Loading...
BCC Minutes 02/11/1998 J (w/Lee County BCC) TRANSCRIPT OF THE JOINT MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS OF COLLIER AND LEE COUNTIES Bonita Springs, Florida, February 11, 1998 LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Commissioners in and for the Counties of Collier and Lee, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. at the Bonita Beach Recreational Center, 26740 Pine Avenue, Bonita Springs, Florida, with the following members present: COLLIER COUNTY: Barbara B. Berry, Chairperson John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine Pamela S. Hac'Kie Barbara B. Berry Timothy L. Hancock Robert Fernandez, County Manager LEE COUNTY: John Manning, Chairman John Albion Andrew Coy Ray Judah Douglas St. Cerney Donald Stillwell, County Manager CHAIRMAN MANNING: Good morning. Today is Wednesday, I think, and it's the 12th -- the llth day of February, 1998. This is a workshop with the Corps of Engineers regarding the EIS process and the boards of Lee and Collier Counties. There will be no public input, since this is a workshop and there have been other public meetings and there will be other subsequent public meetings after this meeting, so this is strictly a workshop for the commissions and their respective staffs, who are in attendance. And what I would like to do is welcome the Collier County Commission. We have with us this morning Commissioner John Norris, Commissioner Barbara Berry, Commissioner Tim Hancock and Commissioner Pamela Mac'Kie, and I know that Tim Constantine is on the way. Is that correct? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. We're used to that. CHAIRMAN MANNING: Okay. We have one of those sitting to my left here, or right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right? CHAIRMAN MANNING: With us today is our full board, Commissioner Doug St. Cerney, Commissioner Ray Judah, Commissioner -- myself, John Manning, for the record, and Andrew Coy, and we have John Albion. We'd like to thank the Corps and their staffs for being here. We have Lloyd Pike, we have Colonel Joe Miller and we have John Hall, and these folks have been very diligent in talking to many people in both communities. And the first order of business will be a presentation by the Corps, and I will turn the microphone over to Colonel Joe Miller. COLONEL MILLER: Good morning. Before I get started, I would like to introduce some of the members of my staff. You've already had introduced to you, Dr. John Hall, my Chief of the Regulatory Division, and Mr. Lloyd Pike, my Chief Counsel. I also have with me Mr. Bob Barton from my Regulatory Division, Mr. Kenneth Dugget, the Chief of the Environmental Coordination Section, Miss Jacqueline Griffith, my Chief of Public Affairs, Miss Brenda Chalifour, my special assistant, and from my planning and management consultants our neutral and unbiased facilitators, Mr. Tim Veather and Mr. Dale Brown. CHAIRMAN MANNING: Good morning. COLONEL MILLER: First of all, I would like to thank you all for the opportunity. This is a -- what I understand is a -- maybe not be the first, but not on a regular basis, having the two county commissions conduct a joint commission meeting, and I would like to thank all the commissioners for allowing us to have this forum and participating today. It is very, very beneficial, I believe, and I look forward to the exchange this morning. A little bit about my history, for those of you that don't know me, and there's maybe some of those who haven't had the opportunity to talk to me. I am a former resident of the State of Florida. I lived here from 1961 to 1967 and I lived in Dade County, went to elementary and junior high school, so I am not a total newy to the State of Florida. I did take fifth grade history, or Florida history, if you will, and I got a very good grade, an A, and that's my story and I'm sticking with it. Please don't check the records. Next slide. This morning I would like to cover the following items. I won't read them to you. We learned that a long time ago in the Pentagon, that you don't read the text to people. We do have a characterization that I would like to refer to, and I would like to thank the gentleman that crafted this little editorial piece. I don't think he quite got my likeness there, but I did appreciate the humor. COHMISSIONER ALBION: He didn't get ours either. COLONEL MILLER: What I would like to do is review -- start off with a little more serious note, is review the EIS process and reaffirm my commitment to do this within eighteen months. We are already started in the process, with the beginning of the notice in the public register -- or in the federal register, back in the early part of January. If we could go back, I'm not through yet. We will follow this format, going through the various stages, with the record of decision being done at the eighteen-month -- or the final study being prepared within the eighteen-month period. This will be at no cost to the county or the state. These will be at federal dollars, which are part of the Corps of Engineers' budget. Next slide. Some of the key events, I mentioned already that we are past the January 12th. We've had the series of meetings on the 4th and 5th last week, which I enjoyed participating in. We had the public hearings earlier this week, and we are currently here at the joint county commissioners' meeting. On the -- February the 20th will be the deadline for the submission of comments on the EIS scoping and March 18th I have committed to providing the -- our decision as to where we are with regard to scoping. Subsequent key dates are as shown. Next slide. This is what we want for an expected result, or what we desire as an end product. It will address the issues and requirements under NEPA, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act. It will provide us with a much-improved database from which to make regulatory permit decisions. We hope that the end product will result in the issuance of a general permit and, as I stated before, we are committed to doing this within eighteen months. Next slide. Now, there have been several questions as to our authorities, and they are listed here. And I would note that, you have additional questions, please contact my counsel at the phone number listed. Next slide. The next two slides give a brief background of the regulatory program within the Corps of Engineers, the various court cases, as well as the acts or legislation that Congress has enacted to provide for us the authorities as well. That's in a much more detailed presentation, and I'm not going to go through that in great detail. What we're using for the EIS ground rules is shown on the next slide. We are using the county comprehensive plans as the basis for the study in terms of the local and state preferred alternatives. We will make maximum use of the existing reports and studies. I am a firm believer that we don't want to reinvent the wheel here when at all possible, and we will work with the group shown here, as well as your county commission staffs, as you see fit or as you are comfortable with. And, during the process, we will have a neutral and unbiased facilitation process itself. Next slide. In terms of our perspective, we have noticed in great detail the rapid growth in Lee and Collier Counties, and it has been acknowledged by everyone that I have had the opportunity to talk with that the growth rate here is in the top ten within the two counties within the nation. We've already permitted eight square miles in the past few years and expect almost thirty square miles in the future. In the permit reviews themselves, our major concerns are the loss of spatial habitat for endangered species, changes in the water flow and quality, and the appropriate wetland mitigation. We're concerned with the incremental permitting processes that currently -- as exist and our ability to address the cumulative and secondary impacts. From our perspective, the EIS will provide for a more streamlined and predictable permitting process and possibly a programmatic general permit. To give you a little bit of perspective -- next slide -- this is the permitting activity within the Corps of Engineers and within the South Atlantic Division, which is my higher headquarters, and then within the State of Florida, primarily at Jacksonville District. A sizeable portion of that overall permitting activity within this Jacksonville District occurs within Lee and Collier Counties. Now, what have we learned thus far? The new airport terminal and taxiways do not require an independent EIS. The permits will continue to be processed, and that there will be no building moratorium. For further delineation of some of the -- what we've learned in the last couple weeks, I'm going to turn it over right now to Dr. John Hall, who is my Chief of Regulatory, for some additional comments. DR. HALL: This is sort of intimidating. Good morning. John Hall, Chief, Regulatory Division. Thank you, Colonel Miller. I want to run through with you-all some of the things that came out of the scoping process, particularly the meeting that we had yesterday. We had over 200 participants. At first we were sort of scared by that because we had -- the first meeting we had people standing out in the hallway, and we were very, very concerned about the second, the second meeting. But, at the same time, I guess I'm the one that gets scared. We actually -- we were overjoyed at the turnout. I mean, 200 people was a really a great turnout. But I would particularly like to thank the Lee County Library System for the excellent opportunity they gave us to use their facility and we apologize if we violated any of the fire codes. We had -- in the daytime session, we had forty speakers, and in the evening session we had twenty. I think we were, we were overwhelmed by the strong, strong support from the public that attended these two meetings for the environmental impact study. I commend all of you who participated in that for the businesslike and professional way that you made -- that you made your presentations. We certainly feel that the goal of the meetings that we had in mind was, was certainly achieved. What I'd like to do now is talk about -- what we've done is take the information that we heard, very quickly, we've taken it and just broken it into, into four categories and I would like to go through each of those categories with you. There were a number of people who expressed a concern that they were afraid that southwest Florida might, in the not too distant future, become another southeast Florida. That was sort of a repeated theme. Comments on benefits and costs were, I think, pretty equally distributed. There were a number of folks who felt that development and continued growth in the two counties was very important and it carried with it a lot of economic benefits, but there were also those who commented that growth also carried with it costs that often were not borne by the -- by the growth industries, but rather borne by the citizenry as a whole, trying to catch up and respond to the growth pressures themselves, particularly with regard to infrastructure and things like that. There were just some general observations, I guess, on the -- on the counties' planning processes, development approvals and local permitting or authorization. There were a number of people who felt that the process was influenced by special interests. There were some concerns about implementation of current rules by the county, by the county governments, and then, once again, there was this issue of hidden costs. If you have -- if you have a lot of development, that then requires development of infrastructure at county taxpayer costs. There was a fair amount of concern about that. We spent a lot of time -- we -- before this meeting, and then we intently listened at this meeting to people's comments on what the geographic scope of this particular study should be. We basically -- we basically had the whole range of comments on what the scope should be, from a feeling that the scope should -- the scope, the geographic scope, should be fairly small, so that -- so that the study had enough detail in it that it could be useful in fairly small, discrete chunks for at least, for your decision-making purposes. There was another, obviously, a school of thought that -- that the geographic scope should be much broader, but I think there was a recognition that the broader it got, the coatset the information might be in terms of helping with specific permit decisions. We got a clear indication from a number of people that, that not only the area of land that they wanted covered was important but a clear recognition that, whatever was happening on the land was ultimately trickling or flowing to the estuarine systems and to the Gulf of Mexico. And there were some -- there were some comments on the deteriorating environmental quality of the estuarine systems and the Gulf, from these watershed drainages. I think that there was a -- there was a, maybe a majority that thought the group should -- that the geographic scope should be the Estero Bay watershed but many added what you can see there, all of Lee County, portions of Hendry County, the western portion of Hendry County draining to the Estero, all of Collier County, extending to the west, Lake Trafford, Camp Keais Strand, Fakahatchee-Ten Thousand Islands area, and then there were a number of people who felt that the geographic area should include at least the southern shore of the Caloosahatchee River. In terms of issues raised, we've already talked about one, in a sense, water quality in downstream waters, effects on water supply, both from a loss of water quality and a loss of wetlands, or perhaps a competition for water between wetlands and public consumption, concerns -- general concerns for habitat loss and fragmentation of habitat. Several people talked about flooding, flooding concerns. There were clear -- there were clear comments that, that we need to be concerned for jobs and job security and economic development. In our review process, there were a number of comments about