anyway? When we're talking about liability, whether -- it may make the board look bad on a given day or it may make the Clerk look bad, but ultimately if there's liability, it's the taxpayer who's going to pay it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's coming out of the same pocket of everybody who lives in Collier County and whether it's labeled from the Clerk or labeled from us, we need to deal with that but, I mean, I hope we don't get too hung up in semantics when it's -- either scenario, it is public. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And, Tim, that's what has been to a great extent driving this problem. I mean, that's what we're trying very carefully to balance and be -- be as fair as we can but -- but -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I need to -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- it's the same pocket. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I need to achieve a level of understanding here of something. Mr. Brock, the eleven cost centers, how do we arrive at eleven? In other words, we need these eleven cost centers. How -- how do we arrive at eleven as the necessary number? MR. BROCK: Okay. There is a published Uniform Chart of Accounts. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. MR. BROCK: And it was established, and if we have these eleven, we are able to comply with the statutory requirements to identify how each one of these expenditures relate to Article V expenditures or court costs. The requirement is that we have to identify the court; i.e., county or circuit. In addition to that we have to identify criminal or civil, juvenile, all of those individuals. There is a reporting requirement contained in one of the -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think I understand. MR. BROCK: Two eighteen requires a reporting requirement. And in order for us to be able to identify those expenditures and categorize them in accordance with the Uniform Chart of Accounts, we have to have this information in the budget. If you look at one twenty-nine, and I'm taking you back for just a moment, one of the prerequisites of a budget adopted by the county can be found in 129(0)(1). COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Prepared, summarized and approved by the board of each county. MR. BROCK: No. The budget, it shall -- it's in 2(B). It shall, speaking to the budget, conform to the uniform classification of accounts prescribed by the appropriate state agency. That state agency is the Comptroller's Office, Division of Banking and Finance. Two eighteen then goes to the Uniform Chart of Accounts and the 1986 requirement imposed by the Florida legislature to identify and break out those costs, so essentially the courts, the legislature can identify all Article V expenditures by how they were spent. It was a requirement that the Bar Association of the State of Florida drove very hard for. And the clerks throughout the state got together and assisted them in developing this Uniform Chart of Accounts so that we would be able to comport to the legislative mandate that we identified. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And that was in '86. MR. BROCK: That was in -- no. '96. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: '96. Okay. MR. BROCK: '96. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So, the answer to my question as far as where is the eleven coming from, the problem is when we approved the budget, we didn't do it with eleven cost centers. We did it slightly differently and now we have to take that budget and put that peg in this hole, so to speak. We've got to -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Exactly. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- convert it to eleven cost centers. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's it. MR. BROCK: ANd incorporate -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that -- MR. BROCK: -- into that, not make a part of the budget amendment, but simply incorporate into that that line item detail that's already on the budget module so that we can roll that into the accounting system and peg it into the correct place. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Which is already referenced in that agreement and -- and attached, is that correct, the line item budget detail we've already -- MR. FERNANDEZ: It's already -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- made that a part of it. MR. FERNANDEZ: In that amendment that you -- that you passed last week. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: All right. So, this isn't something that can be done -- I -- you've presented numbers here, but this is something that can't be done on the spot here. We have to verify the numbers. Is that correct? MR. BROCK: That conforms to the budget that exists in the budget module today. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, you've -- MR. BROCK: We've tied them to us. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- viewed the numbers. Right. So, we can do it today. Let's -- let's hold onto that because if our staff can look at these numbers and -- and, you know, you tell us if they're good numbers or not. If they're not then we can't do it today, but if they're good numbers, we could do it today. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Just a moment. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: If I could ask Mr. Brock a question, please? Mr. Brock, how is it that the Clerk was able to meet those statutory reporting requirements with the structure that we had in place in the past? How -- how were you able to do that? MR. BROCK: It's a very legitimate question, Mr. Fernandez. The Clerk's office was of the impression that the board had in fact adopted the line item detail, that if you correlate it to this year, what exists on the budget module this year, in previous years when, in fact, all that was adopted was that transfer. Does that answer your question? MR. FERNANDEZ: So, it was reported in error? Is that what you're saying? MR. BROCK: That is absolutely correct. The Clerk's office had made the assumption because of the way that it was done and presented to us. If you -- if you -- see if I can explain this to you so everybody understands it. I have agency one books and agency two books. Agency one books are the books of the county. Agency two books are my books, the Clerk of the Circuit Court's financial statements. The budget, when it rolls, everything in my budget rolls to my general fund. Everything in the budget of the county rolls over to agency one. I was of the mistaken belief that what was transpiring was the budget that had been adopted by the board was rolling over to agency one. And since there was a desire on the part of someone for this to be kept on the board -- on the Clerk's books, we were in -- my staff was in the process of just typing the information in. In fact, there was never a budget adopted by the board other than a transfer. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we just go back? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I like the direction you were headed in. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can we just -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. What can we do -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So, that -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and it appeared we had a couple points of agreement. Maybe we can reiterate those and see what other stuff we can -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: As we go through -- we go back to this Amendment to Court Services Agreement -- we need to change Section 1 to read, the county will annually adopt a budget for court services that incorporates the eleven uniform -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Blah, blah, blah. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, no. We've -- I blah blahed last week. I want to be more -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: He said -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- exact. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- it eight times on the record. I think We Ca~ '- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It shall conform to the uniform classification of accounts prescribed by the Comptroller's Office for the State of Florida. And -- and so that would be the first change that we need to make. MR. BROCK: I -- I don't have -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I read it from the statute. MR. BROCK: Okay. I don't have the agreement that you're talking about. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can somebody give him a copy? MR. BROCK: The agreement is between the board -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But, Dwight, even though -- you've got to bless the agreement to write the checks. Well, you've got to approve COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You've got to tell us -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- of the processes -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- you can write the check. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- we adopt. MR. BROCK: All I -- all I need for you to do is to adopt the budget. All I need for you to do is to adopt the budget and establish a process by which the expenditures get approved. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So, let's -- let's talk about what that is MR. BROCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- because we thought we had done it, you know, a year ago and we found out that we hadn't done it. So, we've got to be that the process we establish is one that meets with your criteria. MR. BROCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And -- and maybe it's Tony who needs -- I need to ask the questions of about what needs to be changed -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we asked -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- in the agreement. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- all the questions of Tony we need to ask because if Mr. Brock is telling us if you do this, I can write the check, that's the ultimate authority. He has legal counsel but the decision rests with him. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's a good point. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So, that's -- that's why he's here, so -- MR. BROCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So -- MR. BROCK: If you will do two things -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. MR. BROCK: -- okay? One, you adopt the eleven cost centers and incorporate into that the line item detail which presently resides on your budget department's budget module. You don't have to adopt that. Incorporate it into the budget amendment of eleven cost centers. That solves the budget issue. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. MR. BROCK: The next issue is -- I don't care whether you call it adopt, whether you call it incorporate, whether you call it anything else, if you establish for me today that here are the policies -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. MR. BROCK: -- that have to be used in order for the expenditure of county funds as it relates to court services, then you have adopted a budget in conformance that allows me to write the check and the approval process takes place. A second alternative to that, if you don't want to approve the -- a policy -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before we go on to the second alternative, I have just a question on that first alternative. Mr. Smykowski had a very puzzled look on his face, and while it seemed to make sense to me, you're the one who handles the budget detail day in and day out. MR. SHYKOWSKI: For the record, Michael Smykowski, Budget Director. My question just goes back to Mr. Mitchell's memo, which at this point is differing from what Mr. Brock is suggesting in terms of the line item detail within the eleven cost centers. The -- the letter from Mr. Hitchell indicated just a -- a single line item within each appropriation unit within the eleven cost centers. MR. BROCK: That's all I want in the budget amendment, Hike, and just incorporate into this process that I can get that information and roll it down so that I have something to tie back to my financial statements that gives me the ability to comport or comply with the state reporting requirements that identifies where all of this money is being spent. MR. SHYKOWSKI: So, the form of the budget amendment will not include 500 odd line items. MR. BROCK: That is correct. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It will include these line items. MR. BROCK: That is correct. That would be the -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. BROCK: -- budget amendment that I'm asking you to pass today. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, what, if any, of that do you have -- with those two things because -- because we've already done the second one, identify the personnel policies and procedures. We've done that. And if -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: They don't agree with that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: They don't agree with that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, no, no. You've -- if we will identify. MR. BROCK: As long as you make it clear to the Clerk's office today. You can call it identify, adopt or anything you want to, as long as we all leave here today with the understanding that these are in fact the policies and procedures that are to be used for the expenditure of the county's money. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do we have a copy of those with us today so that we don't have to get into the whole exhibits question? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's no question on this, Commissioner Mac'Kie, because it's on that videotape in that VCR right there that __ COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- we did it last week. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But I want a -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So, I want to make -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- record. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- sure we dot every I on this one because __ COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He, too. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- you're -- you're asking for something I feel like last Tuesday we -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We did. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We did. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- did exactly that. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We did that one. I think the only thing that we didn't do is the eleven cost centers. And if now Mr. Fernandez is saying we can do the eleven cost centers as long as we make some change in the wording, regular salaries, to say something like, salaries per se paid pursuant to the identified, with capital I, personnel policies and procedures, and that's a defined term in the agreement earlier as -- as the circuits, the court's policies and procedures. Would that work? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In addition, we will reaffirm what we did last week in the way of identifying specifically. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We did. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, on that second point, I would ask Mr. Brock to review the language in Paragraph 3 on this amendment and -- and just let us know what of that language does not accomplish what you've asked us to do there, because we thought that's exactly what we did last week. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I read it? Have you got it, Mr. Brock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: He's got it. MR. BROCK: I've got it. I mean, as long as we all understand what the meaning of that is COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tell us -- MR. BROCK: -- we don't have a disagreement. That -- the meaning of that has to be that these are the policies and procedures that the Clerk's office will use in performing its preaudit function in determining approval -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what we meant -- MR. BROCK: -- by this board. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- last week. MR. BROCK: That's fine. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And let me read it to you. It says, the Court Administrator and Chief Judge hereby confirm that the policy governing the court services purchasing is entitled purchasing power -- policy of the Court Administrator of the 20th Judicial Circuit and is attached as Exhibit B, which we did. Is that -- MR. BROCK: I -- I don't have a problem with that, Mr. Norris -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well -- MR. BROCK: -- as long as we all understand its -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- your -- your attorney -- MR. BROCK: -- meaning and intent. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- came over here today and said it wasn't acceptable. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, at that point we can just discount that -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. Let's talk. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and deal with Mr. Brock. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: ANd, so -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, B and C -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- we have agreement on that one. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We might have to hold up Tony's payment on that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, then are we all right with Paragraph C then? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's this same thing. Only instead of purchasing, it's personnel policies. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is that -- is that all right? MR. BROCK: That is fine with me -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's -- okay. MR. BROCK: -- as long as we all understand what it means. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. It is the Court Administrator and the Chief Judge confirming it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's acceptable to you? MR. BROCK: Sure. I mean, you're -- you're the parties that have to make that decision. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're executing the agreement so -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Does it need to say the Board of County Commissioners, comma? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that's -- that was what I was inferring. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. MR. WEIGEL: Well, we purposefully drafted it -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's one more nexus. MR. WEIGEL: -- so that it didn't have the Board of County Commissioners, the county stating -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One more nexus. MR. WEIGEL: -- that. We're not dictating the policy that's being used, but we're clear stating what policies -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But we're identifying them -- MR. WEIGEL: -- are being used. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- and that's good enough for you. MR. BROCK: Wait. Say that again, Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. I said we're clearly indicating what policies were not being used, which were the county's policies, and it specifically states, and this is an operational agreement between two parties here, that the policies that are being used are such and such policies. And it states that. We don't -- we, the county, don't administer and do not -- and do not enforce or implement the policies. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: However, we are accepting those policies as part of this agreement. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: For this purpose. MR. BROCK: And as a consequence you are, in fact, basically -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. Don't say it. MR. BROCK: -- saying that these are the policies that the Clerk will use in determining approval by this board. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: For this particular line item, for this particular section of county budget. MR. BROCK: Right. I mean -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Dwight, what we're -- MR. BROCK: Let me see -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- worried about -- do you know what they're worried about? MR. BROCK: I understand exactly what they're worried -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. BROCK: -- about, but my problem is I have a set of Florida laws that I have to comply with and -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And -- and does this scenario comply with that law? MR. BROCK: As long as we all understand it, the Board of County Commissioners has adopted those or -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Identified. MR. BROCK: -- identified those or whatever you want to call it. These are what the Clerk is to use in performing its preaudit function. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. And -- MR. BROCK: And you can phrase it in that particular manner. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, but they don't -- they don't necessarily need to be -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Adopted. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- ours. They are the court's. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And, Dwight, I think -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And that's what we're using, and that -- but that was a contention, you see, so that's -- is -- this is all right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because if those -- if those -- MR. BROCK: Well, let's make sure. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, that's -- MR. BROCK: See, here is the problem. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tell us. MR. BROCK: This money that is being expended is Collier County's moneys. Okay? When you read the cases dealing with -- well, let me read. Look at the statute, ladies and gentlemen, dealing with the payment of costs. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Where are we; one twenty-nine, two eighteen? No. Nine thirty-nine. MR. BROCK: Nine thirty-nine. Okay? The statute says, costs to be certified by County Commissioners before audit. In all cases wherein is claimed the payment of bills of cost, fees or expenses other than juror or witness fees in the prosecution of any criminal case, which are payable by the county, an itemized bill or statement thereof shall be submitted to the county commissioners of the county in which the cases are prosecuted, and the same shall not be paid until the Board of County Commissioners shall have approved it and certified thereon that the same is just, correct and reasonable and that no unnecessary or illegal item is contained therein. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So that the red flag -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Isn't that what Mr. Weigel does? COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. The red flag he's waving is to ask us to ask our counsel if we can by -- if -- if we use the court's policies and procedures for purchasing, are they sufficient to allow us to have performed our statutory obligation to ensure that they are correct -- that the expenditures are just, correct, reasonable and not unnecessary or illegal. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And, Commissioner Hac'Kie, if we do that and the court policies are incorrect or an illegal expenditure is made, are we on the same hook? MR. BROCK: See -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I guess the -- the analogy, I would -- MR. BROCK: -- the cases that deal with these costs -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The analogy I would make is when entered in -- and I know the fireworks aren't a popular item, but when we entered into the contract with the fireworks, I suspect there was something in there that required them to follow all local fire and safety ordinances as part of their contract. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We don't pass fire policy here. We do pass some safety things. We don't pass fire policy. But we made the assumption that the local policy made by the fire districts is good policy. And -- and this really is no different in that we're -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Exactly. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- accepting the court's setting policies. It may differ slightly from ours but they have adopted them and we're willing to work within those. MR. BROCK: You know, it's essentially the functional equivalent of what we do with every expenditure in this county. You don't see every bill that comes before or comes to my office to get paid because it is paid in conformance with a purchasing policy that you, the Board of County Commissioners, have done that, too. And that's all we need to do here. It's different than all other county purchasing policies, but you have said -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. MR. BROCK: -- this is well and good and this is what -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think anybody's disagreeing here. MR. BROCK: -- we will follow. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think we've got it. I think we've got it. And I -- I don't know if -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We thought we had it last week, too. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, no. But now I got Mr. Brock here and he's not going to come up with something new next week. This is going to be it. And, so -- so, Dwight, I'm going to try to make a motion and then -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Can I ask -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- a couple questions, please? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sure. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Or you can go ahead and make a motion. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, no, no. You go ahead. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Since we all get along so well. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Since we're all so friendly. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Getting along real well today. Mr. Brock, it's -- it's only been a few months that -- that you decided not to pay these bills, that it wasn't proper to do so. How were these bills paid before then? MR. BROCK: I just went through that with Mr. Fernandez. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He thought that we had adopted a -- a budget different than one we had. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So, don't -- but this has been going on for what, two years? I mean, this -- or was it three? When did we make this change? Was it '95? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: About three, I think. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: '95, let's say. I think it was. But in any case, would your auditing department not catch this before now? How did you catch it? MR. BROCK: Part of the problem that existed in this was this was being done on the Clerk's books as opposed to the board's books. I approve every expenditure in the Clerk's agency, and that is the overwhelming majority, not all of it, but, I mean, that is a large portion of the internal control that exists on my financial statements. That is not the case when it is relating to county expenditures. There are many other internal controls that are built in. And as a consequence of it being paid through the Clerk's books, I was of the mistaken belief that the budget, as we received to input into our financial system, was what had been adopted. It wasn't. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And, so -- so, you -- you were mistaken in paying the bills before. MR. BROCK: Correct. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. All right. Hake your motion. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Take me a second. I've got to go. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, wait a minute. Talking to kids. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hey, Andy's home from school. Okay. My motion is -- and I want you to tell me if I'm covering it, because I know this is not your agreement, but I want to be sure it's covered -- is that we -- oh, can we today adopt a budget amendment, Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Yes, you may. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I proffer this as the budget amendment to be adopted, Mr. Smykowski? Are you happy with that? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Have the courts seen that? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I know happy is the wrong word. Satisfied. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's -- that's the sheet they gave us. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: This is the Clerk's sheet. This came behind the blue page, which is yours. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Assuming those subtotals tie back, and I'm -- I'm assuming they do and that that's easily verified back to the original appropriations by cost center, yes, we can -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We make our motion subject to that. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: We'll verify that and adjust accordingly if need be. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Now, I wanted to hear Mr. Fernandez -- I need advice from Mr. Fernandez about this, this entire package that you're doing -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- after you finish your motion. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolute -- I agree. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I would like for him to critique it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Me, too. I guess two separate motions. And, Mr. Weigel, I'm sorry. I know you're talking, but I need your help with this. First is a motion to amend the budget. I need more information, you know, to -- to amend the budget in accordance with these two pages, but that doesn't sound like a very well crafted motion to me. What more does it need to say? MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think you're -- you're amending the budget as previously amended for this particular -- and we identify this item, Court Services, to include -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: These eleven -- MR. WEIGEL: -- the eleven -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- costs -- MR. WEIGEL: -- cost centers -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- these eleven items. MR. WEIGEL: -- as provided on this exhibit. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mark the exhibits and read the number into the record. Mark Exhibit A and B, enter it into the record. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. Mine's marked, Don. Give me a clean one. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Here. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. Okay. So, I move that we amend the budget for Court Services as provided in the attached Exhibit 1 that I'm going to provide to the court reporter right now. Somebody second it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. Can you repeat the motion? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The first motion is just for the budget. Then there's going to be a motion for the agreement. Just adopt the budget amendment that incorporates those eleven cost centers in the Court Services budget. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, wasn't there something about the language concerning the personnel? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's the second one. That's in the -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's yet to come. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. So, if we -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure. If we're -- if we're just handling the budget item on this one, that's -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's all. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- seemingly a -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Now, before we call the question, Madam Chairman, if we would, I would like for the county administrator to critique that. MR. BROCK: Could -- could I ask that the -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please. MR. BROCK: -- motion include incorporation of the detail? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We did that already, but I'll do that again. So, the motion is to amend the budget for court services to identify -- as described in Exhibit 1, which identifies the eleven specific cost centers and to incorporate -- and I had written it down -- the budget detail already available in the -- in Mr. Smykowski's office as he's already provided. What did you call it? You called it something else. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think that's pretty much what he called it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, that will do. MR. BROCK: The budget module or the computer system. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And all subject to Mr. Smykowski's -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Calculations for mathematical accuracy. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I already did. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, I'm sorry. Then I'll withdraw my second. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I still need -- I still need Mr. Fernandez to critique that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Now, Mr. Fernandez, before we vote on this, would you comment on what we've tried to do here? MR. FERNANDEZ: As -- as I said earlier, as long as the liability issues are adequately dealt with in language. The other concern that I have is this is an agreement between the Board of County Commissioners and the Chief Judge. I understood from the outset the Chief Judge's concern about this level of detail being part of the budget. If that is not a concern of the Chief Judge at this point, then I won't raise a concern either. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, let me offer a -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Can we call him? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- a suggestion in your discussion with the Chief Judge. Obviously we hold the Chief Judge in the 20th Circuit in the highest regard. If at some point during the course of the year there is something in their budget that they find a need for that was not anticipated just as any other budget we have the potential to review and amend, we can process a budget amendment to reallocate funds within cost centers or from reserves to take care of those eventualities, and in the past have worked very well with Mr. Middlebrook and the Chief Judge in that respect and would expect to do that in the future. That would not be a problem provided it's a board amended budget amendment. I mean, we -- we do it here. MR. BROCK: None whatsoever. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. BROCK: That's your call. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. All right. Because I think that might resolve the issue of -- and, of course, as they go in the next budget cycle, he's got the eleven cost centers to deal with and, again, we'll do so accordingly. At least now we know the road map. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There's one motion. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. If there's no objection from the Chief Judge, then I would raise none either. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Let's -- let's -- that's an if thrown into the mixture here, so let's deal with the if. Suppose that he does object to it -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then he won't sign the -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- then are we going to come back next week and unravel what we do today? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: Well, it doesn't appear to me that we're amending the agreement with what the board is being asked to do right now, so there's nothing more for the Judge to sign on to although he may disagree with the budget action that may be taken today. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We are. MR. WEIGEL: Now, in my discussions -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Wait a minute. Excuse me, but I think the motion COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So far -- MR. FERNANDEZ: -- is to amend the agreement. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right now just the budget. I hadn't made the second motion yet. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. But I thought you were going to refer to that section -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I am. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- in the agreement that -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Your comment will hold until she goes to amend the budget with a motion and then your comment will -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The bottom line is though what he's saying is, if we amend the budget, we have done that to the judges, you know. They don't get to approve or disapprove of the budget. We have told them how their budget is going to be. If they don't like that, we're about to start a new budget cycle and we will hear from them. It seems to me that might be how we deal with it, is in the next budget cycle. MR. BROCK: Commissioners, I will -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chair? MR. BROCK: -- refer the -- your legal counsel and you to a provision of Article V of the Constitution, which provides that the judiciary shall not appropriate. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They can't. MR. BROCK: The judiciary has no ability to appropriate moneys. That is vested with the -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But we're just being respect -- MR. BROCK: -- Board of County Commissioners. And I understand that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We're just being respectful of their request. MR. BROCK: But, I mean -- and I understand where you're coming from if we have to come back and redo this next week. You could come back and redo it next week, but let's get the vendors paid. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, Dwight, don't go there. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Don't -- don't -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Please don't go there. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah. Let's don't bring that up. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So, could we vote on that budget amendment? MR. FERNANDEZ: If I may make one more comment, the board needs to acknowledge, I think, that this places a level of scrutiny on the Chief Judge and the Court Administrator. The Court Services portion of your budget above anything else, any other department in your budget, it provides a different level of scrutiny than you have anywhere else. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Now, why is that, because we have this level of detail and more for every department budget we review. Every department budget we approve has this and more detail. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What we review and approve in the budget and what the Clerk has the authority to approve or deny in comparison to that budget, I don't think is exactly -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, they're the same. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. Mr. HcNees can speak to that. MR. HcNEES: Madam Chairman, if I may, I think what Mr. Fernandez is saying is you don't approve cost centers and, even less, object codes in any of your budgets. You see departmental level detail and you adopt your budget at the fund level and just -- I think what Mr. Fernandez is saying, it's just important that you understand if you are, as the Board of County Commissioners, approving down to the line item, and the words object code were used earlier, which is the smallest piece of the accounting picture, then -- then what your departments have is some flexibility, that if you don't have enough money for ink, you can use some of your money that you budgeted for staples to buy ink. And in this case, that flexibility will be gone because you're being asked to approve down to that fine detail level. We just want you to understand. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Dwight, where did you read to us that we have to do that by state law? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Identify -- MR. HcNEES: Oh, I'm sorry. Mike HcNees, Assistant County Administrator. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Didn't you read to us that there's a state statute that says for court services you have to do that? Where was that? Could you refer us back? MR. BROCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can -- can I ask a question? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Wait. Just give me a cite, and then you can go on. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: One twenty-nine? MR. BROCK: One twenty-nine talks about you have to -- your budget has to be in conformance with your Uniform Chart of Accounts. Two eighteen, three twenty-five provides for the Uniform Chart of Accounts. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Ah. That's where I was looking for. It's the second -- eight -- Page 1845. Okay. I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do you want to give me some of mine back? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. HcNees, maybe you can help me with this because your -- your comment on ink and staples, and I'm -- I'm looking here at what they have recommended for a fund structure and it breaks it down into Court Counseling Program, Circuit Court Costs, Parole and Probation, and so on, what appears to be very similar to what Mr. Fernandez just said as far as different departments under our divisions. So, I'm -- I don't read this as being ink and staples. I read it as, okay, if Witness Management Services has run out of money, they can't simply dip into Alcohol Information. MR. HcNEES: Those would be the eleven cost centers and -- and where -- no one is objecting to the eleven cost centers. It's -- we're talking there's been an additional statement about further detail and what the question then would become is as the cost centers are broken down into these details, when they have an overrun or a shortage, do they have to come back to you or do they have some flexibility within that cost center to deal with -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Within the cost center -- MR. HcNEES: -- those things as we do. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- they have flexibility. I mean, that's certainly what my intention was. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You don't have any objection to that, Mr. Brock? MR. BROCK: No. No objection at all. I mean, where we're going to put the stop in the system is at personnel services. If you go over that, it's not going to cut the check. Operating expenses, if you go over that, it's not going to cut the check. And capital, if you go over that, it's not going to cut the check. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Without a budget amendment. MR. BROCK: That is the same process that's in effect countywide. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Fernandez, how does that differ from what we do elsewhere because it doesn't sound like it does? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It doesn't sound like it. MR. FERNANDEZ: That sounds like it's the same as what we do elsewhere. Just the incorporation of the line item detail that he asked for is what -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's not what I hear. I'm asking right now. And he just agreed to ask -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It will be incorporated, but he's not holding staples -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- to staples and ink to ink. MR. BROCK: I get the line item detail in every other department. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's a good clarification, Mr. HcNees. Thank you. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Anybody ready to vote on that motion for the budget amendment? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Unless there's further input from legal or -- or Mr. Fernandez. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Middlebrook looks perplexed or -- do you need to speak? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: If I may, ma'am. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It looks like we better, third party. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Mark Middlebrook, Senior Deputy Court Administrator. In our initial agreement, and I'm trying to find the exact language, it says amendments which increase or decrease the budget will be approved by the Board of County Commissioners. That would be our entire budget item. That's our interpretation. Any budget action which changes the use of funds between the categories, personnel, operating and capital outlay but do not increase or decrease the total budget will be included in the quarterly report. We take that to mean that Court Services -- as it further indicates, Court Services can transfer within our total budget of $3,089,200. If we need to transfer into County Court costs another hundred thousand from Circuit Court costs, we can do that without coming before the board. If we -- if Mr. Brock's intention is to not allow us to do that, our Chief Judge has agreed through the Court Administrator to these eleven cost centers with the understanding that we can still transfer within those eleven cost centers any money we might need if there is a shortfall without coming before this board and -- and taking up your time unnecessarily if we still have the money within our $3,089,200 budget. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My point is, Mark, we've tried very hard to make sure the Court retains this flexibility because, as I mentioned last time we talked about this a month -- well, not last time, one of the many times. You know, the thought of Cracker Barrel, you know, trial comes to mind, when something that wasn't anticipated hits, and we could have seen you every week on a different budget amendment because you never knew what was coming next. So, I guess my question is you'd have to do it in a quarterly report. So, it's not like there's a nondisclosure element here. It's going to be disclosed one way or the other. If it came to us, my guess is, as it comes through, we do what we do other times, which is say that's 20th Judicial Circuit, God bless you, have a nice day. I don't anticipate there being this tremendous scrutiny by the board because, again, there are so many checks and balances from judges signing off on stuff, it's almost ridiculous. So, I understand it may be an additional step, but it's one that I don't think there would be friction involved between the board and the 20th Judicial Circuit in any way, shape or form. So, you know, at this point we're just trying so hard to -- to find a solution that I'm about beat down to the point I'd probably agree to write a check myself every month if it helps because I'm just sick of this. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hey, talk to him. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's a small check. MR. BROCK: Commissioners, maybe I can give some comfort and assistance to that. I can't place my finger on it. And I'm -- and I don't think I have it with me, but there is a process set out in the statute whereby within departments, and you can define this as a department if you want to, that simply through action of the budget department, you can make certain amendments, and I don't know all of the intricacies and the details, without it having to come back before the board, if that's the mechanism that you wish to use. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just thought we had a general agreement between all parties and the Clerk. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We do on that one point. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: County manager, county board on that motion? And if so, maybe we can move on with that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't see that we have a choice. I understand what Mr. Middlebrook is asking for, but if we approve something that says you can go from Fund A to Fund B and -- and it doesn't have to come before the board, my guess is, Mr. Brock, you're going to kick it back. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And can I tell you why -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're not going to be able to pay the check. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I read something out of Chapter 2187 Florida Statutes 218.325, Section 2, down about the middle, that the proposed Uniform Chart of Accounts and financial reporting system must provide that all revenues received and expenditures incurred by county governments, Clerks of Court and courts or other judicial entities that are related to the operation of the Circuit Courts and County Courts and other components of the justice system can be accounted for in -- can be accounted for in sufficient detail to permit reporting for both discreet functions and organizational units. That's the eleven. You know, whether the judges like it or not, we have to do that. And that's the position we find ourselves in today. MR. BROCK: Here's the language. It's in 129.06(2)(A), which says the Board of County Commissioners, however, may establish procedures by which the designated budget officer may -- that's Mr. Smykowski -- may authorize certain intradepartmental budget amendments provided that the total appropriation of the department may not be changed. So, through appropriate action of this board, you can give a lot of leeway in what Mr. Smykowski can do with intradepartmental budget amendments. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm thinking at this point we move on the motion, and if there's further refinement that needs to be done, that we wait to hear from the Chief Judge. If that -- and if we can do something administratively instead of having to alter this agreement, that makes life correct, proper and easy on the circuit, then we can do that, you know, but I think we have to take action here today to try and at least get this thing as close to center as possible. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, and I'm assuming if we take action here today, you can go ahead and pay the folks. We can deal with the policy issue with the judges separate and apart from these people getting their pay -- getting their checks. MR. BROCK: The policy issue. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If we amend the budget the way I defined in my motion, you're going to cut checks? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't like the silence. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's a noisy AC unit other there. See, that's kind of the end we're working toward here. MR. BROCK: The board through Mr. Weigel's office, I think, has approved all of these and -- with the exception of a couple that are sitting -- maybe sitting in his office now. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, no, no, no. I'm not talking about the board approving. I'm saying, without particular board approval of every expenditure, will you cut checks on your own without asking us to look at them ever again if we amend this budget the way I just described? MR. BROCK: No. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What are we doing here today? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Then what have we -- what -- that was the goal. MR. BROCK: Without adopting the policy that I am to follow in making the determination of your approval just like we do with any other expenditure -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. Two steps. One is we amend the budget to adopt these eleven cost centers in Exhibit 1 which was prepared by your office. If that motion passes, then I would make a motion that we amend our amendment to the Court Services agreement to attach that budget amendment as an exhibit to specify that those eleven cost centers have to be in the budget each year and that we formally identify the 20th Judicial Circuit's personnel policies and procedures and purchasing policies and procedures as the ones to be applied to this particular budget item, then will you pay? MR. BROCK: Yes. I'm -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. BROCK: You're not talking about changing the process that is in place with the cost motions; correct? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right. MR. BROCK: Those will all -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Those are yours. MR. BROCK: -- go through Mr. Weigel's office just as they always have, right? MR. WEIGEL: That was the board direction -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: last week. MR. WEIGEL: -- and approval last week and -- MR. BROCK: Yes. I think that will get the vendors paid. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. And let me further -- further state that I don't know that we necessarily have to amend this amendment to the agreement right now. It appears that if the board will -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: -- recognize the personnel policy -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: -- and the purchasing policy; not adopt, not identify, but recognize and -- that those are the policies to be used for Court Services, that that should suffice because it's on the record from Mr. Brock. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because you don't care what we do in our agreement with the courts, right, Mr. Brock? I mean, you just want those two things. MR. BROCK: No. That's correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. So -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just to clarify, Mr. Brock, and I don't mean to nit pick but you said if that happens I think the vendors will get paid. MR. BROCK: No, no. No. If you do that today? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. MR. BROCK: We're ready to push the button. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. Can I call the first question? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No. Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: Additionally, I'd state that in regard to potentially amending the amendment to the agreement in regard to specificity about the county's budget adoption for Court Services, this agreement was written to avoid redundancy that we -- we're going to -- we, the county, are going to adopt a legal budget. Annually, they will adopt a budget and, in fact, with some redundancy, stick the detail into this agreement. It's going to be -- the program format line item detail is going to come into this agreement. Arguably, that really isn't necessary anymore but we've got it in the agreement. And I would think that we've had significant discussion today with statutes placed on -- given to us, which can be provided of record, that talk about the -- well, the last statute that Commissioner Hac'Kie -- 218.325 and the chart format. And I think we understand that we're going to do that. That apparently is our understanding today of what's necessary in the legal adoption process for the budget. But otherwise we can go back up the signature trail if you want to do that. I -- I think it's probably not necessary. MR. BROCK: The only thing I need -- I don't need you to do anything with the agreement with the judge. Adopt the budget and recognize those policies and procedures is what I'm supposed to use. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: How about amending that first -- MR. BROCK: That's the two things that I need. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: How about amending that first motion, Commissioner Hac'Kie, to add the -- the identification of the policies to be used? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Hake it all in one. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. One motion then. The budget amendment previously stated and to identify the -- I'm going to read it -- Court Administration, 20th Judicial Circuit, personnel policy as the personnel policies and procedures to be utilized for the purposes of that budget amendment and also the purchasing policy of the Court Administrator of the 20th Judicial Circuit to be used as the purchasing policy for administration of that budget amendment. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think you lost something in the first part of the motion. There were some other conditions that were applied in the original motion. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You're right. And that is that the only change on Exhibit 1 that was prepared by your office, Mr. Brock, was where it says regular salaries, the word "regular" would be struck and instead it would read, salaries paid pursuant to the identified personnel policies and procedures. MR. BROCK: And incorporate the line item detail. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And incorporate -- absolutely. That's the motion. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Fernandez, you had a quizzical look on your face? MR. FERNANDEZ: Back to, and incorporate the line item detail as part of this motion. COHHISSIONER NORRIS: Is that necessary, Mr. Brock? What about the eleven cost centers? Is that not sufficient detail? MR. FERNANDEZ: I thought the eleven cost centers did the trick. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can't we just adopt the eleven cost centers and provide you the same budget detail backup as we do in all the other budgets? MR. BROCK: That's fine with me. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would you amend the motion to reflect that specifically? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm going to restate the motion. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. Let's do that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Cancel all previous motions. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: All previous motions withdrawn. Let me see if I can do this. I move that we amend the Court Services budget to -- in accordance with Schedule 1, provided to the court reporter, with one change, that every place that the word "regular salaries" appears, it's changed to read, salaries paid pursuant to the identified personnel policies and procedures. And then that we identify the purchasing policy of the Court Administrator of the 20th Judicial Circuit as the purchasing policy to apply to this budget amendment and that we identify the Court Administration 20th Judicial Circuit personnel policy as the personnel policies and procedures to be applied to this budget amendment. MR. BROCK: And you will provide me with the detail. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that we will provide the budget detail. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion among the board? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Absolutely not. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Under penalty of death. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is there anyone that would like to get sick, say something. All right. I'll call for -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If anyone feels this marriage should not continue -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have any speakers on this issue? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, you do. Lisa Holton and Janice Haline. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Do you guys need to speak? MS. HALINE: No. MS. HOLTON: Thank you. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: They've passed. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I agree. All right. I'll call for the question. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a comment before Dwight goes. And while all of us were frustrated that it's taken five months or whatever it's taken to get, let the record reflect that 59 minutes after Mr. Brock stepped in, and we all sat here face to face and dealt with this one on one or five on one, as the case might be, that we actually came to a conclusion so, Dwight, I appreciate your coming over. MR. BROCK: No problem. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't have anything further. If any -- Mr. Smykowski, did you want to talk to us? MR. SHYKOWSKI: No, ma'am. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You can't get away, huh? MR. SHYKOWSKI: I have a budget amendment to work on. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. If there's nothing further before this commission, the meeting is adjourned. ***** Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner Hancock and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted: ***** Item #16A1 SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE RE RESOLUTION 97-100 FOR RICHARD HCCULLOUGH Item #16A2 SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE RE RESOLUTION 97-125 FOR KATY E. HULLEN ESTATE Item #16A3 ACCEPTANCE OF AN ALTERNATE PERFORMANCE AND MAINTENANCE SECURITY FROM THE DEVELOPER OF HERITAGE GREENS Item #16A4 FINAL PLAT OF COTTON GREEN - WITH STIPULATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT Item #16B1 PURCHASE OF CUNO BETAPURE PRE-FILTERS FROM THE GEORGE S. EDWARDS COMPANY, INC. IN THE A_MOUNT OF $27,500 FOR THE NORTH REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT MEMBRANE SOFTENING FACILITY AND FORMAL BID PROCESS WAIVED Item #1682 BID 98-2776 FOR COUNTY-WIDE DITCH BANK CLEARING PROJECT - AWARDED TO ENVIROGLADES, INC. FOR PHASE VI IN THE A_MOUNT OF $24,742.50 Item #1683 WORK ORDER ABB-FT98-5 TO AGNOLI, BARBER & BRUNDAGE, INC. FOR MAINTENANCE OF NAPLES PARK DRAINAGE PROJECT ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE A_MOUNT OF $6,100 Item #1684 BID 98-2773 FOR MAINTENANCE OF SIDEWALKS AND BRIDGES AWARDED TO SCHWAB READY MIX, INC. AND KREHLING INDUSTRIES, INC ON AN ITEM BY ITEM BASIS Item #1685 CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 TO DOUGLAS N. HIGGINS, INC., FOR BEACH RENOURISHHENT TO CONTRACT NO. 97-2626 TO MARCO ISLAND T-GROIN CONSTRUCTION IN THE A_MOUNT OF $15,839.00 Item #1686 RESOLUTION 98-64 URGING THE 1998 FLORIDA LEGISLATURE TO PASS HB 3427 AND SB 882, WHICH PROVIDES A DEDICATED FUNDING SOURCE FOR STATEWIDE BEACH MANAGEMENT Item #16C1 RFP #97-2742 FOR PARK IMPACT FEE STUDY - AWARDED TO HENDERSON, YOUNG AND COMPANY IN THE A_MOUNT OF $24,650 Item #16C2 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR RECREATIONAL FACILITY USE OF SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES WITH THE CITY OF NAPLES, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THE BCC Item #16C3 CONTRACT WITH BIG WAVE INTERNATIONAL, INC. FOR PARKS AND RECREATION YOUTH NIGHTS ON APRIL 3 AND APRIL 4, 1998 IN THE TOTAL A_MOUNT OF $4,000 Item #16C4 UPGRADE OF POSITIONS AT THE GOLDEN GATE AND IMHOKALEE POOL FACILITIES FOR LIFEGUARDS Item #16D1 RFP-95-2338 FOR REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL AND VALUATION SERVICES - AWARDED TO VARIOUS VENDORS LISTED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16D2 BUDGET AMENDMENT TO FUND 516, PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNT OF $300,000 Item #16D3 RESOLUTION 98-65 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1991 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS Item #16D4 RESOLUTION 98-66 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1992 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS Item #16D5 RESOLUTION 98-67 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1993 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS Item #16D6 PURCHASE OF CHILLED WATER PUMP FOR THE MAIN GOVERNMENT COMPLEX - AWARDED TO WENTCO, INC. IN THE A_MOUNT OF $29,300 Item #16D7 APPROVAL OF UPDATED MARKET TECHNIQUES FOR THE SALE OF COUNTY-OWNED G.A.C. LAND TRUST PROPERTY CONVEYED BY AVATAR PROPERTIES, INC. Item #16D8 BID 98-2772 FOR TRANSMISSION OVERHAUL EXCHANGE ON AS350 BS HELICOPTER FOR EHS - AWARDED TO AZZHAC HELICOPTER CENTER IN THE A_MOUNT OF $56,000 Item #16D9 EXECUTION OF SATISFACTIONS OF NOTICE OF PROMISE TO PAY AND AGREEMENT TO EXTEND PAYMENT OF WATERAND/OR SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEES Item #16El - Moved to Item #BE1 Item #16E2 BUDGET AMENDMENTS 98-155; 98-156; 98-157; AND 98-158 Item #16G1 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the BCC has been filed and/or referred to the various departments as indicated: Item #16H1 CONTRACT WITH THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND FOR FUTURE CITY COUNCIL ELECTIONS There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:00 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL BARBARA BERRY, CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING BY: Traci L. Brantner and Rose Witt, RPR