trying to maintain and expand the economic diversity of the two counties. Again, we had some concerns raised about the impact on drinking water. There were a number of comments on the fact that these two counties depend fairly heavily on eco-tourism, and so that we needed to make sure that we included that as an issue. Property rights came up a number of times, endangered or threatened species, and then the appropriate level of mitigation for wetlands loss. Those were some of the issues that were raised. Comments on the process, we were repeatedly told that we needed to use the best information available, that we needed to sort of independently assure the validity of that information through a peer review or other process of independent evaluation, and we needed to base -- we needed to base this whole study on the best science that we could lay our lands on. There was a strong desire for local participation, understandably. Don't get excited about the next one here. As a part of -- several commenters suggested that we have a lot of information about the Estero and Imperial watersheds, particularly from some of the recent work that's been done by the water management district, and that maybe we should really target that area, but recognize that, as we moved outside that area, there were still important issues that needed to be addressed, but that we might not have the level of technical information in these areas surrounding the Estero/Imperial watersheds to be able to draw some of the conclusions in those outlying areas and so that maybe there should be some phase to this process where we would have -- we would have the environmental impact statement cover the whole area, but target it in the greatest detail in a central core area that had -- where we had the most information and make the EIS review a little bit more general in areas, areas outside that core area. There was -- there were several comments on the connection between what we're doing here in a regulatory connection and the -- and the central and southern Florida re-study. Clearly there is a connection. If we embrace the Caloosahatchee River, the re-study is also looking at ways of better controlling the fresh water flows out of Lake Okeechobee and down the Caloosahatchee River. There was also some concern about the relationship between this study and the Water Resources Development Act of 1996's, things that are called critical projects, and, in particular, I guess there are a couple of critical projects here in the southwest that are on that priority list. And there was also concern here about, about the possible connection and interrelationship with the purchase of the -- whatever it is -- the twenty million dollars that Vice President Gore announced would be available for the purchase of the southern Golden Gates. We have been told -- almost everybody that we've met with -- that we need to -- we need to develop a new -- a new group, what we're calling the Alternative Group, and there was a fair amount of discussion about the selection -- the selection of that, and the operation of that group. That's all. Oh, well, I guess I just would tell you that we've at least completed our public meetings on the scoping process. We are keeping the comment period open until the 20th of February, and there is our address. Or, if you need -- if you need to talk with an individual, we -- our point of contact at this stage is Bob Barton, and his telephone number is up there. I can also give you my telephone number, at least starting the 8th of March. I'm in a different job right now, but the 8th or 9th of March my telephone number is Area Code 904-232-1666. Colonel Miller? COLONEL MILLER: Thank you, Dr. Hall. That's a randomly selected number. COHMISSIONER COY: We feel real comfortable now with that number. DR. HALL: No. COLONEL MILLER: I want you to change that number. DR. HALL: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER ALBION: You ought to speak to the person that gave you that. COLONEL MILLER: As a result of all this input thus far these are the -- some of the five identified schematic themes, if you will, that we've -- we're comfortable discussing. Those are the major issues that have, at least from my perspective, have surfaced over the last, oh, I guess, six, eight months that we've been working with this. Now, we've spent a lot of time with the county commissioners, both my predecessor, Colonel Rice -- who is back in the back there. Colonel Rice, as well as myself and the staff, and I think we're comfortable with each of those issues. Now, we are listening as we go through this process. And these are some of the selected local perspectives that we've heard from over the course, at least in the last couple weeks that I've been involved, and, since I prepared this briefing, or a portion of it, this is what I've been listening to. And I am listening and I will respond to that. First and foremost, I understand that our presence here as a federal entity is suspect. This is not, at least from my perspective, an attempt to be heavy-handed from the federal level down to do state or local zoning management or land use management. That is not the intent of this, nor will I allow it to be. I do not want to be your city manager or your land zoning chief, et cetera. I understand that there's a lack of trust. That's not just here in Lee and Collier Counties with regard to the federal government. That's pervasive across the United States in selected areas, and I understand where that's coming from. I understand that the permitting process is too slow, too costly and inefficient. Commissioner Hancock has related that story to me on a couple occasions, and I am listening. This is one of the reasons why we're doing the EIS's, so I can improve that permitting process and make it more responsive to the, to the various interests that have to deal with us for permits. I am not Darth Vader and I do not have any aircraft at my disposal, except commercial aircraft, and I am not the last great hope of the environmental community, in terms of as a roadblock or backstop. We are going to maintain an even disposition during this process that's going to be unbiased, and I am not picking sides, much like what we're doing with regard to the re-study effort for the Everglades. I have to walk a very thin line down the middle, and I'm going to maintain that kind of focus and that kind of a position during the process here with EIS. You're not -- I did like the analogy that one gentleman said, it's like going to a dentist, it hurts initially but it's good for you in the long run. And I think that kind of summarizes -- although I do use Novocaine. Well, at least I'm trying. Now, in terms of Lee and Collier Counties' involvement, we continue to request the involvement of the counties, but, as one of your commissioners stated last week, this is more than appropriate. If you're comfortable with us going it alone, we'll proceed. We're already moving down that path. But if you're not comfortable, we would like to have you at the helm with us in steering this ship, known as the EIS. Now -- Next slide. This is my commitment, and I understand that trust is something that has to be earned, and that, in order to keep it, I have to conduct myself in the following manner, and I will do that. I will make sure that we are professional, that we're fair, that we're reasonable, that we have the best knowledge or science available, that we're honest, we'll get this done in a timely manner, within the eighteen month period that I discussed earlier, that we're accountable and that we respect each and everyone's position during this process. Now, the EIS stands for the Environmental Impact Study. However, I'm looking at it in terms of the following. I want an efficient and economy of effort on our part, and in conjunction with the other permitting agencies, working closely in hand with the South Florida Water Management District as well as with your officials. It provides us with the information needed to provide consistency, certainty and clarity so that the business community and other interests that have to deal with us for permits can do so without being basically jerked through a series of hoops that changes on a daily basis. Hopefully the EIS will provide that certainty, that clarity and the speed and consistency. Next, it will provide better service and speed and maintain a much better -- attain a much better working relationship with Lee and Collier Counties and their customers. And, given that, I would like to open it up at this point in time to the county commissioners and return it to you, sir. CHAIRMAN MANNING: Okay. Thank you, Colonel. I appreciate that presentation. Very good summary of what we have discussed for the last several months. I would open it up to any one of the commissions on both sides. Commissioner Constantine? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Colonel Miller, Mr. Hall, when we had our conversation last week, we had gotten into a little bit of the detail on the legal authority and what you see as the requirements to do this. Our county attorney has questioned particularly the NEPA portion of that, and we had a discussion on that and I wondered if, on the record, we might be able to get into a little bit of detail on where you see the authority of this coming from. COLONEL MILLER: Well, I think we've discussed that in great detail. The Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the NEPA process itself, all would require -- I have requirements in terms of wetlands and the protection of wetlands under my federal authorities. As a result of that I have to take appropriate action to avoid or to mitigate impacts on the wetlands or the waters of the United States, and that's the reason for us being here involved with the EIS. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess rather than a broad brush reference to the Clean Water Act or to other specific legislation, I was looking for detail, and we hit on some of that last week when we met, but I'd like to have that on public record somewhere, the detail, rather than just a vague reference. MR. PIKE: Sure. Let's start by what the colonel is proposing to do in the case. What he's saying to you is that he has received a number of applications for dredge and fill in the wetlands of the United States. The Clean Water Act is the statute that authorizes him to give authorization or deny authorization for the deposit of dredged or fill material in waters of the United States. That's 33USC1344. Now, in order to grant or deny a permit, you are looking at an activity that may constitute what has become known in court decisions as a major federal action. If that major federal action significantly affects the quality of the human environment, then every federal official proposing to take that major federal action that has the potential of significantly affecting the quality of the human environment under the National Environmental Policy Act, has to have appropriate environmental documentation at his or her disposal before making that decision. That document is what we are proposing for the county, this Environmental Impact Statement. So what the colonel has said is, in order to exercise and fulfill his legal responsibility, he has to have environmental information at his disposal. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I realize everyone's intentions here are good, obviously, and -- but I'm wondering, within that -- and you described particular -- MR. PIKE: 33USC1344. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- 33USC1344. Within that, what is the specific authority that requires that to be done through an EIS; where do we make that leap? I understand the responsibility, but -- and we had talked a little bit about the majority, the vast majority of EIS being specific project-related or -- this is kind of a different animal, when we look at broad scope, well, there's 3,500 acres worth of things being requested out there, all scattered around. So, how do we make that leap in this specific case? MR. PIKE: It's actually not different at all. It is very typical. As I explained to you, you have a requirement that this gentleman take action to issue or to deny a permit. Now, part of the problem, and part of what we're trying to overcome by doing this in a comprehensive way, is to not have to do it on an individual basis. In order to issue or deny, for example, the permit application to fill some of the 3,500 acres of wetlands that are currently proposed to be filled in your counties, this gentleman has to say, "do I have sufficient information, environmental documentation, to allow me to say that that action, to either issue or to deny," because he is truly neutral on that issue, "Do I have sufficient information to support the decision that I'm about to make; can I address the public interest factors that I'm required to address in issuing a regulatory permit?" If he does not have that information -- and, basically, I think each of our decision-makers has expressed concern about the compilation of that environmental documentation -- then he has to seek it. That's what the National Environmental Policy Act requires. And so, that's the specific answer to your question. In order to exercise the authority, you have to have the environmental information to take the action. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And in your opinion -- in your opinion, you don't have that information, adequate information right now? MR. PIKE: Actually, for each of the actions that we have taken up to this date, it has become increasingly clear that we're stretching it. We truly don't understand -- although we may understand it on an individual permit basis, we don't have an understanding of what this cumulative development is doing to the community and how it's -- how the interaction of the impacts on the water is affecting the environment. I mean, the positive fill material is what gets us involved in the inquiry. And that deposit in these counties, because of the topography, is a very important part of the development. And it's understanding the interrelationship of that deposit and the things that occur because of that deposit that causes us to need to make this inquiry so that when this gentleman issues a regulatory permit, it's a solid permit, the development can go forward without the delays that would be inherent in a challenge to his grant of authority to deposit fill, or, conversely, his denial of authority to place fill in the wetlands. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MR. PIKE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN MANNING: Is that it, Commissioner? Okay. COMHISSIONER COY: First of all, thank you for being down here today, Colonel and Doctor and Lloyd, and I know we've had some good conversations before and I think we'll continue to have good conversations. I think the entire board -- I think both boards plan to be very respectful and polite to you while you're down here. We haven't thrown up any drawbridges yet. COLONEL MILLER: Sir, I would like to add that the hospitality I've seen here in Lee and Collier Counties has been tremendous from all those interests that are involved here, to include the county commissioners, and I, for one, appreciate it. You-all have been great partners thus far. COMMISSIONER COY: Great. That's great to hear. On behalf of just myself, as one commissioner, let me just state for the record that I think we in Lee County need to give you whatever information we have. I think we need to help you cipher through what information we've given you. I don't think we need to give you two foot tall of statistics and say, "Figure it out yourself." I think we as a county need to help you cipher through that information and help you work through that information, and whatever things that you need, I think we should give to you. I think we should give it to you so you can get done as quick and leave as quick as possibly you can. So I think we should help you with that, and we will. I think we need to help you facilitate through that information just as well as we can. I think that's part of it. One thing, I still don't think the county should be an official partner. I don't think that's the right thing to do, to be an official partner, but somehow I would like us to have access to you, whether a seat at the table or some other way that we can have input flowing back and forth from the board to you folks, a good dialogue, without us being an official partner, if that's possible. I'm very pleased when I saw at the very end of your slides, you noted the concerns very well that I think some of us have, and I'm pleased that you saw that. And I think that open honesty and communication's real important so you know exactly where we're coming from. I think we're really concerned about local sovereignty and local control. I think we feel that we were elected to determine land use and planning and zoning, and I think that's probably where it needs to rest. What I would like to see is for us to be able to use the information that you come up with, but for that not to be held over our heads to where we have to do what your information says. I'd like us to be able to use it but not be abused by it, I guess is the way to say that. I'm pleased to see that you have a commitment of eighteen months. Thank you for that. Maybe later on you can -- I didn't see where it went from eighteen months to thirty-six months. Maybe you can help me with that. COLONEL MILLER: That was only a comment -- a comment on some folks or some individuals who made a comment that it ought to be thirty-six. That's not anything that we're attempting to entertain. COMMISSIONER COY: Oh, great. Fantastic. Good. Good. And you said there would be no cost to the county to do this; it would all -- COLONEL MILLER: Correct. COMMISSIONER COY: -- come from the federal government? Okay. MR. PIKE: No costs other than the participation of your people. COMMISSIONER COY: Staff time? Staff time? COLONEL MILLER: Right. That's all. There's no monetary contribution required. Now, we do have contributions that -- from other federal interests involved that we are considering. DPA, for instance, is considering contributing to the water quality fees. But nothing from the county or the state, that I know of at this point. COMMISSIONER COY: The hope of a general permit I think might help a lot of people. They might -- you had the analogy about the dentist. I think the hope of a general permit might fit into there pretty well. If we could come out with a general permit, I think that will help some folks. Of course, we want to make sure that we respect private property rights, because I believe the -- any legal action on private property rights will probably fall with the county, not with the federal government. So I think we're concerned about that, Lloyd. I don't know if that's a proper concern but I think -- I think we're concerned that will fall with us. And finally -- Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me -- the makeup of the ADG, the makeup of any board is crucial to what's going to come out of that board. If the board is unbalanced in either direction, whatever comes out of that will be unbalanced in either direction. And I would just like to make sure the ADG is fair and balanced. COLONEL MILLER: You have my commitment. And I'd also welcome input from the various commissioners as to the membership of that group. CHAIRMAN COY: Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN MANNING: Commissioner Judah? COMMISSIONER JUDAH: Colonel, I just want to say, you and your staff have been extremely courteous and professional throughout this whole process, thanking you for providing the public forums where -- in which the community had an opportunity to provide the input that they have. And to you, Dr. Hall, for summarizing some of those comments. With regards to some specific issues, with regards specifically to the scoping process, it's appropriate that we have had an opportunity to meet right here in Bonita Springs, because Bonita Springs is the community that suffered the most from the flooding that occurred in 1995. And, quite frankly, it's interesting now to note that much of that flooding was due to poor past land decisions, poor past engineering practices, some activities development and agricultural that occurred before the regulatory agencies were established to oversee certain types of activity as far east as Immokalee and the Lake Trafford area. And, interestingly enough, because of certain activities, there was a redirection of the Estero flow that ultimately resulted in the flooding here in Bonita Springs in 1995. So, quite clearly, I think you had an example of potentially including Hendry County, perhaps as far east as Immokalee, within the scoping process. I think it makes perfect sense to do so. Recognizing water doesn't know political boundaries, clearly we need to look at the entire watershed that affected the Bonita Springs community, and it does go as far east as Immokalee. With regard to the Caloosahatchee, certainly recognizing that it outfalls into San Carlos Bay and ultimately affects Matanzas Pass, Estero Bay, we rely on Estero Bay to a great extent for our tourism industry, a multi-million dollar industry, providing a lot of jobs and providing a boost to our economic base here in this community. And, quite clearly, I do see a need to look at the Caloosahatchee River. Also, when you consider the lower west coast and lower east coast water supply plans, the Forever Everglades Act, that all comes into play, and certainly it does directly affect Estero Bay. So hopefully youwll consider the inclusion of the Caloosahatchee River. With regards to general permits, I agree with Commissioner Coy. I really hope that wewre going to see a general permit come out of this process. I think itill certainly help bolster the confidence, the legitimacy of this particular process so that we can in fact streamline the permitting process for the development community, and with an understanding and recognition that there are certain lands that are to be set aside because theylre critical to our potable future water supplies, because theylre critical habitat for listed species, and just because theylre important for our quality of life. But, quite clearly, that general permit is something that certainly is coveted, and I hope weill work to achieve through this process. And, finally, I need to have a better understanding on the ADG, how you expect to appoint members of that particular committee, whether youlre hoping to receive some input from the respective commissions or whether youlre going to be involved in selecting that group. COLONEL MILLER: That last one, Iill let Dr. Hall answer the question on the ADG. DR. HALL: Okay. Thank you. The first part, yes, welre actually looking for nominations from any of the county, any and all of the county commissioners who have people they think would best serve or the environmental communities, development communities. We need to have the very best names and very best people we can, because the intent of that Alternative Group is to actually -- to actually generate in a collaborative fashion the alternatives section of the NEPA document and the alternatives section of the EIS is basically the guts of the document, for this particular alternative or to the environmental consequences. So we need the best, we need the best, most committed people we can get. Earlier, last week, I was saying that maybe we could work this group with thirty-five people, but after talking with our two -- our two consultants and facilitators, and when they fell on the floor in a dead faint when I -- when I suggested that we would try to work with thirty-five, I think what welre really looking for now is someplace between twenty, maybe, and twenty-five people, max. We need to make sure that those people represent, as best they can, the varied, but -- represent all of the varied interests in your community. These people need to come with an enormous amount of commitment because we anticipate they will be spending twenty days of their lives, not locked in a room but working in a room together to try to deal through some of these very, very thorny issues. It would also be very useful if these folks come with the empowerment from their organizations or who they represent, of sufficient magnitude that they can feel comfortable representing and committing those groups to various positions. I think in the final analysis it, since it is the Corpsi responsibility to prepare the alternatives, Iive been personally struggling with this, but I think ultimately the Corps has to be the agency that decides from this list of names who should be on it. The only thing I can tell you is, we will do our very, very, very best to make sure that it is a balanced cross-section of the special interests in the process. CHAIRMAN MANNING: Commissioner Hancock? COLONEL MILLER: And I will make sure that it is balanced. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you, Chairman Manning. Through my work with the Florida Association of the Counties, and particularly with John Manning as the president of FAC, we spend a lot of time worrying about state and occasionally federal regulatory authorities coming in and intervening on the powers of local counties. The Article V constitution revision effort is just that, is where burdens are handed to local government that we didn't ask for, that we didn't want, but yet we found ourselves dealing with. When this first started, it seemed like we were going down that same path with the Army Corps of Engineers. A study was going to be thrust at us or to us and we were going to have to deal with it one way or another. Since that time what I have seen is not just a desire but a true effort to be cooperative, to include the county commissions and those entities in the community that are directly impacted by this study. And I think, for that, we all should be not just grateful but thankful that at least the Army Corps of Engineers, in this particular instance, is attempting to be as inclusive as possible, and that's something that is truly rare, and we appreciate it. What I would like to see -- and let me ask a question first. Whether the boards decide individually to participate in a limited or a full fashion, what weight, for example, would be given, say, Collier County in regard -- in appointing individuals or suggesting individuals for appointment to the Alternative Development Group? DR. HALL: Can I just -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're sitting in a room, and there's someone from Lee County and someone from Collier County and someone from the Army Corps of Engineers and we're discussing the appointments to the Alternative Development Group, understanding that the Army Corps of Engineers holds the final authority in any decision in the study. What weight is given the input from Lee and Collier Counties in that scenario? DR. HALL: I think a great deal. I mean, you best know the constituencies that you represent, and so we would -- we would take your recommendations with a -- very, very seriously. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. The reason I ask that is, you mentioned something earlier about individuals from organized groups having the, in essence, the weight or the totality of that group behind them when they're sitting as members to ADG. Environmentalists have a myriad of organizations they can go to for representation. The business community has a myriad of organizations. John and Mary Smith don't. We're it. The Lee Commission or the Collier Commission is about the only place the average person who is working a job and raising a family has to represent their concerns in a study like this. I can't think of a better reason to participate to a significant degree in the study than the fact that those individuals who don't have organizations representing them need us to do that. And that was the reason for the question of weighting. The appointment of members to the Alternative Development Group is key. That's where the balance is to be achieved. That's where we, as commissions, I think, want to have the most significant role possible, because we want the environmentalists represented, we want the builders represented, we want the property owners represented, and we want the working people and the community at large represented. And, unless we decide to situate ourselves at that table with you, then we have taken that ability away, or given it away, and I think that would be a mistake. The issue of drainage was brought up by Commissioner Judah. You cannot separate drainage and wetlands, because, in Collier County, the reason we have wetlands is, that's where the water goes when it rains, and that's where it sits until it can go somewhere else, and, by God, that's what creates wetlands. The mere fact that a general permit that focuses on elements of mitigation that are contained in the MOU, off-site mitigation, we could see our drainage ways improve dramatically through off-site mitigation instead of spending those funds and efforts on isolated postage stamp preservation. And I see a direct link in those two things. I see that as a potential outcome of this study and a true benefit to the entire community. By adopting the MOU as a board, we do something that's very significant. Right now the Corps of Engineers, as I understand it, is operating under your regulatory authority, under several acts. The MOU brings into play things that that regulatory authority does not address. They bring in things that were brought to the table by our business communities and private property owners and the environmentalists, and the Corps has agreed, as we've seen in this presentation, and has already incorporated many of the elements of the MOU in your approach. So whether we decide to adopt an MOU as an individual board or not, I think each commission, hopefully, will at least appoint a liaison to the Corps of Engineers for the, at least the duration of the scoping process, to be there, to participate in, voice and vote on the formation of the ADG, and to cooperate with the Corps, because I think it's become very, very clear that this study is moving ahead. To try and stop this study is a futile effort. And I still feel that our best role in representing the average individual that put us in office is to be at the table with the Corps at some confirmed level of participation. So, I will be asking this board to consider on Tuesday its decision on whether or not to adopt the MOU, but, at a minimum, I hope that the board will at least appoint a designee to work with the Corps of Engineers, at least for the duration of the scoping, and would ask that Lee County consider that at its first opportunity also. Thank you. CHAIRMAN MANNING: Before I get to Commissioner Mac'Kie, what I didn't announce is that I had hoped to be able to come to some kind of a consensus decision point today. Certainly, if you want to ratify that at a regular board meeting, that's the individual board's choice. We have swum -- swam up this stream for a long time now. They need to get on with the job and we need to be able to participate at whatever level we choose by consensus. So, I would hope that sometime during this meeting we will get a gauge of where we're going. Commissioner Mac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm thrilled to hear Commissioner Hancock saying that there should be some significant level of participation officially by the two county commissions, and I hope that, exactly what Colonel Miller talked about, you know, that we're from the federal government and we're here to help, that we've gone a long way, and I acknowledge and thank you for going so far to reduce those fears, maybe not eliminate them yet, but I think those fears have been significantly reduced, and I thank you for that. And also, as the person who is, as Commissioner Coy said, charged with the responsibility of determining, on the ground, local permitting decisions -- and I am confident that I will be -- continue to be responsible in that regard, I thank you for coming and proposing the EIS, and thank Colonel Miller for that -- I'm sorry, Colonel Rice for that as well, because, just as you -- as Mr. Pike said, just as you are unable to, or at least are stretching your ability to make informed, thoughtful decisions, we also have that problem. And I see that this EIS will give us and our staffs the information that is desperately needed so that we can look at cumulative impacts instead of piecemealing what's left of, you know, the investment decisions to be made in our two counties. It's critical and the community, the people in the community, the Joe and Mary Smith, or whoever Commissioner Hancock called them, are extremely grateful and are supportive. I have a question. I don't know if it's for Commissioner Coy, but it is raised as a result of your comment. Maybe for Mr. Pike, or maybe for some other of our attorneys, but I don't understand the significance between being an official signor on the MOU and being a significant participant in the undertaking. I have thought that the best way -- and I continue to think -- that the best way for us to jointly participate in this undertaking is to be partners, and that that is what would be accomplished by the MOU. I understand you have authority and you have responsibilities, and you can't delegate those, and I respect that. Likewise, we have responsibilities and authority that we can't delegate. It seems to me that the best way for us to look at the big picture is through a partnership which would be accomplished through the MOU, through all of us being signatories on the MOU. But I don't understand, what is significant about not participating as a signor on the MOU? What's the difference? What's the concern? COMMISSIONER COY: Okay. If I could answer that, Mr. Chairman? I think there are two positions for what I'm concerned with. First of all is philosophically. Should the federal government, the Army Corps of Engineers, be down here doing this? And philosophically, I say no. Some say yes, and I understand that. So in terms of us wanting to sign on, I think we're signing on to a bad agreement. The second part, in terms of legalities, I think if we are part of an official process, I think, when it comes to private property use and land use and somebody sues us for Bert Harris Act or things like that, I think it will be our tax dollars and our citizens who pay taxes that will have to pay the brunt of that, not the federal government. And after I say that -- and I stand by those two points in terms of philosophy of government and in terms of private property rights and us being held accountable financially -- I still think we should give input and we should allow the Corps to have whatever information we have and help them through that with our staff members. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks. I appreciate that, Commissioner. My -- obviously, we disagree philosophically because I do think it's the right thing for them to do, to be here, and I will be seeking advice from our counsel, and I'm sure you will as well, about the legal effect of joining in the MOU. I would respectfully suggest -- I mean, I don't think that there is -- that we can either increase or decrease our level of financial responsibility by participating as parties or not in the MOU, but that, of course, is a legal question to be determined and I don't think there's a great deal of precedent for us to be able to tell. COMMISSIONER COY: Well, let me ask you. Whenever you have done some land use in terms of what the Department of Community Affairs in Tallahassee has asked you to do, if you become in trouble with the private property rights, is DCA there to help you at all? COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Heavens no, and neither will the federal government be. CHAIRMAN MANNING: I didn't know that. I thought they were our friends. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They're our friends. Yes. They love us. They're so helpful. But what my point is is that, whether we're signatories on the HOU will not affect that end result of whether or not the federal government pays in the event there is a Bert Harris complaint. And I don't think it has any effect either way. And, in fact, the positives outweigh that risk by virtue of the fact that we would be able to be equal partners, participants and have more of an opportunity to represent Joe and Mary Smith. COHMISSIONER COY: Well, I'm hearing from the Corps -- and I don't want to get in a debate, Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN MANNING: Thank you very much. COHMISSIONER COY: I'm hearing from the Corps that they're going to allow us access, they're going to allow us input, they're going to allow us the positive side of this without having to be on the negative side of not being a partner. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And maybe -- maybe Colonel Miller could help me with that question, which was really my initial reason for asking, which is, what is the difference between being signatories on the HOU and otherwise participating? COLONEL MILLER: My comment would be, we're comfortable with however the two boards are -- what level of participation they're comfortable with. Now, in terms of the technical aspects of the HOU versus the other portion, I'm going to turn that to my counsel, who has all that information. MR. PIKE: I'm supposed to be the judge of this debate? This actually feels okay. CHAIRMAN MANNING: Lloyd, the question is, what's in it for us? Let's cut to the chase. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's right. Exactly. MR. PIKE: You know, the truth is, I can see both perspectives. And whatever you-all are comfortable with. The first day I met with Commissioner Coy, he said exactly what he's saying today. "I don't know how the Bert Harris situation is going to shake out and I'm concerned about liability. I'm concerned about signing on to something and having the implication that I approve of the outcome." Those were the first things out of the box. And, while those are legitimate concerns that one can have, there's also the expression from several commission members that the best way to be a part of it and to shape the outcome is to be an integral player. And -- and I don't know how to separate those two. I guess you guys have to do what you feel is best for your citizens. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: John? COLONEL MILLER: I personally, as the district engineer, am comfortable with any level of participation from the county commissions and their staffs. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I had raised a similar question -- I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN MANNING: Pam, you still have the floor. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I just wanted to -- CHAIRMAN MANNING: I'm writing down the names, Commissioner, so we can get them in order. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. My -- I still don't quite have the answer to my question, and maybe there's not an answer. Have you done an HOU with local governments before? MR. PIKE: Yes. Yes. The answer is yes, we have done, not for the preparation of an EIS, within my knowledge, but we do HOUs with governments all the time. They are normally about how we are going to cooperate in a project or cooperate in an undertaking that is to our mutual benefit, and, in fact, it's that logic, how we might work together in a flood control operation, or something like that. We sign those all the time, flood fighting in emergencies, looking at coastal flooding. Any of our authorities, we enter into HOUs. It lays the ground rules by which each party plays and the rules for engagement, if you will, between the sovereign governments. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that is -- that is the answer to my question. And I hope everybody could hear all that, even though it wasn't miked, that -- it lays the ground rules to determine the sovereign authority. We will either be members of the ADG we will either be representatives who are there from the public, or we will be more significantly participating, which is our responsibility as elected officials. And, if you look at the difference between when the Corps does something in a community, then they don't have an agreement with the local officials. But when they do something with the community, then that's when there -- an HOU is appropriate. So, thank you. CHAIRMAN MANNING: Mr. Albion. COLONEL MILLER: If I could -- one comment there. The Corps of Engineers -- this effort is unprecedented in terms of seeking the cooperation of the counties ahead of time. This is not the normal course. The Corps of Engineers itself is going through a paradigm shift. Instead of coming down and telling you what we think you need, we're hoping to change that around to help -- to coming down and getting you to help us craft what you need in terms of projects, be it in the EIS here, or flood control projects, navigation projects, other areas with regard to the authorities of the Corps of Engineers. It's a philosophical shift here, and this is a, you know, a cutting edge break here in terms of the way we're trying to do business. We're trying to be inclusive. We're trying to provide for better government, for a better process where we have the involvement of the communities in which we serve. COHMISSIONER ALBION: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, before I get into some questions, let me first congratulate the Corps on one area in particular that I think is critical in any of these processes when jurisdictional lines, if you will, are being crossed or perhaps overlapped, and that's communication. And I think it's fair to say, in everybody's minds, the Corps has certainly made a tremendous effort in trying to meet with groups, public hearings, certainly I know, with our board, individually, this is the first opportunity our joint boards have had to sit down and talk about this, and that was actually the request of Colonel Miller also. So, and, of course, it should certainly be applauded that clearly the only way to try to defuse something that is new and something that is going to raise the concerns and perhaps ire of people is specifically communication, and I know that you've taken that as really that number one creed, if you will. A number of questions that I do have -- some of them may seem perhaps a little redundant as to what we've gone over over a period of time, but I'm not exactly sure who is aware of what, since we have not been talking about it in general. But I think some of these will be pretty easy and some of these will help me in some of my decision-making. But, based on your present review of information, how much work appears to have been collected by the Water Management District and the county governments; do you still believe that perhaps as much as ninety percent of what you could be looking for would be or has been already collected and would be usable? DR. HALL: Yes, we do. In fact, Bob Barton and some other folks with the Corps spent most of yesterday in the Water Management District offices getting briefed by Miriam and his staff on some of the latest results from some of their studies, and we were also there with our consultants, who also are professionals in the business of water resource, water resource management. And we were all extremely impressed with the level of information. But we're aware that there is a lot more information out there than just what the Water Management District has. COMMISSIONER ALBION: And I assume it's also fair to assume that since you were at the same restaurant but at different tables, you left on amicable terms? I'm kidding. I'm kidding. DR. HALL: Well, actually, we -- yes. Yes. I mean, actually, yes. COMMISSIONER ALBION: Seriously though, to get back to my questions -- I'm sorry. I couldn't resist. COLONEL MILLER: Chip is here today. We would like to recognize Chip. COMMISSIONER ALBION: One of the effects, or one of the concerns that's already been mentioned has to do with liability. And I'm wondering if the Corps either has the ability, and, if so, would they have the willingness, to perhaps indemnify the counties in regards to this process and what may come up. MR. PIKE: The answer to both questions is no. We don't have the ability to indemnify local governments. We don't ever do that. In fact, when we normally participate in flood control projects -- and that is one of the inducements to get the federal benefit of a flood control project or an activity -- this is a very different situation. We're not doing an activity here that will result in the acceptance or denial of any particular proposal for development. I believe that that is where you have the potential of liability in a case of taking, which is your concern, I believe. I don't understand -- and I've heard a lot of dialogue about this -- I don't understand how a study can translate into a taking case. No one has explained that to me yet. I don't understand the fear. It is the action that you take on that study. If you look at the study, and you conclude that you have to deny a permit, in the case of Colonel Miller, or deny a building permit, in the case of county. If you have to do that, then you have to face the taking issue head-on. But the study, what we're proposing to do in this situation, doesn't grant or deny anything. It doesn't prohibit an activity or allow an activity. It is really very neutral. So, I don't understand -- I don't understand the concern in the first instance, but I can tell you, we're not going to indemnify the county. If, based on the study, the county uses its powers and responsibilities to deny a development, any more than we do that today COMMISSIONER ALBION: I'm not looking for a broad-based indemnification as far as anything that may take place in any process having to do with land use planning or rezoning, however, I am talking about that, if someone wanted to basically -- if someone were to be denied a permit and it goes back to the EIS and goes back, therefore, to the information perhaps provided in the EIS process, and someone shoots it right back up the chute, from a lawsuit standpoint, is there any potential in your mind whatsoever, any possibility that we could be sued on the basis of providing some of that information that may have led to some of the decisions in the EIS that led to a denial of the permit, thereby finding a way to get us on the hook? MR. PIKE: I believe that the answer to the question, is there potential liability that information that we gleaned from this study COMMISSIONER ALBION: Excuse me, or influence that we may be giving in the process if we were to sign an MOU, to be determined or perceived in that process. MR. PIKE: Let me take the two separately. Can information gleaned by this study lead the county to deny a permit that may result in a claim, successful, not successful, a claim by a citizen that their property has been taken, the answer is yes. And the answer is further, you probably should have had that information and have taken that decision without regard to this study. This study is a basis for executing your responsibilities, hopefully, as much as it is a basis for executing our responsibilities. And if you take appropriate action, based on the information that's available to you, and if that action results in the taking of private property, someone is going to have to pay for it. Now -- COMMISSIONER ALBION: The point you've made -- excuse me, if I could say -- you need to either clarify or -- you've made a significant change in my question. And that's why I have to stop you here. That is, I'm not talking about the county issuing a permit. I'm talking about a permit that is issued based on the Corps of Engineers' responsibilities, not the county's responsibility, in the present process, unless, the clarification would be, that, if the county were to be then issuing that Corps permit -- because you have talked about possibly the county doing that -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In a nutshell, John, if the Corps issues a permit or takes federal action by our side of the MOU, can we be named and successfully made a part of the suit; is that it in a nutshell? COMMISSIONER ALBION: That's pretty much what it comes down to, but I'm -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Denial of a Corps permit. COMMISSIONER ALBION: Right. Not a county permit. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: By virtue of signing the MOU. MR. PIKE: I don't understand how, but I'm not your legal advisor. I really think you need to seek a decision from your county attorney on that subject. I don't believe -- anyone can sue you for anything. Standing to sue and success to sue are very different things. I do not understand how compiling data, getting useful environmental information, can be said to take anyone's property. That's Pike's view of the universe, however, and you probably need to talk to your county attorneys to see if they feel that you have exposure from participating actively by signing a Memorandum of Understanding in a study. A study does not normally constitute the kind of action that leads to liability for taking. It is the action based on your zoning authority, it is the denial of authorization to do something that constitutes the prohibited restraint on private property use that leads to liability for a taking. That's my understanding of the law. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Albion, can I do a follow-up on that? One of my specific concerns along that line is, the original draft of the HOU had some specific language in there that said very clearly the intent was not to force, either directly nor through DCA, us to have to implement the facts as they were created in the EIS. That paragraph was removed in later drafts of the HOU. And I think that's what concerned me, was, it was very clear originally. It was very clearly stated, and I think it would have absolved the possibility of local liability there. But that paragraph was removed, and so I think that's a very real concern. COHMISSIONER ALBION: Well, you know, the concern simply is that if it shoots its way back, I mean, you can easily say, "But it's the Corps' responsibility," however, if the decision came on the basis of, okay, who were the partners in this thing? I mean, if you had a company that had partners and suddenly there was a breakup of that partnership, but there was an incident that took place prior to the breakup of the partnership, what liability do those partners that have since disappeared in that venture have in regards to the action being filed suit on? That is shooting it back up, which is what I was concerned with. MR. PIKE: I don't believe either of my commanding officers would have asked the county to participate in something, would have given them the opportunity to undertake this unique study and partnership if they felt that it would have exposed them to liability. Now, with regard to your comment, Commissioner Constantine, very early on we acknowledged the principle that this study could be the basis for whatever the county wanted to do with it. It was not an attempt -- and several of you made the point to us. And if we deleted the language that gave you comfort, then I'm sorry. That should have been in there. We had representatives from both county commissions, Commission Hancock, I believe Commissioner Albion, saw the final product. Our intention was to say, we were not trying to force you to take any action on the study, on the basis of the recommendation in the study. So, I regret if that paragraph that gave you comfort was deleted, and I was unaware of that. I just don't recall that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Manning, when appropriate in the order of things, I think I have an answer for Commissioner Albion. COHMISSIONER ALBION: Okay. Well, anyway. I just have a few more questions, if I may. I'm combining two questions that I wrote down, but what effect do you see that this whole EIS could have on our comp. plan process and what -- and how will any conflicts that may come out between our comprehensive plan and the EIS, meaning that there may be some potential disagreement based upon what facts we have and what facts perhaps you develop or already have, how would those be resolved, because it seems to me that, if there were to be certain conflicts of what should be appropriate, if those are not resolved, those are potential lawsuits that could be filed against one or the other public entity by the private sector because of the potential conflict. MR. PIKE: The answer is, as I said, people can file lawsuits over anything. I think the crux of who is going to bear the brunt of responsibility, if the restraints imposed by government on private property constitute a taking, depends on who denies the action. For example, if Colonel Miller decides to deny a person's application to put fill in wetland, I believe it is his action that gives rise to the taking claim and I believe it goes through the federal court process. If, looking at the environmental information that we generate, you decide to deny a building permit through -- I'm sure it translates through a much more complicated process than just the summary that I'm giving -- but if you decide to deny a building permit, then you will be the brunt of the taking. And I think we owe it to our citizens. I mean, we've got tons of regulations that say, Corps of Engineers, before you deny a permit, you consider whether you've constituted a taking, whether or not your actions could be judged to constitute a taking. We're very mindful. I mean, it's not just a concern for county government. We go through elaborate processes to make sure that we don't open the federal treasury to claims that we have violated private property rights. It's a concern to us. COHMISSIONER ALBION: What I would recommend -- I was curious more in the answer, so I'll ask it as a question. And I think one thing that ought to occur, is that as we get into the final conclusion of this process, that, if there are potential conflicts, based upon what we believe to be true, based on what we have and what the Corps has, regardless of whether we've signed an HOU or not, that there really should be a powwow to make sure, on the consistency. Now, since we're going to be dovetailing just by the way this timing has occurred, in the comp. plan amendments, I think it's important that these governmental bodies, that there should be a consistency, otherwise any disagreements we may have with DCA, or any disagreements that may occur between the private and public sector in regards to the permitting process, those problems should be alleviated at this front end and there should be a consistency of the information to show that there's been two or three or four, or however many studies may be done in an area, rather than perhaps having what may be perceived as certain differences, or actually have real differences, because maybe one study showed one thing, another study showed another, and I really think that needs to be -- there should be some degree of commitment that that needs to be resolved. It also shows consistency for the engineering community to know what they can expect at the other end in regards to how to advise their client on how to proceed on some of these issues. I think that would be a very important, mindful and helpful portion of the process to make sure that we do that. I think and believe that EIS will know that a great deal of our comprehensive planning process has been better than perhaps what has been advertised by some groups, or that some may believe. Therefore, however, I don't -- I would be also surprised if it was a hundred percent word for word identical. And I just think it's important that we make sure, in the protection of citizens, that we make sure that we have a consistency. MR. PIKE: Well, the lead to your statement was that you desired continuing coordination between the levels -- different levels of government. And Colonel Hiller's given you his commitment to that. And we've enjoyed great participation so far from all of the county commissioners, whether they -- whatever their position on an HOU and whatever their position on the study. COHMISSIONER ALBION: Okay. A couple more questions. What could prevent or obstruct the permitting process, based on the EIS process, what I call the doing phase; anything? I mean, I'm not saying anybody is entitled to a permit, and I'm not saying -- I'm just saying, what could potentially obstruct or prevent the permitting process with a piece of property, you know, in regards to getting that permitted? Because -- COLONEL MILLER: Well, right now there is no building moratorium. We are continuing to process. But in terms of the specifics of the permitting process, I'm going to turn to Dr. Hall. DR. HALL: Gosh. You've asked this question before, and, I don't know, I don't seem to be very successful in answering it. CHAIRMAN MANNING: That's all right, John. He does that to us all the time. DR. HALL: No. No. I'm not saying that in any denigrating way. COHMISSIONER ALBION: Are you? DR. HALL: I think I'll turn it back to Commissioner Albion. No. We need a certain amount of information and a certain comfort level in the veracity of that information to make permit decisions. We try to get that information through the permit review process. If we get that information and feel comfortable we have sufficient information to make that decision, we make it, irrespective of the kind of NEPA document that's being -- that's being developed. There could be situations where we have an application or we get an application where the information we need to make that decision is something that we feel convinced can only come out of the study, review and conclusion process. In situations like that, I can see that we would have two options at that point. If we -- if we had an application where we felt we need more information and that information is going to come to us as a result of the conclusion of the EIS process, one option is to say, "Let's wait until the EIS process is completed and then make that decision when we have sufficient information." The other one is, if somebody really wants a decision at that time, to go ahead and make that decision, understanding that decisions that are being forced with a substantial lack of information are generally not favorable decisions. COHMISSIONER ALBION: Okay. Fair enough. I would like to piggyback on what Commissioner Mac'Kie and Commissioner Coy had earlier mentioned, because I'm getting very confused on this point the more that it's being discussed. If the county doesn't sign on the HOU, but still is offering information, and perhaps even goes forward with the liaison appointment -- which, I think, Commissioner Hancock, is a very good idea -- what specifically does either the county, therefore, actually, specifically gain by signing on the HOU as far as influence and so on, or what does the county not gain by not doing it? To put it another way, you know, if I buy a product, I am expecting that I am going to be able to get an improved result, whether it's to resolve the problem or to enhance the situation, which is why I buy the product. If I do not buy the product but I still have the same potential result, perhaps the car will still get me from Point A to Point B, instead of putting on some flashy paint or something, which I could -- still will get me, the car, from Point A to Point B. What is therefore going to be the benefit in signing on the HOU versus -- what's the influence difference; what are we gaining that we wouldn't otherwise have? MR. PIKE: I can't answer -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Instead of flashy paint, how about a warranty? COHMISSIONER ALBION: A flashy warranty, how's that? MR. PIKE: There's no answer to your question. I can't answer what you're going to get from it. When we went through the development of the document, you were very clearly negotiating to have certain kinds of input. Those kinds of input, as Commissioner Hancock said, we've tried to be mindful of. We understand that you went through a vote in some cases. You went through a lot of dialogue, and you decided that you weren't ready to sign the memorandum at the time, and that's fine with us. Our process can go on. To the extent we heard concerns from you, we actually tried to voluntarily incorporate them in what we're moving forward with. So, the answer is, probably little, and we're opening ourselves to whatever -- you know, if you've got comments now, if you signed the memorandum and you have a change of heart or you want to change something or you've got a question about a different level of participation, I believe you've heard Colonel Miller say he wants to continue the dialogue and he would modify it. I believe the answer has to be what you feel you get out of it. I mean, we're fine. We told you at the very outset. We could do this in a very traditional manner. We're trying to do it in a new paradigm. We've asked for your participation. You've given us great participation, and it has shaped the process. You have to decide what level of comfort you derive from what's in the memorandum. I can't explain that. COMMISSIONER ALBION: Would the Corps, Colonel Miller, unilaterally commit to the tenets of the MOU even without the signature of the counties for the benefit of your constituents in Lee and Collier Counties? MR. PIKE: I think we've done that. COMMISSIONER ALBION: I am asking if he'd -- I mean, we've talked about it in terms of having an agreement between the counties and the Corps of Engineers. What I'm saying is, that, if the county shouldn't sign on, meaning, therefore, there is a verbal commitment of eighteen months, et cetera, would you verbally -- would you verbally -- would you be able to commit to the MOUs today if the counties did not sign on, so, theoretically, there is still that degree of comfort from all that that's been established? MR. PIKE: There have been several MOUs, so I am reluctant to say on behalf of the colonel that. But we are trying -- COMMISSIONER ALBION: I know you are. MR. PIKE: -- to do the things that you've asked us. And you've done this. I mean, you've all had different, very different approaches to this thing. I mean, you've all had -- to the extent that you saw a vast array of concerns stated up there, you perfectly represented your citizenry because the citizenry had almost exactly the same comments we had heard from each of you. And we're trying to incorporate those, and we are trying to continue to let you cooperate in the way you feel comfortable. The MOU, from my perspective, is not the end all, be all of that participation. COLONEL MILLER: From my perspective, I will continue with the same spirit that we have proceeded thus far. COMMISSIONER ALBION: Okay. Let me just finalize then with a couple of quick comments, because I appreciate -- I know I've asked a lot of questions and I appreciate the patience of both boards, but I, hopefully, have gotten at least a number of the questions on the table that I know have been bandied about, either to me or that I've heard about, et cetera, to try to help get some -- some of that still -- a definition in this whole thing. But, I think it comes down to three black and white questions, folks. The first is, is that the boards have to be convinced in their own minds about the legal authority, for anybody that still has perception on it. I personally believe that the -- personally believe that the legal authority is there for the Corps to come in and do it. But then, they question that, that should be resolved. Second, do you want the Corps of Engineers going around in our backyard, based upon us signing on or us being on the outside? Now, even if we don't sign the MOU, the level of commitment, which could be the liaison positions, for example, should also be determined. But that's a second, very important point. I do not think that we should be turning our back and saying, well, whatever comes out of the Corps -- which is more the traditional approach -- in the EIS, that that be it. The third question becomes, that, if you're not comfortable with the Corps of Engineers, an outside agency, if you will, coming into our counties and going through this process, with us being so much on the outside, and if you feel, therefore, there should be a commitment on signing something that -- what would be the minimum standards to allow for a comfort level for at least three members of each board to say, "We need to sign on board to do it"? As far as I'm concerned, that's really the three questions that need to be answered, because the liability stuff, if it's there, it's there, if it's not, it's not. The Corps' already said, of course, there's not going to be an indemnification process that would occur, or element. So, to me, that really narrows it down. And hopefully some of these answers will help these boards understand better in the process and make what would be a decision in the best interest of all citizens of Lee and Collier Counties, now and in the future. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to both boards for your patience, and to the staff and Colonel Miller. CHAIRMAN MANNING: Mr. Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Colonel Miller, I -- let's go back to some earlier discussion, specifically with the ADG and Commissioner Hancock's comments relative to liaison and so forth. Just for clarification's sake, are we discussing dedicated seats appointed by the respective county commissions, something to that effect; is that what we're doing? If so, how many? DR. HALL: Yes. We have two -- well, here are the requirements, as I see them, for, for -- for participation in this process. One, I think people need to come with a commitment to do it, because it's going to take time. Two, I think they need to -- they need to come, I would hope that they come with some empowerment to represent the group that they do represent. And, three, we need to make sure that the -- that the constitution of the group and the operation of the group are as fair and neutral and nonbiased as they possibly can be. However we can achieve those three goals, that's the important thing. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And that didn't directly answer my question, which was, can we expect to be assigned dedicated seats on the ADG through our county commission? I believe you're trying to indicate yes. DR. HALL: Okay. COLONEL MILLER: I will commit to that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Thank you. I see that probably as one of our better, if not the best, lines of influencing the outcome of what we're doing here, from the county commissions' perspective. So I think that's important to both of our boards if we're to continue on. Of course the corollary then is, if we're allowed dedicated seats, what percentage of seats come from the respective county commissions, so -- so as to gauge what direct influence we have on that particular group? COLONEL MILLER: I would hope that we work that out here in the near future. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. COLONEL MILLER: We don't have that -- I mean, I don't have that answer in terms of what we're going to end up with, a composition there, but I'll take that under advisement. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Mr. Hall is trying to get another answer. CHAIRMAN MANNING: John? John? John? Eighty percent Lee, twenty percent Collier, will that do? COLONEL MILLER: My only comment is I would make it equitable between the two counties. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm over here writing a third, a third, a third, so I think we're seeing the first problem there. DR. HALL: Now maybe you understand the dilemma we face. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think John was correct but he just had his numbers wrong, a slip of the tongue, I'm sure. Okay. The next question I have, really, I guess, is relating to what our final outcome is going to be on the decisions the board makes, whether to participate or not. It seems to me that if we sign on any time soon to the Memorandum of Understanding, that we're really giving tacit approval to something we don't know what the outcome is going to be, and, while I think it's in our best interest to participate at some level in formulating this study, I'm not sure that becoming full partners before we know where we're going is something that I can be comfortable with at this stage. And I hope you don't take that as a negative. It's just that it's hard for me to say I want to partner Collier County government with federal government, and I'm not sure what the federal government is going to do. And I just don't feel comfortable at this time. At the same time, I feel very strongly that it's in everyone's best interest for us to be able to participate. So the question then becomes, if we -- if we agree to accept, I guess you can't accept a Memorandum of Understanding, but if we decide not to become signatories to a Memorandum of Understanding at this particular point in time, is our influence thereby diminished? COLONEL MILLER: No. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Thank you. That's all the questions I have. CHAIRMAN MANNING: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That is really where I was headed at. We had that discussion the other day, in the board offices, which was, whether or not we signed off that, it didn't penalize the county in any way. And, Dr. Hall, you had said, actually, very clearly and concisely the other day that that was provided in an attempt to be very clear on what the Army Corps' intent was, and supposed to be for informational purposes to each of the county boards. And maybe you could just kind of paraphrase what you said, or rephrase what you said the other day for the benefit of the public here, because it was very helpful to me. I had that same question that Commissioner Norris just asked, if we do not sign the HOU, are we somehow going to have a lower level of participation, and you had said -- DR. HALL: No. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- no. DR. HALL: If you do not -- if the county commissions do not sign the HOUs, that does not mean you have a lower level of participation. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can't be much clearer or more concise than that. I guess the point I wanted to make is, I'm uncomfortable, and I had expressed some of the points, but I'm uncomfortable with a number of points in the MOU itself. But I would like -- we're kind of doing an informal poll as we go here, but, like the other board -- members of the board, I certainly think we should sit at the table and share information and be the voice of John and Mary Smith, and make suggestions and raise objections and whatever happens to be through the process, and hopefully be an integral part of the final output. I think that it would be foolish for us to turn our back on the process. But I have very serious reservations about some specific parts of the HOU, and I think that gives, on that particular item anyway, some degree of comfort. That's not necessarily what you're looking for as a signature on that. You're looking for active participation. COLONEL MILLER: We need help with steering the ship. And I'm not very good at using Navy metaphors, by the way, so -- driving the tank, excuse me. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My Coast Guard background will help you with that ship. COLONEL MILLER: Thank you, Commissioner Hancock. CHAIRMAN MANNING: Tim? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. Basically what it's boiling down to is, why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? I happen to be a supporter of the HOU for a couple of reasons. One is that it provides a framework for this study that right now doesn't exist. The HOU did a very good job, particularly the ten points that the Chamber Coalition, the Chamber ADC Coalition put together, that I thought were ten protective points for our communities, and that framework is important. I think, without an HOU, at least we as a board can agree on those points and offer them as guiding principles to the member who may participate in the ADG. So it sounds -- and I still think the HOU has a couple of benefits, one being those guiding principles. The second being, on the issue of legal, whether it be indemnification or attachment, this doesn't differ much from any other, or similar arrangements we make. Commissioner Coy, you had mentioned the Bert Harris Private Property Rights Act. If we as a commission make a localized decision that affects property value, Bert Harris is triggered. The difference here is that, even if we sign the HOU, the HOU is very, very clear in that the complete and total regulatory authority remains with the Corps of Engineers and is not delegated to the counties. The HOU is very clear. That says the county itself cannot affect that regulatory authority, positively or negatively. It rests solely with the Corps. And at the outcome of the study, it is solely at the discretion of the Corps of Engineers, again an authority they cannot delegate. In essence, the HOU almost protects us from an accusation that we altered the outcome of the study by clearly stating the Corps' authority. the HOU actually may do the opposite effect. I'm not going to swim upstream on this forever. If there's only two of us or maybe three of us on this board that want to sign it, then fine. We'll know that soon enough. But the bottom line is, yes, we can be sued for anything. Somebody can sue based on a -- if they sue based on that HOU, it's because the Corps' regulatory decision is one they don't like. They sue the Corps and name the counties and we're in court. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Anybody with seventy-eight bucks and a bad attitude. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. And so, yes, we can be named. And I think it does increase the likelihood of our being named in lawsuits. But does it increase the likelihood of our going to a lengthy expense to defend county actions based on a Corps decision? I think the answer there is no. I think, if you'll discuss it with your county attorney, that answer should be the same. I had a brief discussion with our county attorney on that matter. But again, I just wanted to offer that. The paragraph regarding requiring the county to -- this would not require the county to alter its plan in any way. It's in there twice. Where it was removed in one place, it actually has been re-stated in a more appropriate location. So there's areas in the MOU that say the Corps study will not require the county commission to alter its plan in any way. So that is in there. And the last thing I would like to offer is, when it comes to the makeup of the ADG, my just off-the-cuff feeling is that we would like to see the Corps of Engineers, if it's going to be a partnership, at least with a liaison position from each county commission. It may be each -- both the Corps and each county be afforded one third of the total slots to appoint, that the Corps make its designations first, and that each commission can then respond to those designations and positions in a manner to achieve a balance in the ADG. I offer that as a starting point, or a thinking point. We don't have to arrive at that today, but that's my thought in order to achieve balance and also to achieve and ensure that the local representation, which are those individuals most affected by the outcome of the study, be at least half of the group, if not more. So that's, again, just a starting point. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN MANNING: Commissioner Berry. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning. Thank you, also, for providing this opportunity to be able to have further discussion on this. I look at this ADG as a very critical committee on this whole study, and I have great concern about what direction we're going to go here. Having said that, I raised a question just briefly here with Commissioner Hancock, of, Colonel, you've made a lot of commitments and said that, you know, everything is -- you're committing to a lot of good things, from what I'm hearing. But we all know that what happens is, there's a lot of people who will be out in the field doing this work, and when they go back to their office and they look in the manual on Page 32 and it says -- excuse me -- that this is what applies here, and maybe it's different than something that you may have committed to, what assurance do we have in regard -- if this is interfering, perhaps with local government, what assurance do we have that it won't be that way in something that you may have committed to here today, that there's not a disparity in what perhaps someone who is working under you may arrive at, a different conclusion than what you may have committed to? Is that possible? COLONEL MILLER: I'm the commander and the district engineer, and if I've committed us, then, short of violating any regulations or law, then that is the position we will be taking. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COLONEL MILLER: And I will not -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Commissioner Berry? COLONEL MILLER: I assure you, I'm not looking to violate any laws or regulations. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I understand that, but, also, you can have, you know -- we can all have very good intentions but when it comes down to findings, whatever may be found out in the field, if this has some difference, what the ultimate solution is is a little bit different than what we may think. What assurances do we have? COLONEL MILLER: I've committed to eighteen months. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COLONEL MILLER: Okay? And we will make that timeline. I have a similar timeline of 1 July 1999 with regard to the Everglades Central and South Florida Re-study Project that was mandated by Congress. I will make that deadline as well. I take my deadlines very seriously. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And Commissioner Berry? I just have to interject to say, one of the things that might be how we best ensure that those verbal commitments and the discussions that we've had are in fact commitments that, you know, if Colonel Miller, God forbid, is hit by a truck tomorrow, is by signing an MOU. That's where we get that in black and white. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I think one thing. Everybody's aware of the MOU. I mean, both commissions are aware of it and there's certainly been enough said about it, and certainly Colonel Miller's aware of the MOU, and you've heard a lot of discussion about it, and you know where we're all coming from, that we're supportive of it. If it doesn't make any difference whether we sign it or not sign it, and yet we're still afforded participation rights, then what's the big deal? I mean, let's get on with this. And if you're going to do it anyway, I do believe it's important that we have input, and we all know how input works. We have input as well, but sometimes we have to do what we have to do. So, you know, everybody can feel like they are having all kinds of input and that they're really getting somewhere in this whole thing, when in -- the reality is, you've provided input, you've done exactly what you said. You've held public meetings, you've done all those kinds of things. You can walk out of here tomorrow and do exactly what you have to do. And it may not be the same thing that we all think you're going to do. COLONEL MILLER: I understand your concern. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COLONEL MILLER: Now, with regard to your first question, in brief, every organization, the gentleman or the lady at the helm there, has to be concerned with the organization and whether or not they follow through with the commitments that the person in charge -- I can assure you I will be watching this process very closely. You'll have my personal attention to make sure that where I have made commitments, they are followed through. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I appreciate that. I guess I'm one, I hate to put my name if I'm going to get -- if the end result is going to be the same, then I'm not so sure that I necessarily want to put my name down there. If it doesn't make any difference, I'm just not real -- I'm not really sold on the idea of signing on it. However, I think it's critical that both commissions have a liaison person that sits at that table. I think that's absolutely critical. And I would have to agree with Commissioner Hancock that, I -- as long as there's three bodies involved here, I would strongly urge that it's a third, a third, a third. Now, that may be a negotiated point but I think, if we're all going to be in this, then I think it's got to be -- we've got to have the affairs split here. So thank you very much. That's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN MANNING: Commissioner St. Cerney? COMMISSIONER ST. CERNEY: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just had one question presented to me. I would like, John, if you would reiterate for us, in regards to Hendry County, did you state earlier in your presentation that you intended for them to be a party to the scoping and, if so, there is no representation for them? DR. HALL: No. I didn't say that. What I said was, during the public comments, a number of the commentators recommended that the geographic scope of the study include the western portions of Hendry County, which, I guess, are sort of the head waters or the beginning waters of some of the tributary systems that drain into Lee County. COMMISSIONER ST. CERNEY: Well, I would just ask that if in fact the scoping does go into Hendry County, that they be offered the privilege of having some representation about this organization because, so far as, if they are being mentioned, they have no representation or no say-so. So I think, from the point of fairness from the ags and other residents in that area, they should have equal representation. The only other comments I have to make, under the MOU, and my briefing with the colonel and his staff, I shared my concerns on some of the history with some of our fellow agencies, and the larger scope of big government, whether it be state and federal, and some of the problems we went through at the permitting at the university and other areas of this county, and I think they appreciated my concerns. I think the thing you have to look at is whether you have a Memorandum of Understanding or not and whether it's signed by all parties or you're a party to. I think first you have to go, number one, with the relationship that you've established, and do you have faith in the Army Corps of Engineers, that they are going to do what they say they are going to do. Two, the amount of input that we're going to have into that process is not totally contingent upon whether we come under the MOU or not. They're not going to be able to do what they would like to do in this area without equal participation from both governments. So, I think, in that vein, we're talking about something that really isn't all that important. I think we have a meeting of the minds. I think we feel that we have the established minimum relationship here. I think, when you look at the Council of Civic Associations and some of the work they've done, and other organizations throughout the county, if you look at the last election with the referendum on 20/20, that the citizens of Lee County passed to tax themselves. I think there is a concern among the population of Lee County, and I think it's incumbent on all of us to come to the table and do what's best for all of the people. Whether we're actually signed on or not as a party, I think, is insignificant. I think if you feel that you have a relationship with the Corps and their staff and that our staffs are comfortable with that level, and if you've got a pretty good-armed legal department and you have confidence in your legal department, then I think we can go forward with this. And again, I would just like to thank the colonel and all his people for the amount of time and effort he's put into this process. You didn't need to be like this, but you did it. I think that shows your sincerity and your commitment to working with us in the future. And I think that's important. So I'm willing to do what the consensus of the two groups is willing to do today. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN MANNING: Before I sum up, and I would appreciate the opportunity to do so, I know that Commissioner Judah has a quick couple of questions, and I'll take final comments or questions by my colleagues here at the table. COMMISSIONER JUDAH: Colonel, and, actually, Dr. Hall, in response to the question that was asked of you, if the respective counties did not sign on to the Memorandum of Understanding, there would not be an impact in terms of lessening the participation, but the key word for me is influence. As I look at the potential -- and I think Commissioner Hancock has a pretty good suggestion with the representation on the ADG -- that you would seriously consider, of course, that recommendation, if the two county commissions were to sign on the Memorandum of Understanding. Otherwise, I don't see why you would wish to consider, if you're going to do it alone, without the participation of both counties, to give any serious consideration to who is going to be -- other than the fact that you have your own parameters in place to provide for that balance. But in terms of putting any weight on recommendations from the respective counties, if we're not going to participate in the Memorandum of Understanding. So I look at the key as being influence. Does our influence -- is our influence lessened by not signing off on the Memorandum of Understanding? COLONEL MILLER: I think we've answered that question before, and the answer is no. CHAIRMAN MANNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER JUDAH: Okay. CHAIRMAN MANNING: Let me make a brief comment, and then, since nobody has said it, I will tell you where I'm coming from. First of all, I appreciate the opportunity to finally meet you. I have been traveling, and I know you have, and we didn't have a chance to meet at the scheduled time. For that, I apologize. Let me say to my colleagues that, in my capacity, being Irish and masochistic, and, I guess, the president of our organization, I've had the opportunity to talk to and be actually in the communities that our organization serves. And I'm very proud of the two counties at the table today because I think that we have done some very cutting edge balancing act processes with respect to growth. I don't see any one of you or any one of us at the beginning of 1-75 telling people not to come down here. That's not our job. What our job is is to try at the local level, based on statutory authority, to try as best as we can, in two of the fastest growing areas of the country, to manage that growth and make it as qualitative as possible. I will not vote to sign the MOU. I'll get that on the table right now. But that has no effect, from my standpoint of view, to diminish my commitment to provide you with the information and the -- anything that you need to go ahead and perform this EIS. It's going to happen anyway. There is no incentive for us to sign an MOU, and, as a matter of fact, that has become the biggest problem in this whole process, is fighting with ourselves to sign a piece of paper. And if we're going to step out of the paradigm, get out of the box, change the thinking -- and I'm glad the federal government is finally attempting to do that, we've had to do it locally, and I appreciate the efforts that you've made today. We've got enough information on video and audiotape and everything to know who said what to who. So, if we are truly going to get out of the box, if we're truly going to work together, the MOU has no relevance in my particular situation. Doug St. Cerney mentioned 20/20. That, by the way, was a straw poll. It was not a binding referendum, and we went along 5-0 to do that. There is finally a gubernatorial candidate -- and you and I worked on the issue of P-2000, Preservation 2000, and the extension of that -- there is finally a gubernatorial candidate who has put his money where his mouth is and will increase local influence from a management to a purchasing standpoint of view as well as a money standpoint of view, and that's always important. So we're -- we've done the things from comprehensive land use standpoint of view, in my view, to make sure that our quality of life continues in both counties, and I appreciate the efforts of Collier County and this board. We've got one of the -- I think we've got regionally one of the best comp. plans that I've seen in the State of Florida, both Collier and Lee County, and I'm glad that that, at least, will be a starting point for this process to be undertaken. Again, I will work with you in whatever capacity that is deemed appropriate. Tim and I -- Hancock -- spoke briefly this morning about the liaison shift situation. I think that is the perfect compromise. I believe if one of us sits on, as well as having one-third, one-third, one-third, I don't have a problem with that. We can make a good faith effort to move through this process and get it done in the eighteen months instead of meeting and talking about it. So I would request some kind of motion of consensus on which way the group here today wants to move, with respect to the signing of the MOU first, and then I think we can come to the conclusion, working out the devils and the details, about the ADG process and whatever. So does anyone want to offer some kind of motion? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, since it's clear by the comments made that there's not a majority of support on either commission for the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding and, from the comments today, that the MOU, by not signing it, will not diminish the role of each commission and its representation during the scoping process and the completion of the study, I will move that we consider the appointment of an individual liaison from each board to the Army Corps of Engineers to work in partnership for the scoping and completion of the study, to help direct the process in a manner that is reasonable and fair to our constituents. CHAIRMAN MANNING: Okay. The motion on the floor is to appoint from our respective beards a liaison in lieu of signing the MOU. Is that -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's correct. CHAIRMAN MANNING: Okay. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN MANNING: Second -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Hold it. I would like to ask the motion maker for a friendly amendment here. I would like to add to your motion a statement that our board -- Lee County can follow suit, if they would like -- but our board support at this point the effort of cooperation to develop the EIS, even though we're not signing on that as -- CHAIRMAN MANNING: I think that's a mutually acceptable, friendly amendment. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Amendment accepted. MR. YAEGER: Mr. Chairman, I would recommend that this be kind of a consensus-type vote. Each board, if they are going to take official action, needs to do it -- CHAIRMAN MANNING: I ask for a motion of consensus. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Being the objective, the first meeting of each individual board will ratify it as individual commissions. CHAIRMAN MANNING: Okay. Further discussion on the motion? COMMISSIONER COY: Question, Mr. Chairman. Does your amendment include one-third, one-third, one-third -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We'll work those out. CHAIRMAN MANNING: Further discussion on the motion? COHMISSIONER JUDAH: Clarification. Commissioner Hancock, your motion doesn't necessarily speak to -- maybe I'm misunderstanding -- the decision as to whether or not to sign off on the HOU, but rather, instead of taking action on the HOU, to make the recommendation that we have a liaison from the respective commissions, that we are going to be forthright and forthcoming in assisting the Corps in their EIS; is that correct? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The motion indicates that we are not going to sign the HOU at this point and appoint a liaison. It does not outright reject the HOU. It just leaves it where it is. You know -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- the truth is, if we take this level of participation, the HOU becomes a moot point. So, and I -- I mean, you can count the three on each board. So rather than keep something out there as a potential or a hopeful promise of something, I think that's a waste of energy and time. I think you know my commitment to the HOU in the past. But I think, realistically, let's choose this path that seems to be the best of both worlds. CHAIRMAN MANNING: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two questions. I didn't hear your response to Commissioner Coy's question about the one-third, one-third, one-third. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm of the opinion that this motion alone should stand on participation. If we wish to express to the Corps our desire for the level of participation on the ADG, that should be a separate matter. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All right. And the second is, I just want to clarify again -- I got a little confused when you were going back and forth -- we're not rejecting the terms of the HOU, we're just saying, we're not going to sign off on that. We appreciate the commitment from the Corps on it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think I said the same thing. Apparently, Ray -- COHMISSIONER JUDAH: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. See, I'm okay with most of what you're stating in the motion with regards to having respective commissions provide a liaison to assist the Corps, as well as to assist in any other way through staffing assistance. But it's what I believe now, from the clarification I heard from you, is that this is a rejection of signing off on the HOU. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On the signing, but not on the content. COHMISSIONER ALBION: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN MANNING: Yes. COHMISSIONER ALBION: It sounds like semantics, but, you know, I don't think we need to make the statement. I mean, what we're saying is, is that, this is going to be cooperation, both boards reaching consensus on giving full cooperation, they can be ratified at a full Board of County Commissioners' meeting by each board, as well as talking about assigning a liaison to try to help with the process. And I really think, that's it. That's enough. Obviously, if there is no motion to sign the HOU, then at this time we're not going to sign the HOU. And if we should determine at some future point that it's an appropriate level of representation for us to be involved with a further commitment like the signing, we will do so at that time. I don't think it is appropriate or necessary to just simply come outright and say, rejecting the MOU. Might I add, we've not exactly gone through paragraph by paragraph at this meeting of the details of that MOU, so I really don't think at this time it's necessary, and, if people feel that it is, you certainly have the ability to vote against the motion. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me clearly clarify, then. Commissioner Manning, your statement was in lieu of. My motion remains absolutely silent on the MOU. COMMISSIONER JUDAH: Okay. COMMISSIONER ALBION: Exactly. COMMISSIONER JUDAH: It's important to get that clarification. This is not a rejection of the MOU. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Honestly, no. It remains silent on it, but obviously we're not moving forward on it. I mean -- CHAIRMAN MANNING: Well, when do both our bodies give these folks who have been working very tirelessly on this thing an indication that we may or may not sign it? COMMISSIONER COY: Mr. Chairman, I don't -- CHAIRMAN MANNING: Excuse me. Let me try to -- go ahead. COMMISSIONER COY: All right. I think we can all -- CHAIRMAN MANNING: This is where we're getting hung up. COMMISSIONER COY: We cannot count to three on either board. The federal government can tell we are not going to count to three on either board. We're going to reject the MOU, but we're going to go by the MOU, and we're going to have access to it. I think it's -- I think what the federal government is telling us is -- just one second -- the federal government is telling us, you're going to have your way, but not have any of the liability of having your way. Now, to me, they're giving us everything we need. I don't know why we need to be a part of it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's just stop playing politics with it, folks. We're choosing a path that we're going to participate in and remain silent on the MOU, period. CHAIRMAN MANNING: All right. Why don't we go ahead and call the question. We know where we're going, so -- Is there any objection to the motion on the floor? CHAIRMAN MANNING: Seeing none, the motion passes unanimously. If you would like to try to come up with a one-third, one-third, one-third solution now, from a consensus standpoint of view, I have no particular problem with it. Instead of putting off these decisions, we can make some today. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What I'd like to do is, if -- I will go ahead and again, in the intent of a consensus motion to be ratified later, put a motion on the floor that it is the desire of each commission to have a one-third representation to the total number of appointments on the ADG. COMMISSIONER COY: Second. CHAIRMAN MANNING: Motion for one-third participation by both boards by Commissioner Hancock, second by Commissioner Coy. Discussion? Objection? Motion carried. Is there anything before us we need to continue on with? If not, we're adjourned. Thank you. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned at 11:03 a.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 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 SERVICE BY: ELIZABETH M. BROOKS, RPR