Loading...
BCC Minutes 05/18/1999 S (Non Compliance of the GMP; Status of Sheriff's Budget Appeal) May 18, 1999 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, May 18, 1999 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRWOMAN: Pamela S. Mac'Kie Barbara B. Berry John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine James D. Carter ALSO PRESENT: Robert Fernandez, County Administrator David Weigel, County Attorney Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA Tuesday, May 18, 1999 9:00 a.m. NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99-22 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE CHAIRWOMAN. ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. REVIEW AND AUTHORIZATION OF PROPOSED LANGUAGE DEVELOPED BY STAFF AND THE AD HOC COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STANDARDS COMMITTEE FOR REMEDIAL AMENDMENTS IN RESPONSE TO FINDINGS OF NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE COUNTY'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN BY THE DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS 3. APPROVAL OF RESPONSE TO THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND BUDGETING REGARDING THE SHERIFF'S BUDGET APPEAL 4. PUBLIC COMMENT 5. ADJOURN 1 May 18, 1999 May 18, 1999 Item #2 REVIEW AND AUTHORIZATION OF PROPOSED LANGUAGE DEVELOPED BY STAFF AND THE AD HOC COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STANDARDS COMMITTEE FOR REMEDIAL AMENDMENTS IN RESPONSE TO FINDINGS OF NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE COUNTY'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN BY THE DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS - AD HOC COMMITTEE'S REPORT SUPPORTED CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We'll call to order this special meeting of the Board of County Commissioners of Tuesday, May 18th, 1999. We don't have anybody here to lead us in a prayer this morning, so I'll take that privilege, and then we will remain standing for the pledge of allegiance. Heavenly Father, we thank you for this gathering this morning. We thank you for these people who care about their homes. We thank you for these who have the responsibility of making these important decisions that affect so many of us. We ask, Lord, for your guidance, for your hand to be upon this meeting, and upon each of us as we go out into our lives. In your name we pray, Amen. (Pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. We have our agenda. I guess do we have any changes, additions? I don't guess we could possibly have any deletions if we wanted to. Any changes to the agenda? MR. FERNANDEZ: No. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Get us started. And for the benefit of people who are watching, this is going to be real government in action. We haven't had time to -- you know, the committee that is making recommendations to us finished their meetings last night, I hear, around 6:30 or 7:00. We haven't had all of that information for a week or so to study it and think about it. We're going to be seeing it today and analyzing it and making decisions. And so this should be fun. Real government in action. Get us started, Mr. Lorenz. MR. LORENZ: Yes. Thank you. For the record, Bill Lorenz, Natural Resources Director. Yes, the -- what I'd like to do is give you a little bit of an overview of the information that we're going to present today. The committee did meet three times since your last board meeting last Tuesday. As you noted, they finished up yesterday evening. We put together the language through, I guess, the lightning storm last night to 11:00. We weren't struck by lightning, but I'm not sure whether that's a good sign or a bad sign. But we have the language for the public. There's a number of copies out on the table outside. I'd like to have Wayne Arnold, as the chairman of the committee, present to the board the results of the committee, the major highlights, and the committee's attempt to address some of the board's directions from last Tuesday. Then I'll be available to go through -- I'll walk you through a little more of that summary that I presented last Tuesday to show you where the detailed changes are. And I can then walk you through the changes that we present to you that's in basically underlined strike-out form to the proposed settlement agreement language that I provided to you this morning. However -- what's your pleasure? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: This? MR. LORENZ: That's correct, that would be that document that's Page 2 May 18, 1999 titled Recommended Language Changes to the 2-2-99 Settlement Proposal. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is this available to the public as well? MR. LORENZ: Yes, it is. That's the copies that are outside for the public. I also have a colorized version of that. We can put it on the visualizer, so -- because when you start looking at it after awhile, the underlines, strike-outs and shadings kind of get blurry. So we can use that as a tool. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I just -- I had asked for that, board members, because even though we know that the draft settlement proposal is not really the starting point, we know Judge Meale's recommended order is the real place where we have to start our discussion, we at least know that this is language that DCA staff and our staff had agreed on. And so I asked for a strike-out and underlined, you know, version to compare where that was to what the committee is recommending. So that's what we have here. And of course, that's not the be-all end-all, but it's something. It's a place to start. MR. LORENZ: A couple more items. Bob Mulhere will then walk you through the rural overlay. This is the eastern lands proposal. And there's language, I believe, that was in your executive summary. The letter from George Varnadoe, in addition to the language where we've inserted it into the proposed settlement agreement. Marjorie Student will also talk about the process. And Bob will also then brief the board on exactly what the timetables are as we know it as of today. So -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Fernandez, would it be okay if after we hear from Margie and the folks about the process and timing, that we address these issues as three? Let's do the urban one first, then the eastern county issue and then to the rural fringe. Is that okay with the board? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Fine. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Does that work with your presentation? Can we divide up that way? Because otherwise, it just gets a little overwhelming, the amount of information. MR. LORENZ: I can work through that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Can we try that? If it doesn't work out, we'll adjust. MR. LORENZ: So you say the urban, the rural -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Urban, then the eastern Collier -- MR. LORENZ: Eastern Collier. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- and then the fringe. MR. LORENZ: Okay. With that, I'd like to have Wayne Arnold just go through the highlights for the board and the results of the committee's deliberation. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Or maybe Margie could tell us first the timing and process, and then we'll get to Wayne, if that's okay. MS. STUDENT: Okay. For the record, Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney. And as I reported last week, we had an April 29th letter from David Jordan of DCA outlining the time frames. And the cabinet aide's meeting is June the 2nd. County staff and myself will be going to Tallahassee June 1st. We have scheduled individual meetings with the various aides; some aides to the aides and some of the actual aides. And this is pretty typical in a growth management case where we go up and present our position to them. Page 3 May 18, 1999 Then on the 2nd will be the actual aides' meeting where they may have questions about the proposal and so forth, and we answer them in a more formal manner. On Tuesday, the 8th of June, is the Governor and Cabinet meeting and the county. And again, Chairwoman Mac'Kie is going to accompany us. We will be going up to actually present our case to the Governor and Cabinet, and they will be issuing a final order as an outcome of that proceeding. We plan to go a day early just to check and see what's happening. My experience in Tallahassee has been that lots of times in a week there are late-breaking developments, just as there can be with an agenda item coming before this board. So, you know, we plan to do that. And then after that the final order should be issued. I also want the board to know that every day I call DCA to get -- to see if I could obtain what their recommendations are going to be, as directed by the board. And it will not be available, and they will fax it to us this Friday. So I regret that I was unable to get anything, but I persevered diligently, as I said, and called them every single day, so -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I appreciate that. And Margie, I have one question about the process. DCA -- we'll -- at some point we'll get our hands on what DCA staff is going to recommend. MS. STUDENT: It should be by the end of the week. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. MS. STUDENT: Oh, that's right, they stated that you may, if it's very much different than what we have, wish to as an add-on to Tuesday's meeting, discuss it further. So that's an option. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Because the goal would be to be united in our request of DCA and the board, if that's something that can be done. And then the request goes from DCA -- I mean, I'm sorry, then the appeal goes with the recommendation from DCA to the Governor and Cabinet aides? Is that how it works? I'm just not exactly sure MS. STUDENT: Okay, they send -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- how the process works. MS. STUDENT: -- they send their recommendation to an attorney in the Governor's Office, and then it's distributed, I believe, through the Governor's Office to the cabinet aides. And there are staff people for the various members of the cabinet that do a lot of the administrative work and, you know, filter it through for them. I have never, in the 11 years that I've been doing this, had a direct meeting with a member of the cabinet. It's always been an aide. And the only interface I've had with the cabinet itself has been at the actual formal meeting, which is very much like a board meeting. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And my question is, if it -- well, it will get to the Governor and Cabinet. MS. STUDENT: Right. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And when it gets there, if they like what DCA and/or the county or the joint recommendation is, then they will just bless it and that will be the end of it. If they don't like it, will they rewrite it and tell us what should be in our comp. plan, or what? MS. STUDENT: What they will do, as I understand it -- and please understand, I've never been through a case in exactly this posture before. We've always had a settlement with the department and Page 4 May 18, 1999 sometimes there have been some interveners that have had problems with the settlement but never in quite this posture. What I believe and what I've been told will happen is that a final order will be issued. And it will have very general parameters. It won't be super specific language that you must have all this in your plan. There will be general parameters. And then we will be given a certain time period in which to adopt remedial plan amendments that address the final order. And then if we do not do that, sanctions will be imposed. And -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I hope that's not redundant for the rest of you. I just have not completely understood that. MS. STUDENT: And as I understand it right now, the only sanctions -- and I don't think this is, you know, cut in stone or anything -- that they were looking at was community development block grants. But there are a whole list of sanctions that could be imposed. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That are potentially out there. Okay. Bob? MR. MULHERE: Good morning. For the record, Bob Mulhere, Planning Director. If I understood your direction, you'd like to talk about the urban -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: First. MR. MULHERE: -- amendments first? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Uh-huh. MR. MULHERE: That's located at the -- it's the last item in your agenda packet. I'm sorry, I do not have a paginated agenda packet here, so I can't refer to the page, but it is the very last item under the heading Draft Amendments for Urban Area Density Reduction. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Page 142. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. I spoke by telephone to DCA staff late yesterday afternoon; in particular with Shaw Stiller, Assistant Counsel. One of the questions that he asked me was whether or not the urban density reductions would be included in the remedial amendments that the county would submit to them. And I indicated that they were. And he indicated that he had a problem with that at a staff level. And I asked why. And his response was, they really have nothing to do with Judge Meale's recommended order. And my response to him was, while that may be true to some degree, there is a relationship. And the relationship is that as these urban amendments are structured, we have not precluded the possibility of a landowner regaining that fourth dwelling unit through the acquisition of agricultural or conservation easements. And he agreed that that was related to Judge Meale's order. So I think that they will find that these are appropriate to be included in the settlement agreement based on that at a staff level. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And Bob, I was fortunate to have just an informal dinner with the secretary of DCA last week, and one of the things that he discussed with me -- and I knew this would be something you would want to talk about, particularly Commissioner Constantine, is, or I believe it is -- is that this density reduction in the urban area seems odd to them. Seems like the opposite of avoiding urban sprawl and in fact they -- he might see it, you know, without a great deal of review, but at first blush it sounded like it could encourage urban sprawl. I think it's something that might need to be left on the table. Page 5 May 18, 1999 I -- well, I'll just go ahead and say it. I would be willing to allow the higher densities to remain in the urban area in exchange for reduction of density in the rural area. And I think that is a reasonable position for avoiding urban sprawl. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I respectfully disagree. If we take that away, I wonder what it is we're doing other than gutting the entire program. Because we had broken this into three areas. And lowering the density in the urban area was one, and it's a small step. It takes 7 to 10,000 units out. But it's part of an overall plan. And if it is included in that overall plan, it doesn't in any way encourage urban sprawl, because we are also dealing with those issues to the east. If we fail to deal with the issues to the east, then perhaps it could be construed as encouraging urban sprawl or encouraging further development out there because you run out of space here. My concern is, we're now saying we're not going to go deal with the issue in the east for three years. We're going to have some committee go look at that. We'll come back. We don't know what we're going to come back with. And now if the suggestion is, well, we're also not going to do the urban part, then essentially we haven't done anything. And I think this board has a very unique opportunity to step to the plate, deal with this growth issue, deal with future population issue, and we need to do that. We had already done it, I thought, on the urban item. And I'll be very upset if we backtrack on that. But I'd like to see us do more than we've committed to in the rural area as well. So I'm very disturbed to hear that. It's the first time I've heard any suggestion of that other than from some folks who own property and would love to have a more intense use. And it's certainly not something that we hear from anybody, any resident of Collier County, that, no, let's keep a higher density, let's have more in the area. There can be no harm in having fewer people in our urban area. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And I would imagine that there's not a majority who's the lease bit interested in discussing that, but I just wanted to put it on the table, because I -- it's how I honestly feel. And then is there -- are there other opinions on this, or are you guys ready to move on with the urban issue? COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'd like to move forward. And I concur with Commissioner Constantine. I really believe that we're all right in the urban area. And I looked at it as a motivator to reduce density and stop sprawl in the mid and -- or fringe and rural areas. It makes sense to me. I think the only people that might be confused is the people in Tallahassee. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Marjorie, should we vote on that? Should we take a motion on that particular issue or just -- how do we go about processing this? MS. STUDENT: Well, I think you could do it in a couple of ways. You could break it out, the three areas, and take separate votes. And also, I note that we have provisions of all the settlement. Was it the intent, Bob, to vote on all of it? Because what we typically do in that case is we take an element or sub-element vote. MR. MULHERE: I think -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, at the very end, if you need us to take a one cover vote to decide -- Page 6 May 18, 1999 MS. STUDENT: And then lots of times we'll do a big cover vote, too, so -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So does someone want to make a motion on this urban density reduction? COMMISSIONER CARTER: I move we proceed with the urban density reduction. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Motion and a second. Any discussion? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, are we going to go through any changes before we vote, or -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I don't think there are any changes on the urban, are there, Bob, from -- MR. MULHERE: No, there are no changes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- last time? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Since the last time -- MR. MULHERE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- we discussed it? MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The strike-through underline that we see is an old one then? MR. MULHERE: That is correct. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Any other discussion? If not, all in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Aye. Passes 4 to 1. MR. MULHERE: ***Now, the rural area -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Headline, Mac'Kie supports growth. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Thank God you don't write them. Okay. Rural. MR. MULHERE: The rural area, the proposed overlay for the rural area, is the item just before the one we discussed. Again, about three pages before that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: 137. MR. MULHERE: Page 137. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: 136. MR. MULHERE: On your screens I had placed a copy of the future land use map with the area proposed to be included in the Eastern Collier County Properties' Overlay Area, highlighted by the dark black line in the rural area. That property constitutes about 85 percent of the privately held lands in the rural area. The proposal would be to apply -- to develop within the comprehensive plan and to depict it on the future land use map an overlay for these lands. And to restrict those lands, the property owners would agree not to develop the property for any residential uses other than those in connection with agricultural uses, no extension of water and sewer, and no golf courses; and for a maximum three-year period or as long as it takes to develop the four-step strategic comprehensive plan for this area, culminating in recommended amendments to the comprehensive plan. Now, I also had the opportunity to discuss this with the DCA staff yesterday and they -- again, I have to say this is all at a staff level. They raised objections and they cited Judge Meale's recommended order, which specifically discussed some lands in the rural area that currently are not included in this 85 percent that's Page 7 May 18, 1999 depicted as part of the overlay. There really leaves the board three options. One would be to move forward with the rural lands overlay as it currently was prepared by Mr. Varnadoe, which would exclude about 15 percent of the rural lands that are privately held. The second option would be -- and this one was suggested by the DCA staff when they were here on March 19th -- would be to take the density on the rural lands that are excluded from this overlay down to 1 per 20, which, based on my discussions with the staff at DCA would satisfy their concerns. The third option would be to apply this overlay -- in fact, we wouldn't need an overlay, we would simply write a policy that says that these restrictions that are currently contained in this draft overlay apply throughout the rural area. I've discussed this with Marjorie Student. Marjorie Student has indicated that based on her analysis, considering the remote nature of those lands that are not included in this overlay, there is little likelihood of them developing for other than agricultural purposes or residential purposes in conjunction with agriculture, that golf course and residential development is not a strong likelihood over the next three-year period, and that there would be -- while we could never tell you that you wouldn't be challenged, there -- in her opinion, there would -- if they went through the Burt J. Harris Act, they would be probably be told they need to do a study of the area, which is what we're doing anyway. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, and wouldn't they have to, Marjorie, prove some kind of damages? And how could they prove damages if there's no market? MS. STUDENT: There are two areas that we'd be looking at. One would be a takings claim and that, because they'd be allowed a minimum beneficial use, that being ag., I don't think they could successfully bring a takings claim. The other would be a Burt Harris, where there would be interference with reasonable investment-backed expectations. I don't know what the reasonable investment-backed expectations in such a remote area would be, but I think that the likelihood of a case being brought would be slight, and even more so the likelihood of someone being able to prevail in a Burt Harris case would be even slighter. So I think it's worth the risk. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That, it seems to me, would -- argues for forgetting the overlay and applying the policy to 100 percent of the property. MS. STUDENT: That's correct. MR. MULHERE: In addition, as you indicated earlier, the county is certainly in a better position, if we are able to gain the Department of Community Affairs' support on all or the majority of these proposed amendments. And from my discussion, again, only at a staff level, if these restrictions were to apply throughout the rural area, the feeling was that staff -- that the DCA staff would support that interim study period. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is there discussion on that particular aspect? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. Mr. Mulhere, the 15 percent that are not included, were they given the opportunity to join? MR. MULHERE: I do not know what the consultants -- whether they have tried to contact any of those property owners or not. The staff Page 8 May 18, 1999 did not notify them. We have some time between now and when the remedial amendments would be submitted back to the DCA to notify them. However, one of the reasons that we did not individually notify property owners was because we really didn't want to handle this potential amendment any differently than we would otherwise handle it, in which there's no reason to notify individual property owners. We didn't do that in the fringe, we didn't do it in the urban area, we didn't do it in the rural area, and we didn't think that we should handpick some individuals. Now, I do not know whether or not the consultants have attempted to notify property owners out there. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Would you like to hear from them on that point, board members? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah, I'd like to know. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. I'd just like to know if they were given the opportunity to join and whether they refused or not. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Alan? COMMISSIONER BERRY: And I also want to know about splitting. Did they split property? MR. REYNOLDS: Good morning. My name is Alan Reynolds. I represent the Eastern Collier Properties Owners. To answer your question specifically, no, the -- we did not make an attempt to contact all the individual property owners out there. It was our understanding that if that was to happen, that was going to be a county notification and not something that we were going to undertake. Since we last spoke to you on March the 19th, we have contacted a couple of the larger property owners who have since joined the effort, so we do now have approximately 165,000 acres of the land, and I think the percentage of actual ownership now is closer to 90 percent. Having said that, we would certainly have no objection to including the balance of the rural properties in the study. Quite candidly, because of the large area that's already in the study, the information will be collected anyway, so it would make perfect sense to bring them in and to have them be part of the study, so -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And then Commissioner Berry had a different question. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah, I was just concerned about the drawing of the lines. I mean, is this pretty much -- the property, is this -- I don't know exactly how to say this. In other words, they didn't just go by section lines. MR. REYNOLDS: No. What we did, those who have actually said we will participate in the study have brought their properties into the study entirely. And the perimeter of the boundary or the study area, as is currently shown, includes their properties. And we have made it very clear that to do the study properly, we will essentially have to ignore individual property lines as part of the process of evaluating the land. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Which is one of the real positives, it seems to me, of the process. I will tell you that, you know, my support is going to be that we apply whatever policies we adopt on an interim base to all of the property out there. Seems more fair than down zoning them to 1 to 20, and it seems a little safer than just doing nothing. So that's where I'm leaning on that issue. But then I have questions about the interim policies themselves. What I see about the interim policies here, basically they say what's Page 9 May 18, 1999 going to happen during ~- you know, what the study is going to be during the process in that, you know, in the interim before we adopt a policy, you know, what the moratorium will be out there, what issues -- what types of property can't be expanded out there. And then it describes what the stages of the study would be. What I'm looking for is something -- two things, basically. One thing in the policy that would say that as the information is received, the board can respond to it. In other words, we don't have to do nothing until they tell us the very last piece of information has now been delivered. When we get the GIS maps at the end of six months, let's do something with them, if that's useful information, for example. I mean, why would we wait until the very last page is in? And the other even more important to me is, and maybe it's here and I'm just not seeing it, is that what the goal of the process -- well, at the end of the process there will be policies adopted that will protect natural areas. And does it say that? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Where does it say that? MR. MULHERE: Well, it's actually the overriding objective, which is the first part of the policy, which it says: In order to properly facilitate the creation of a comprehensive plan, which will implement and ensure protection of important natural resources. It's the very first goal stated in the policy. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And it's not necessary to have -- I mean, that's in the objective. But then there are policies that implement other portions of the objective, but there aren't any policies that say how that will happen. That will happen by directing growth away, that will happen by transferring development rights out, that will happen by what? MR. REYNOLDS: Well, that probably gets into more detail under Policy 7.3. If you read through that policy, it talks about not only that the primary consideration is the ensuring the protection of important natural resources, et cetera, but then it goes on to say specifically the proposed amendments will assess the growth potential of the property in assessing the potential conversion of rural land to other appropriate uses, discouraging urban sprawl, directing incompatible land uses away from critical habitat, and so on and so forth. So that's the language. And frankly, that language actually mirrors the state's policy with respect to undertaking these kinds of studies. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is that broad enough, Marjorie, or is -- maybe a better way is, is it specific enough that the state could -- at the end of this process, if we're all dead and gone and there's a whole new board up here, the consistency will be the state, and the state will have the responsibility of saying, okay, you've got this three-year study, now adopt the -- well, you'll have a two-year study, hopefully, or a one-year process of adopting comp. plan amendments. I want there to be something in here that requires -- let's see, that the state will have the authority to require the county to adopt an environmentally positive policy in the Eastern Collier Properties. MS. STUDENT: I think the state already has that authority through their review and approval of our comprehensive plan and any amendments to it that might be submitted to them. It's very difficult to predict, as I've stated many times in this forum before, what the DCA -- you know, how they're going to interrupt Rule 9J5 and Chapter Page 10 May 18, 1999 163 to determine if an amendment is adequate. If it's almost next to impossible to predict that. But the state already has that authority. The only thing -- and it was my understanding that as an outgrowth of all this, that various mechanisms would be developed to protect natural resources. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's what I wish it said. COMMISSIONER CARTER: It does. MS. STUDENT: Maybe we can -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Does it say that really? MS. STUDENT: -- just still sharpen our pencils and -- MR. MULHERE: May I just also add that the conservation coastal management element also has a number of policies that require and ensure natural resource protection. Now, of course, with this interim policy, those will not be applied in the rural area during this study period and amendment adoption period. However, they -- nonetheless, they are in the natural -- the conservation coastal management element. And when those amendments are adopted -- or developed, they will have to address those policies as well. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So there sounds like there's sufficient protection for that issue that I was worried about. And then the only other one that I had was, can we react to information as it's received? MR. MULHERE: I think we can restructure that to indicate that amendments can be proposed at any time during the process. I don't know if Mr. Reynolds has any comments about that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And if a majority of the board -- MR. MULHERE: I don't think that you are precluded from doing that now. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- agrees with that, but -- you don't think we're precluded from doing that now? MR. MULHERE: No, I think that, you know, you could propose an amendment to the comprehensive plan, really at any time, and you might have some opposition if it was during -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Of course. MR. MULHERE: -- the study period, but I think that you are not precluded. I don't know if anybody has any comments on that, other than -- MR. REYNOLDS: I think Bob is correct. I think you have to opportunity during any cycle to amend the plan, which happens twice a year. It clearly wasn't our intent that we were going to initiate amendments until the study was complete. Because we think it's important that you respect the process and make sure that you've really got full information and analysis before you start making decisions, but it certainly wouldn't preclude the county from initiating such an amendment. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Why would you want to? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, for example, I mean, I'm so interested in protecting the Okaloacoochee and Camp Keais Strand, because they are the little shallow rivers that feed that preservation area down there. The only reason that I'm going along with this proposal is -- not the only, but a really important reason, is that right now -- you and I had the same tour. We know that the maps that are drawn for the NRPA's aren't accurate. They don't really show what the slews actually are. So I want -- we have responsibility to protect those Page 11 May 18, 1999 slews. To have some creative way to do that, is what I hope will come out of the process. But say at the end of the six-month period we have the GIS maps that show absolutely positively these are -- this is it, this is the critical area to protect, then let's put them on our map. COMMISSIONER BERRY: But if it's still within the three-year period and nothing's going to happen out there anyway, why would you want to intercept it at some point and do that before you get the whole picture? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I guess because even though nothing new is going to happen out there, what -- the information I've been getting from, for example, Colonel Miller, when he was here and others, is that we have real water quality issues that I didn't realize we had, and that we're going to be getting some information to tell us about serious water quality issues. I don't know if that's something that might be able to help positively affect those quality issues or not, but I just don't want to be precluded from acting if we see there's a need to. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I just am concerned that we get into a piecemeal situation, Pam, and I think we've got to be real careful about that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I agree on the being really careful. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry, I'd say the answer to your question is we probably wouldn't want to. But at least this way should something out of the ordinary arise, we have the option to. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I just didn't want to be closed off that we can't do anything until you guys tell us you're done with the study. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think the mapping becoming a part of public record strengthens our position to say if we have to take action, we would. And I can't believe the quality of people involved in this process, that they would stand there and fight it and say that we shouldn't protect it. I just think this gives us better database to make decisions. MR. REYNOLDS: Madam Chair, one of -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. MR. REYNOLDS: -- the things, and this is just, I think, a good example that will address part of the concern, is that as a for instance, we've cataloged all of the various mapping that's been done that shows what's intended to be in public protection. And everybody has a different map. And none of the maps match. They're all different, they all have different acreages. But I will tell you that the Okaloacoochee slew is on everybody's map, and the vast majority of that is within the area of critical state concern anyway. So there are layers upon layers of existing regulatory protections in place. One of the things that the study needs to do is to identify what are the existing layers of regulatory authority and are there some gaps, you know. But then I think clearly, again, that's part of why we need to do this kind of a study. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I forgot to ask the first time if there were public speakers on the urban issue. Are there public speakers on the rural? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One question for staff following that. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, there are. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's the likelihood -- how strong is the likelihood of DCA's support of a three-year study? Page 12 May 18, 1999 MR. MULHERE: I think it is very strong, as long as that applies throughout the rural area. That's the staff indication that I've received. And I don't think there's any reason to suspect that they wouldn't support that. Given the scope of the study, I think that they will support it. I did have one additional request of the board. There is a blank in Policy 7.5 which talks about the number of individuals that would be appointed to the rural committee. And I just need to plug in a number. And I think it was discussed six, but I certainly wanted to confirm that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I didn't hear his question. MR. MULHERE: Never mind. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Any other comments from the board before we go to public speakers on -- and this would be Eastern Collier, the area in black on the maps there. Basically the area way out around Immokalee, east of the Estates. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman, most speakers did not indicate the area in which they have interest in speaking, so I'll just call the names and they can let me know if they want to speak on this issue or not. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And you're not limited. I mean, you can speak on both. I just wanted you to speak on this one while we're at it. MR. FERNANDEZ: The first one is'Chris Johnson. MS. JOHNSON: Well, I was going to speak on the rural fringe area. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. If you weren't -- if you're not interested in speaking on this, if you'll just wave, and we'll know that you're not coming forward. That would be great. MR. FERNANDEZ: The next is David Guggenheim, and then Bruce Anderson. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Bruce is waiving. So who's next? MR. FERNANDEZ: Nancy Payton. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, got two. MR. GUGGENHEIM: Good morning. My comments actually apply to both the rural area and the rural fringe. For the record, David Guggenheim, president and CEO of The Conservancy of Southwest Florida. Two months ago at the density workshop I stood before you and told you that I am getting the same phone calls as you are. I'm getting the same letters as you are. I told you that the people of Collier County are gravely concerned about uncontrolled growth and desperately want their elected officials to finish the important job they started to control sprawl and protect the environment. Today I will prove it to you. Over the past year, thanks to the generosity of one of our supporters, The Conservancy developed a comprehensive survey on Southwest Florida's residents' views concerning the environment. We will officially release the results of this important study next week. However, I'd like to provide you with a sneak preview of results today, because they are directly relevant to the issues before you. Using a national polling firm in New York, 502 18-minute random digit dialed telephone interviews were conducted in Collier and Lee County from April 28th through May 8th. All respondents were screened to be 18 years of age or older. The results of this survey speak volumes of how important the environment is to the people of Southwest Page 13 May 18, 1999 Florida, the measures they would be willing to take in order to protect it, and their expectations of those that represent them in government. The results that I will list here refer only to those surveyed in Collier County, with the confidence of 95 percent confidence interval of plus or minus 7 percentage points. Of those surveyed in Collier County, the number that said they strongly agreed or agreed that the environment is extremely fragile and in great danger and therefore needs our help, 87 percent. The percentage of respondents that strongly agreed or agreed that the natural environment is the most important issue facing public policy today, 61 percent. The percentage of respondents who strongly agreed or agreed with the statement, I vote in large part based on environmental positions, 57 percent. The percentage that said they would vote in favor of a referendum containing growth within the current urban boundary, 75 percent. The Conservancy has been working on such a referendum over the past year. The percentage that said they would support a tax to purchase and preserve environmentally sensitive land, 65 percent. And clearly in a show of frustration, the percentage that strongly agreed or agreed that litigation is necessary to combat overdevelopment of our land, 71 percent. When DCA Secretary Seiberg visited our community last week, he gave a superb speech. And he said the good news is I'm going to get out of your way, the bad news is you've got to do a better job. I would ask that you make a show of good faith and demonstrate to Secretary Seiberg and this community that you are willing to take the action necessary to do that better job. On behalf The Conservancy and its 5,500 member families, and clearly, on behalf of the vast majority of your constituents, I urge you to support the original draft language your staff, The Conservancy, and other members of your community worked so hard to produce. Is that draft perfect? No. Is it adequate to protect the environment? Maybe, though certainly at a minimal level. Is the draft an appropriate starting point? I believe it is. We urge you to report that original draft, follow through with reducing density. As I presented last week, the ad hoc committee's recommendations fall far short of what is necessary. Preserving sevenfold less conservation, it is unacceptably weak. We do not need further study to justify immediate action. In our judgment further delay puts our rural lands at unreasonable and unnecessary risk. Though I also agree with Secretary Seiberg, that the best solutions come from a broad range of stakeholders around the table. And I pledge that we will be there at the table as we move forward. You and your vision and leadership have never been more important than at this moment. I respectfully ask that you take the action that this community so desperately wants and needs. And if you don't believe me, consider the fact that the percentage of respondents that said they would support a building moratorium in Southwest Florida, 64 percent. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Nancy Payton. (Applause.) MR. FERNANDEZ: Then Robert Duane. Page 14 May 18, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, after Nancy was? Mr. Duane, he waives, and so -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Brad Cornell. MS. PAYTON: I knew we were right. My name is Nancy Payton and I'm with the Florida Wildlife Federation. I have general comments to make when the entire presentation is over, but I did have some specific questions about the urban area. And it's unclear to me, and maybe I missed it, is how that extra unit or two is going to be recouped, because originally it was to go to conservation and purchase -- transfer of development rights, for lack of a better word. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Where does the fourth unit come in? We've asked our consultant to give us an interim plan. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We haven't started that unit yet. We haven't started discussion on that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No, we've already voted on that, on the urban. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Urban -- urban fringe. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. MULHERE: The policy provides for one of two options for regaining the fourth -- let me back up. As you'll recall, the regaining the third unit will be a result of development performance standards, particularly and specifically related to enhancing the impacts on the transportation network. The consultants, Brian Blaesser and Dr. James Nicholas are working on an interim policy. They have not completed that yet. However, the policy, as we structured it, allows for a combination of at least two possibilities, one being additional performance standards. And the thought was moving towards some traditional neighborhood design performance standards as one possibility. The second is acquisition of conservation or agricultural easements in the rural area. We have not precluded that as an option. It is simply not the only option the way we have structured the policy. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: For the fourth unit? It's not even the only option for the -- MR. MULHERE: For the fourth unit. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Wow. Glad I voted against it. MS. PAYTON: It makes reference to natural resource protection area, private ownership. Maybe I'm jumping ahead, but I thought the recommendation was that we weren't going to have any private NRPA's. MR. MULHERE: I understand that. We didn't change this, because we don't know what direction the board is going to take yet. However, when we know what direction the board is going to take after they've heard the rural fringe discussion, then we will revise this to simply say acquisition of currently privately owned conservation or agricultural lands. You know, how we structure it is going to happen after the process. If the policy allows for that, we will then structure an LDC amendment that, for example, could direct that purchase to acquisition areas, lands targeted for acquisition, for example. We're not at that point yet. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Nancy, we won't start your time yet. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We're not going to start her time? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: She asked a question and we've been talking. Commissioner Constantine has a question. Page 15 May 18, 1999 COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, she can use her time for talking or asking, but -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: John, when you get to run the meetings, you can run the meetings. MS. PAYTON: I have two and a half minutes left. I'll reserve them. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You are so unprofessional. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm so glad you feel that way. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Nancy, let me just -- my recollection of our discussions on other than set-asides, the one other way people could get a unit back that we had talked about, and it's being explored, is some of that neighborhood, traditional neighborhood planning, such as interconnections. The example that I always use is Kensington. Right now, if you pull out of Kensington, you need to get a gallon of milk, you have to pull across four lanes of the busiest road in the county, go down and pull back across four lanes, go in and get your milk, come out onto that busy road, and then go in. And there perhaps should be some reward if they actually interconnect those communities instead of forcing you out onto the major roadways. So I know that that was one other area that we talked about that I had a great deal of interest in. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. And the board did not preclude the option of a property owner acquiring, as I said, either conservation or ag. lands for easement or for purchase. They did not preclude that as one of the options, and therefore we've left that in as an option, that yes, we have to develop that specific policy. The consultants are working on it. It does not need to be contained in the comprehensive plan, it would be in the land development code. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So Nancy, do you have comments on the rural -- the eastern Collier? MS. PAYTON: Only comment is that there be some commitment to take immediate action or make a priority for those lands that conceptually have been identified. For instance, there's at least been some areas that have been shaded that have been preliminarily identified as deserving of special consideration. It seems as though that should be the first priority, is to get those lands identified and protected. Because actually, we're responding to a recommended order whose emphasis is on protecting natural areas and wildlife. And there is a commitment in the Growth Management Plan for NRPA's. And NRPA's on publicly owned lands really don't need the commitment, we feel, that was in the Growth Management Plan. So if there could be an accelerated protection of those lands and action taken as quickly as possible, we feel a little more comfortable with what's going on. MR. MULHERE: I appreciate that comment. And I did want to add, and Bill pointed out to me, and you'll be discussing this in just a few minutes, but just to jump ahead in response to Nancy Payton, the Policy 7.1.6 does remain in our recommended remedial amendments, which states the county will support the efforts of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Panther recovery plan by designating Priority One Habitat as areas that qualify for a transfer or purchase of development rights. Now, obviously we'll have to structure that transfer process so that those lands become the most appropriate lands to go to first for that transfer of development rights. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. Page 16 May 18, 1999 Mr. Cornell -- will you tell us who's next? MS. STUDENT: Brad Cornell is the next speaker. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And after him? MS. STUDENT: And then Ty Agoston. And it doesn't say if he wants to speak about ~- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Ty, you want to speak on eastern Collier? No? MR. AGOSTON: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. AGOSTON: I want to respond to these people. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Fine. Go ahead. MR. CORNELL: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Brad Cornell and I'm here on behalf of the Collier County Audubon Society. And I have just a couple of points to make about the eastern lands in Collier County. I believe that there's a problem in waiting two to three years to address plan inadequacies and having development interested parties conduct and fund this study that we're considering. I just feel like that is not a fair way to appraise what we should be doing. I think that there was some very good evidence presented at the hearing in May last year, and we need to be acting on that. And whatever additional studies in connection with protecting rural resources need to come out of some of that information. But I don't feel that that source is a good source. It's an interested source. The area of critical state concern that was mentioned exempts agriculture from most of the regulations that we're talking about. And you all know about that. That came in front of the DCA and you all prevailed on that issue a year ago. And unfortunately, that means that we do not have protection from the Okaloacoochee Slew from clearing for ag. And once ag. clears the land, it may be developed and converted at some future time. I believe, 10 years. But that is not a very long time and that is not very good protection for a very important resource. And finally, I want to say that with regard to the eastern lands, and particularly with those areas as Nancy Payton mentioned that we've all been discussing, natural resource protection areas, which include proposed protection areas, which -- in the eastern lands which include the CREW lands, the Okaloacoochee Slew and the Camp Keais Strand, these areas are very deserving of extra protection. And in fact, the Board of Commissioners has committed since 1989 to protect these areas, not these specific areas, but to implement the Natural Resource Protection Area plan. It has not been implemented to any significant degree and certainly to no degree in the rural parts of our county where our most important resources are. And therefore, in fact, the deadline for that implementation has passed years ago. To wait until two years or three years to possibly implement protections for natural resource protection areas, I don't think that's a very sound way to address growth management or protection of resources that this community really depends on. That's our life blood. So those are my comments. Thank you very much. (Applause.) MR. FERNANDEZ: Ty Agoston. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: After Mr. Agoston, that's it? MR. FERNANDEZ: All the other speakers have waived on this subject. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Page 17 May 18, 1999 MR. AGOSTON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Ty Agoston. I'm from that disadvantaged area of Collier County where you prohibited sewers and water to benefit my children, and myself, for that matter. And also, the area that is being made less attractive so people don't move out there. I don't know how to tell you this, but I think you're in the process of killing the American dream. You know that American dream when people are looking to build that white picket-fenced home, raise children away from the hustle and bustle of the inner-city traffic. And all this takes place in a very short period of time. You don't allow people to participate. You essentially have loaded the committee to deal with this whole issue, pretty much professionals, and your staff is essentially exerting an inordinate amount of influence over the course of the discussions. And the people, per se, are not involved. Dr. Guggenheim mentions a study that they commissioned, that he's going to release. And like all opinion surveys, I remember when Mr. Reagan was running for his first election and he was picked to lose. So I don't have an awful lot of faith in any of these opinion surveys. What I do have, a very large faith in the way people vote. A couple of years ago we had an initiative, it was called green space. And I remember the slogans about not east coasting the west coast and on and on. But this was the first time I have seen a direct question directly to the people, are you willing to pay for the green space? Directly.. Not through ad valorem taxes where your landlord might pay, this is -- directly involves you. And the people rejected that payment plan by some 2-to-1 margin. So I consider this issue kind of disingenuous to re-discuss, well, now, how could he have brought about a different result? You can't. That particular survey is the real-life results of people's opinions. So as far as I could see, that the least you can do at this point is slow down this process. I don't believe that there was any reason, regardless of the fact that the wildlife federation has found or judged who is sympathetic to their aims and wants to force the county into a rush process. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: They got to pick the judge, too, Ty? MR. AGOSTON: You know, if you have a homosexual issue, generally the issue goes to San Francisco to a federal judge. That's a very common practice in all special interest areas. They will pick a special interest judge who's -- happens to be. Ms. Mac'Kie, your opinion, I'm sure, is more valid than mine. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Certainly not. MR. AGOSTON: But the fact of the matter is, is that we have a change of guard in Tallahassee, and hopefully they take a more balanced view of how we handle our natural resources, so to speak. I came from an area where they have three -- five counties in one city. The amount of space you have already is staggering in this county, and the additional space you're dealing with there described in gray, I believe, is a minor section of the county. Should we all move back to Naples on high-rised apartments and just go and look at the pictures? Thanks. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. No other speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: All others have waived. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So at this point we should have a consensus or a motion from the board about how we want -- what property we want Page 18 May 18, 1999 to treat, whether or not it's just the black lines or it's everything out there. And then if we agree with the policies drafted by Mr. Varnadoe and approved by our staff. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll move that we include all of those agricultural lands. I think that was your second option -- MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- Mr. Mulhere, that you presented to us? MR. MULHERE: That we'll remove the overlay and deal with it through a policy covering all of the rural lands. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's what I'll move. And that we go ahead with the draft as staff has presented it. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll second that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Constantine had a comment. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure. Just I was in the minority before and I'm sure I will be again. However, I just hate to see us wait three years to deal with this. And while they are consummate professionals, I don't know that the -- the individuals involved are consummate professionals; I don't know that private industry should be driving the process on this either. And so I'm going to vote against it, just because I think we need to be dealing with this now, not three years from now. (Applause.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: For my purposes, would you entertain, Commissioner Norris, to adding something to ensure that there's nothing to prohibit interim changes pending the outcome of the study? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think that would be doubly redundant. I think it would be too much excessive overkill, since we already have that ability at any time we want to. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If it's on the record, I guess, Marjorie, if you're going to put it on the record and everybody knows that there's nothing to prohibit interim amendments while -- affecting this property and affecting natural resources involved in this area while the process is pending. MS. STUDENT: No, I don't think there is a four-stage program as described, but there are no time lines. So it doesn't really inhibit you in any way, and I think we could start on the process as soon as we have the information. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. There's a motion and a second on the floor. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor, please say aye. Opposed? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Passes 4 to 1. ***We'll go to the rural fringe. MR. MULHERE: While Mr. Lorenz is coming up, I just wanted to make an announcement for the members of the public. There are additional copies of the strike-through and underlined document that Mr. Lorenz will be discussing out in the hallway, if anyone doesn't have one and wishes to get one. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: This starts about Page 92 of our packet. MR. LORENZ: What I'd like to do is, as I said earlier, Wayne Arnold is here as the chairman of the committee. And we'd like for Wayne to address the board with regard to the committee's deliberations, the major issues that the committee worked with, and the -- how they worked through some of the issues that the board Page 19 May 18, 1999 brought up at the last meeting. So with that, I'd like to have Wayne speak to you. MR. ARNOLD: Good morning. Thank you. Wayne Arnold, chairman of your comprehensive plan standards. As we spoke to you last week, our committee to date had primarily focused on cjustering standards in the rural fringe areas of the community, and we've brought back to you our proposal which dealt with what we were calling a 40/30, 1-25 rule for protecting vegetation on specific sites. And again, our emphasize was on protecting and ensuring that at least 25 percent of vegetation that you had on any given site above 50 acres would be preserved, with a standard being set at 40 percent of the site as your goal. And then you could mitigate on or off-site to achieve the standard. We have since gone back and looked at some of those what we're calling instead of mitigation, a restoration standard, if you will. And to help give an incentive to create areas on-site, we've actually reduced one of those restoration standards to .75 to 1, where you're going back to create natural wetland systems for wildlife corridors on your site. We left it at 1 to 1, as we brought to you last time for other natural area creation on-site. And if you choose to go off-site, that standard is 11/2 to 1. I'd just like to say that as we look through the future land use element, the conservation coastal management element, the water and sewer sub-elements, all of these things are very interrelated. And I think I'd like to say, our starting point was not necessarily the settlement agreement that was brought to you on March 19th. The starting point is the comprehensive plan that's in effect today. We are responding to Judge Meale's recommended order, not the original settlement agreement that was prepared by your staff and the DCA staff. While it may have met with approval from those staffs, when that was brought back to the County Commission on the 19th, these were issues that were not necessarily endorsed by the County Commission when this committee was established to go back and deal with those specific issues. That is what we've attempted to do. And I think in a large part we've created some very rigorous standards that are applicable to cjustered projects. We tried to divide them into projects and make an incentive so that project chooses the cjustering option, which I think is what the County Commission endorsed over a year ago, that this should be the standard that we strive for, not the non-cjustered rural ranchette type of development. So for those types of development that will continue to come forward, you would meet that 50 percent set-aside requirement. Your incentive for cjustering the project is to deal with the native vegetation retention requirements as we've described them. And I think those standards -- we've spent many hours debating these in the committee. These are not giveaways in any way. A person who is trying to develop a project and establish an area that protects the wildlife corridors that are there and protects the environmental sensitive lands that are on their site, we have already layers of Army Corps and South Florida permitting. We've now established our own local criteria that establishes this 25 percent minimum that must be retained on-site. And again, the standard today is zero. There is no standard that's applicable outside the urban boundary for protecting any vegetation on your site, Page 20 May 18, 1999 whether it's for agricultural use or any other. And I think that's significant to go to the standard that we're recommending to you today. One of the other things that I needed to touch on were -- came up last time, were the wildlife protection measures that are in place. There are primarily two policies in your comprehensive plan that deal with protecting wildlife corridors and standards that should be used for protecting those. The policy also lays out the criteria in how you should choose areas that should be preserved and protected on your site. Those are essentially untouched from the version that staff presented to you. We have done some wordsmithing, but I think essentially the policies, as they were presented to you originally, remain intact and are still very strong policies that will protect those sensitive areas. We have in the last week been looking really at the other wetland protection issues. Essentially NRPA's, Natural Resource Protection Areas, if you will, as well as some of the other policies trying to deal with that language. And I think -- our recommendation was to eliminate the private NRPA designation, which largely was the Okaloacoochee Slew and the Camp Keais Strand areas, east of Golden Gate Estates. There were two areas west of Golden Gate Estates that had the private NRPA designation on those. Those were adjacent to the county line west of CREW and Corkscrew Sanctuary. The map isn't up there, but those areas are identified, as Bill has pointed to on the map. What we have recommended in that situation, by eliminating the private NRPA designation, those lands would be subject to the rural fringe and the cjustering criteria that we've recommended to you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is that how you stretched? I mean, I haven't understood yet how you guys came to be discussing something in the rural eastern Collier County. I thought that your charge was to do rural fringe -- anything in the gray on that map. So how do you come to be talking about NRPA's which aren't in that area? MR. ARNOLD: The direction, as I understood the committee, was to look at comprehensive plan standards that were applicable in everything excluding the Eastern Collier proposal. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And that's where those two NRPA's are. MR. ARNOLD: Those two private NRPA's are. There are two other NRPA's that were not part of the Eastern Collier Lands proposal, as that boundary had been identified. You've since today determined that you wanted that to apply to a larger piece of land, and what you're -- essentially what you would be looking at, if that area that's now shaded a darker green on the proposed land use map, our recommendation was to change that to rural fringe, which is the gray crosshatched area that you see on -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Would you show us that area? MR. ARNOLD: Those were the areas adjacent to the Immokalee Road corridor, the southern portion of the East Tamiami Trail, and the area that's identified as the North Belle Meade. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So you're adding -- you're recommending additional -- wow, you're recommending that we add areas to the rural fringe that would otherwise have remained agriculture? MR. ARNOLD: The areas, as they were proposed, were to become private natural resource protection areas. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But if they weren't private NRPA's, they would remain what? Page 21 May 18, 1999 MR. ARNOLD: That's the question that was posed to us. And our recommendation is rural fringe designation. What you've done today, by your last action, was to establish that this new objective seven dealing with the Eastern Collier Lands would be applicable to an area larger than that was originally contemplated. And that, obviously, is another alternate for you to apply that same three-year study window to those lands as well. Although I think they are a little bit remote and distinct from the other lands being considered. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So Bob and Bill, we're going to need a recommendation from staff considering that we chose option two on your options of what to do with the Eastern Collier Properties, and said let's treat -- let's include all of that in the study. What's staff's recommendation about the formerly NRPA areas, now that we're not going to do NRPA's, you know, property Bill just showed me, Belle Meade and otherwise? MR. MULHERE: Again, given the board's direction to exclude private NRPA's on privately held lands. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And did we do that? Didn't we do that last Tuesday? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: All right. MR. MULHERE: I'm not saying it was a majority vote. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It wasn't unanimous, I know that. MR. MULHERE: But I mean, it wasn't a majority vote and not unanimous, yes. But however, given the fact that those lands -- the underlining zoning is agricultural. The land use designation in the comp. plan is rural agricultural. By including those in the rural fringe area, you will be significantly increasing the natural resource protection standards, which you are discussing now, exactly what those are. Currently there are no protection standards on that land. So you will be requiring a very specific set-aside, a percentage, the option for mitigation, connecting wildlife corridors, et cetera, in those lands. Let me be perfectly clear, there was greater protection, obviously, if they were going to be privately owned natural resource protection areas. Given that that's not what the direction that the board is taking, the next level of protection would be to include them into the -- subject them to the rural fringe natural resource protection and cjustering standards. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is there one other option, though, that would be a layer better than that, and that is to include them in the Eastern Collier study? MR. MULHERE: That was never -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I think that's what Wayne just said was one of the options. MR. ARNOLD: I think what I'm saying is it certainly is an option, given your direction to expand that beyond what I understood the original boundary to be. It is not something that our committee necessarily discussed nor is recommending to you. COMMISSIONER BERRY: That wasn't my intention when I voted on that last vote. My intention was up in that northeastern corridor. It didn't have anything to do with the other areas. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we continue with his presentation and ask our questions at the end? Page 22 May 18, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Go right ahead. MR. ARNOLD: I just had a few more points to make as our primary issues that we discussed. And again, as I said, we left the policies intact that dealt with the wildlife protection and wetland protection measures. One of the other what I could consider significant things that we did do was in addition to recommending that those areas designated as private NRPA's be subjected to the rural fringe and cjustering criteria, we also recommended that we delete the Belle Meade -- North Belle Meade subdistrict that is highlighted within that area as gray, south of Golden Gate Estates. That was because we felt like the protection standards that we have recommended to you were significant enough, and the only distinction given to that North Belle Meade district essentially was the elimination of golf courses and a few other conditional use type uses in that area, and we felt there were protection measures already established in the criteria we were giving you that we didn't need to cull out that area separately. It is fairly remote, but we didn't see the need to add an additional level of protection, only in the sense of eliminating two or three land uses in that area. The other thing that we looked at with some detail was the water and sewer sub-elements. As part of the original settlement package that you were presented back on March 19th, you saw a proposed map change to the Collier County Water/Sewer District service areas. You also saw policies that were written that would mandate a minimum 100,000-gallon per day private package plant requirement. What we have recommended to you is that you eliminate the 100,000-gallon per day requirement for areas that are within that sewer and water district boundary of the counties, and that those same systems would be subject to the same criteria that anyone else that's in those service areas, whether in or outside the urban boundary, use -- let them size a system appropriate for the development. If it's a 50,000-gallon per day plant, that would be better than having them build an over-sized plant for an interim period of time that they then otherwise might connect to the county system. And what we've said is that if you don't cjuster your project, or you're outside that area, you would have to develop that minimum 100,000-gallon per day plant. So your incentive obviously is to cjuster your project again. I think that was the thrust of most of our discussion, how to make cjustering the preferred option and still allow development to occur in a reasonable manner. I think those are the primary highlights that I've noted in our committee's work over the last week. We have do specific language, if the board's interested in going through policy by policy in specific text. I know Bill has spent many hours trying to put that in order. Bill may want to add, if I've failed to mention anything, or if you have some other specific questions of me, I'll be certainly happy to answer those now or I'll be here to answer those later. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Any questions? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Could we get the spreadsheet back up? MR. LORENZ: Yes, for the visualizer. That's correct. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There we go. I just want to make sure that I'm clear on this, on the retention of naturally functioning native vegetation. Let's take a hypothetical example of a parcel of land that's 100 Page 23 May 18, 1999 percent naturally functioning native. And let's see how this is then administered to that particular piece of property. It says that you cannot impact more than 25 percent of that site, but then you can under what circumstances? Just run through that example for me. MR. LORENZ: Let me switch view graphs. This might help. I was trying to sketch this out. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Maybe back it up a little bit. MR. LORENZ: Basically the vegetation requirements say that you have to preserve 40 percent of your functioning vegetation that you have on-site. So if you -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But at the same time, it says you can't impact more than 25 percent. MR. LORENZ: That's correct. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And this takes the -- MR. LORENZ: The 25 percent is the floor that you cannot impact. No impact is allowed for that first 25 percent. Between 25 percent and the 40 percent, you may impact that fraction of vegetation right here, subject to the restoration standards that Wayne covered. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. So if this site was 100 percent naturally functioning before we started, you're saying that we could take off 75 percent of it, and then we have to find a way to get back to 40 percent. MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay, put that other spreadsheet back up, because I don't think that's exactly what that says. It says no more than 25 percent of the site of the native vegetation can be impacted. So the way I read that, and maybe I'm just reading it wrong, but it looks to me like you can impact 25 percent of 100 percent and be left with 75 percent of the site that you can't impact. MR. LORENZ: No. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I remember last week that it was actually worded no less than, and you had lined through it. MR. LORENZ: We had a change that -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand your point. We want to make sure we word it so we don't flip that around. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, it just seems to me to be in conflict with the other statement that you have to try to obtain 40 percent of the site. MR. LORENZ: If you could turn to Page 10 of the handout that I gave you that's entitled Recommended Language Changes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. MR. LORENZ: Policy 6.4.2. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. MR. LORENZ: That's the actual language that we've got in the document. And I can work through the example. I think where we're getting off a little bit is, is mixing the 25 percent of the site and 25 percent of the vegetation. In this example here -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. On Page 11 at the top of the page, I think it states it in a clearer manner. Yeah, it's clearer on that than it was on the spreadsheet. MR. LORENZ: Yeah, whether you're -- back on this, whether you're looking at retention versus destruction. And one's more, and one's less. Again, just to make sure we're clear, there is no impact within Page 24 May 18, 1999 25 percent, so that first -- if you will, that first 25 percent -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I know that's what we -- MR. LORENZ: -- you cannot have an impact. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- were trying to get to, but I just -- the way that spreadsheet was written, it just didn't seem clear, that that was -- that the two statements seemed to be in conflict to me. MR. LORENZ: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Other questions for staff or for Mr. Arnold? COMMISSIONER CARTER: In these examples that you're giving me, and we talked about wildlife connectors and corridors, are we making sure that we are protecting those corridors? I mean, you can talk percentages, but you can chop up a piece of property where wildlife does not have a map to get through it. So are you designing into this the way to make sure that we protect those corridors? MR. LORENZ: Yes. On -- one way, of course, is looking at this restoration ratio of .75. That basically is an incentive, that vegetation that you can impact. If you put it back as a corridor, you don't have to preserve as much of the vegetation, because now you're going to put it back as a corridor which has a higher value than just putting vegetation back wherever it may be. So that was one point the committee wrestled with was how to provide that incentive. So that's one area that's built into it, with the .75 to 1 ratio if you create the corridor. The other performance standards exist on Page 11, Item C, where there's language on 2, that discuss the connections of corridors. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm just concerned in our future planning processes, when people come in with PUD's, that the PUD does not compromise what we're doing here and we end up not accomplishing the objective. MR. LORENZ: Right. Well, the other language is on Page 12, F: Preserved natural areas shall be connected throughout the project area and be connected to off-site natural areas to the greatest extent possible. Those are performance standards to the degree that you have to draft a standard to the greatest extent possible. Works with the other requirements that we have in that we think that that's the standards that we have proposed. Works toward the site to try to group the vegetation into connected -- larger connected areas where there are listed species present and corridors that do exist. These standards guide the configuration of the site to accomplish that objective. But this is on a site-by-site basis. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner? COMMISSIONER BERRY: I just have a question on -- this is on Page 12 regarding earth mining. Is there anything that -- I don't know if this is the appropriate place to put it, but if any earth mining is taking place adjacent to a main highway, that there has to be a certain amount of buffering? MR. LORENZ: Nothing in this particular language. I -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Where do we address that? Is that through the Land Development Code? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: At zoning approval time. MR. LORENZ: The question is, is there any standards that require a buffering from earth mining from roadways? Bob may answer that with regard to the conditional use process. MR. MULHERE: There are no standards in the comprehensive plan. Of course there are buffering plans contained in the Land Development Page 25 May 18, 1999 Code. But frankly, the way that that will be addressed will be through the conditional use public hearing process when we look at a case-by-case basis. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. All right. MR. MULHERE: How close is one excavation operation to a roadway will have an impact on what the staff recommends as far as what type of buffer. And of course, if there's a natural area in that area, then they would be likely to retain it in that location to meet their preservation requirements, so -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Other questions for Mr. Arnold or for staff? COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have a question on private NRPA's. I mean, I know we were suggesting taking this out, but what was the value of having a private NRPA? MR. LORENZ: The staff proposal was that those areas that we designated as private NRPA's would have a density of one unit per 40 acres. So that would be a substantial difference between the current one unit per five acres. And that there would be a -- very much a restrictive land uses that would be allowed within the NRPA's. And those were the mechanisms that we propose to protect those highly environmentally sensitive areas. So land use restrictions and a density reduction for those particular private NRPA's. Those restrictions would also carry through to what we are calling the public designated areas as well, because there were some -- there were, of course, some private in-holdings within those areas also. So again, to answer your question, land use restrictions and a very low density. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Arnold, the reason the committee removed those was? MR. ARNOLD: Primary reason, again, was the fact that the largest systems were going to be included in the Eastern Collier Properties' policy. The other two remaining areas, while they were -- while obviously there's been an acknowledgement that they may be more environmentally sensitive than other areas of the county, we felt that the protection standards that had been addressed in the cjustering criteria that we're proposing to you for the rural fringe were adequate for those areas until such time that a public entity might want to buy those properties. The same recommendation that we had for the areas that had been indicated as public NRPA, that the private in-holdings should be entitled to the rural fringe criteria until that public entity move forward to purchase those lands. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aren't there also restrictions on those properties that are particularly environmentally sensitive from other governmental agencies? MR. ARNOLD: There certainly will be. We do know that some of those in-holdings as much as a section at a time are currently agriculturally developed and utilized. So some of those lands clearly do not have the same level of environmental sensitivity that other lands do. And it's recognizing those lands as those that should be entitled to develop based on these rural fringe criteria, unless the public agency wants to move forward to acquire those. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Other questions? We should go to speakers. MR. FERNANDEZ: Speakers are Chris Johnson and Bruce Anderson. MR. JOHNSON: Good morning. My name is Chris Johnson, and I'm Page 26 May 18, 1999 representing myself, as well as my partners who are landowners in the rural fringe area of Collier County. First I'd like to recognize the ad hoc committee and the staff for their time and effort in developing a set of standards for the rural fringe area in attempting to balance the needs of all Collier County residents and landowners, often in the face of criticism. During this process, many people have argued that there should be extremely tough standards to limit development in these areas. And people have also said that the ad hoc committee was too developer friendly. No one should make the assumption that these standards recommended by the committee make it easy for developers. On the contrary, from a developer's perspective, these standards are too tough, particularly for the owner of a 200 to 300-acre tract who doesn't have the same flexibility to give away large portions of his land as the owner of a 1,000-plus acre tract may have. For example, landowners being asked to set aside 30 percent of the site, where currently 100 percent can be developed, that is not developer friendly. Development must work around vast amounts of non-wetland vegetation, creating a severe land planting burden. Landowners being asked to require to preserve land that is up to 50 percent infested with exotic vegetation, which may very well look terrible after the required clearing of the exotic infestation. Development is difficult enough already. We already have the Army Corps of Engineers to protect sensitive environmental lands. These new regulations imposing a higher standard and guaranteeing even more complicated, lengthy and costly permitting process. Part of the problem is that these standards were developed in a one-size-fits-all mentality, despite the fact that the lands that are being covered can be remarkably different. You may have a 100-percent forested site versus a totally cleared ag. field, the site supportive of wildlife versus a site with no wildlife at all, a site with a pristine naturally functioning ecosystem versus a site with unattractive vegetation, resulting from the altered hydrology caused by surrounding landowners. Good example of that is the Immokalee Road corridor. You have a mining pit out there which will be replaced by a high density project. You have RV parks out there. You already have developed to the far east going out towards Orangetree with TwinEagles and Bonita Bay. This area is truly different than other areas of the rural fringe. Nonetheless, given the short time frame in which we had to come up with solutions, a system designed to apply a variety of standards based on all different types of existing land would be too complex and unworkable, so compromises needed to be made to protect both property rights and the environment. We recognize this, and therefore, we are not happy with the standards. We support the standards recommended by the committee, even though we don't now yet know whether our proposed projects will be viable. All we do know is that it will take a lot of time and cost a lot of money to develop under these standards. But we support the committee and the staff because they've responded to your direction and believe this is the best way to protect the interests of all residents and owners of property in Collier County. And so we will live within these systems, despite the fact that we did contract to acquire land for good money under the old standards, and we have lost some value and functionality of the property under the new standards. During this process, we've also heard people say that development Page 27 May 18, 1999 standards must be set such as to stop urban sprawl. The rural fringe area is intended to be a transitional use between the high density urban zone and the truly rural outlying areas. The density of one unit per five acres prevents a truly urban appearance for these areas already. Standards proposed here go even further. The cjustering alternative does protect the environment by limiting the development impacts to targeted areas of each site and avoiding spread-out developments as well as septic. Clearly this is a benefit to the overall environment. In return, however, property owners should have flexibility with respect to the remainder of the site, particularly when proposing open space and recreational uses. The set-aside and preservation standards here go beyond merely protecting the land. Any tougher standards than this would possibly serve to strangle viable development and potentially create the risk for damage claims from existing property owners. Also, the rural fringe does not encompass that large of an area, although it may be growing today. And much of its ecosystem has already been impacted by previous land uses. We should focus our real preservation efforts on the vast amount of land outside this area where a viable ecosystem supported vegetation and wildlife still exists. In summary, while we do not like the standards proposed, we support them in the interest of moving forward, settling the litigation surrounding the county. We urge you to take a strong position when presenting these recommendations, because the standards are tough enough already. We cannot afford to negotiate off of them. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay, the next is Robert Duane. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: He waives. MR. FERNANDEZ: Then mark Morton. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Morton, are you speaking? And after Mr. Morton? MR. FERNANDEZ: Alan Reynolds. MR. MORTON: Good morning. I'm Mark Morton. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Reynolds, you come up. You're the next speaker. Will you be on deck for us? MR. MORTON: Really I'm here as your ex-chairman of your unified Land Development Code all those years ago, and someone who participated in the original comp. plan development. I attended basically one full meeting of the ad hoc committee yesterday that you all put together to meet, I believe, in the sunshine with anybody could show up to it and comment. I just want to compliment county staff, the committee and the other people that were in our room. They worked very, very hard. They spent I think about four hours yesterday just going item by item through what they were using as a base, which is kind of the original settlement language that had been negotiated and the goals that I think that they heard from you guys that they wanted to try to accomplish. So I thought they did an outstanding job. And really, if you compare our comp. plan today to what they've come up with, it's extremely, extremely improved on environmental and probably much more restrictive, and I think it's something that the community can be very proud of versus feeling that we aren't doing Page 28 May 18, 1999 anything. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Alan Reynolds. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And after him? MR. FERNANDEZ: That's the last one. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I think -- MR. REYNOLDS: Madam Chairman -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Excuse me. Just before we start, I had told the other speakers that since I had divided up their subject matter, if they -- you'll need to call them again and see if they have something to say on the fringe. Go ahead. MR. REYNOLDS: Thank you, Madam Chairman. If you may, I want to speak to the entire issue we've talked about today, and I hope this is the appropriate place to do that. And I'm going to speak to you today as a resident of Collier County and not on behalf of any clients. So that's a somewhat unusual role for me. I'm a 21-year resident of Collier County. I have six concerns. And I'd like to just identify them for you. And they have to do with the debate that we've been in. My concerns are these: The first is, I have a concern about people who advocate environmental protection who.have never directly purchased land or funded the restoration of such land. I also have a concern with people who describe themselves and their organizations as willing to work collaboratively to reach responsible and balanced solutions and then do not. I have a concern about the use of opinions, emotional arguments and sweeping generalizations to the exclusion of factual information. I have a real problem with people who characterize our community, which as we sit here today is in excess of 90 percent open space and preservation, as going to hell, when we enjoy perhaps the highest quality of life in Florida. And I think we'll remain enjoying that quality of life. I have a real problem with people who characterize everyone that is associated with the development industry as the enemy, not to be trusted, and without any values towards the protection of the environment. I have a concern with people who criticize and find fault without offering any solutions, and then they criticize the private sector when they come forward with a possible solution and are willing to fund it. My company is one of the 5,600 member families of The Conservancy. I will put the record of my company's clients up against The Conservancy, the Florida Wildlife Federation and the Collier County Audubon Society, all of whom you've heard from today, on a simple test. Over the past 10 years, who has preserved or purchased more land for environmental protection, created more water resource management, or enhanced more impacted natural systems in Southwest Florida? I think that's a worthwhile test. Let's have some balance in these discussions. It's fine for people to stake out extreme positions on both sides, but the real work is done in the middle. And that's the work that your committees have been doing. And I am appreciative, frankly, that the Board of County Commissioners has been willing to listen to these debates for the better part of a year and has worked to reach a balanced solution. I think one has been presented to you today. I think it deserves your support. But I would certainly encourage folks who want to Page 29 May 18, 1999 participate in working out balanced solutions to come to the table and let's work together. Because as we go forward, that's where the real solution lies. We have Florida Forever. If you read Florida Forever, the heart of that concept is a public/private collaboration. Yes, it's funded by the government. Yes, it's funded by the taxpayers. And they're looking at new techniques. They're talking about less than fee simple purchase. They're talking about environmental enhancement as requiring a significant funding. That's where we need to go. And that's -- those are my comments. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Alan, before you go, my -- a fear that I have is that the groups that you're asking to come to the table and participate may have found themselves burned by this process. Because starting with TwinEagles, we asked The Conservancy to meet with our staff and the public and to develop a set of standards, and they did that. They did that. They worked hard and they provided a solution. And now it's being gutted. So what is their motivation to continue to work with us instead of take an extreme position and fight from the outside? I'm sincerely worried that having gone to the years, more than a year of work, and now for it to be rejected, that we may be at a crossroads that will go just the opposite of the way that you're suggesting and that I agree the process should go. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before you respond, let me just tack on to that, I think the TwinEagles process, as you have mentioned, is a good example of what Alan's talking about, whereas some of the groups refused to participate in that at all. And I think that's exactly the point you're trying to make. I think secondly, and I would ask Alan's opinion on this, suggesting that we have gutted that process is an exaggeration, I think. Has it changed? Sure. But I would certainly ask your input or your opinion on whether you think gutted is the appropriate term. MR. REYNOLDS: Well, now let me differentiate, because I've read the transcripts and followed the record of this discussion for two years, and I will compliment The Conservancy publicly because when they came forward with the TwinEagles standard, if you will, they made it very clear in those discussions that this was a starting point, it was appropriate to that particular project, it certainly required public input, it would not work in every instance, and they've repeatedly said we will be there at table to work out this. This is the starting point, not the end solution, so -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But then they were. That's -- I'm not saying that the TwinEagles standard -- I mean, the process went on from there. They did -- am I right, met with staff, had some meetings, talked about it? I mean, there has been more than just the TwinEagles discussion. That's my point. MR. REYNOLDS: There certainly has been more, but frankly, I would not characterize it as one of a collaborative process, at least from the standpoint of those who are standing up today and saying that there's no balance in what's being proposed. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is that just because you didn't participate? Why weren't you there? MR. REYNOLDS: I've been participating. The second comment I will make, as far as characterizing what's been brought forward to you today as gutting standards, I would suggest to you that not only have we raised the bar, perhaps not as Page 30 May 18, 1999 high as some would like, but we have also taken a position, frankly, that exceeds what most counties that I'm familiar with in the State of Florida, have taken on these issues. So contrary to what's being characterized, I think Collier County is, again, leading the way towards coming up with standards that are going to work for the future. But certainly, there's got to be some balance. And, you know, Commissioner Mac'Kie, I did a little analysis, and I think it will -- it was enlightening to me. I took the land use of Collier County, the future land use map, and I took the land use categories and I took the acreages, and I projected today how much of Collier County is an open space and how much is likely to be an open space at the end of the day when everything that your plan says can be developed is likely to be developed. Very interesting. And now I'm calling open space not just natural area protection, which is already about in excess of 60 percent of the county, but I'm also talking about landscaped open spaces, open water bodies, golf courses, those types of uses. As we sit here today, the number is in excess of 95 percent of Collier County is in some form of open space. By my projections, at the end of the day we will be in excess of 90 percent. Now, I own a little two-and-a-half-acre piece of property in Golden Gate Estates which is on the receiving end of a lot of criticism. Out of my two and a half acres, about 2.2 acres is natural habitat, with all kinds of critters and birds and everything else. Snakes even, which sometimes my family is not real happy about. Now, you look at Golden Gate Estates, which is 62,000 acres of land, and you factor in every one of those lots being developed and how much of that is going to be natural retained habitat at the end of the day. It's about 75 percent. So let's look at the facts rather than looking at the sweeping generalizations and the emotional arguments. And I would suggest that when we do that at the end of the day, instead of beating ourselves up over doing a bad job, we're going to find that, frankly, we've done a pretty good job. We can do better. We have some challenges to deal with. We're all going to be sitting at the table. I certainly will be sitting at the table. And I would just hope that the environmental community will bring something to the table that will help us move forward. And I think they have a lot to offer. But I think, you know, there's got to be a willingness to sit down and collaborate. How are we going to get things done? Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you, Alan, for those comments. I appreciate it a great deal. Because one of the things that's troubled me in this process is if you don't come to the table and you're not willing to participate, you're not willing to make suggestions, how will we ever get to where we want to be? The table's been open for a long time. And when we ask people to come to serve on this ad hoc committee, I'd like to know where the people were that are here today who are objecting so much to what we're doing, because you had an opportunity to be there. And I don't think that we've gutted the process, and I think we've made a lot of progress in what we're trying to do. So I just hope in the future when you have an opportunity to participate, you come to the table. If you don't, I don't know what to tell you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I guess now would be a good time for us to Page 31 May 18, 1999 take a 15-minute break. We'll be back at 11:00. (Recess.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We'll call the meeting back to order. We were at public comment. If you would call the next speaker. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is David Guggenheim and then Nancy Paytono You did wish for me to call these again, right? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I do. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They get double time? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, because it's split. Separate subjects. MR. GUGGENHEIM: Very briefly, for the record, Commissioners, David Guggenheim, president and CEO of The Conservancy of Southwest Florida. I just wanted to respond to Mr. Reynold's emotional appeal for non-emotional arguments, and state for the record -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we just have the public comment on the agenda item instead of a response to another member of the public? MR. GUGGENHEIM: I would just like to state for the record that The Conservancy through its efforts has helped to preserve more than 300,000 acres of environmentally sensitive lands in Southwest Florida. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And I owe Alan an apology, and I want to just make it right up front. I misunderstood, Alan, the process that staff worked with Conservancy on those guidelines post-TwinEagles, but not with the general public. So you didn't have the opportunity to participate. I found out that on the break and wanted to apologize to you. MS. PAYTON: Hello. Nancy Payton, representing the Florida Wildlife Federation. I did attend many of the meetings that your advisory committee held in the past couple of weeks and participated quite aggressively when I had the opportunity. And so I will say that when the public did show up, that we were given the opportunity to share our concerns and engage in the conversation. Doesn't mean I like what they concluded. As I understand, the proposal, as it's being discussed today, we're going to have no private NRPA's. And our understanding of NRPA's was a way to identify wetlands, important wetlands, slews, ecosystems, and to provide ways, creative ways, to divert or to direct growth elsewhere. No density reduction now on ag. rural lands, as I understand it. We only have density reduction on a few selected parcels in the urban area. And I did get out my ready map and look at some of those parcels, and in reality, we're not getting a lot of density that we wouldn't have gotten already just leaving the land the way it is. One is a water body. The rural fringe has been expanded into the Picayune Strand State Forest. And previously there were no golf courses going to be allowed on those conservation lands. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does the state own that land? MS. PAYTON: As -- some parts of it, yes. And other parts are under a willing seller program. But in the proposal that was discussed on March 19th was that those areas would be identified as conservation areas, private NRPA's. Now we have no private NRPA's, and in those areas we are now, as proposed, going to have golf courses in basically the same type of Page 32 May 18, 1999 intensity that's along the Immokalee corridor down 41. But what's most concerning to me is that touching on Commissioner Carter's concern that he's driven home a couple of times about interconnectedness with wildlife corridors. And again, I'm not quite sure what the corridors are and where they go and where they end up. And that brings me back to still I feel the need for a master plan that identifies important wetlands and wildlife habitat, and you work the development back from that. You do the landscaping, the overall planning, and then work back down to site by site, and how it fits into that overall master plan. We still don't have that for the rural fringe. I understand that's a concept that's being worked into the far eastern part, but the rural fringe is piece by piece, site by site, and if they happen to connect up, that's fine. If you have four parcels that connect and yours is the last one, you just kind of have to work around what the other ones did instead of understanding beforehand large flow ways and wildlife habitat. And then developing within the site, maybe the corridors, between those larger areas. But we don't have that master plan and we don't have that detail on site by site. Florida Wildlife does not embrace this proposal that's being brought forward. We feel that what's being proposed along the rural fringe is an aggravation of urban sprawl. It brings TwinEagles type developments to that area and throughout the rural fringe. And we feel that we can't wait three years or longer for protection of important wildlife habitat and wetlands. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Brad Cornell and Ty Agoston. COMMISSIONER BERRY: While Brad is coming up, would someone just again identify the rural fringe area? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: All the gray. MR. MULHERE: All of the gray, which will be expanded now to include other areas that were slated for private natural resource protection areas, and also, privately held lands within the Picayune Strand. Those lands that have not been acquired by a public entity will also be designated rural fringe. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Are those gray on that map? MR. MULHERE: No, they're not. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So can you attach them or something? MR. MULHERE: It would be in this area here for the Picayune Strand. And here's North Belle Meade. And these areas here as well, which were slated -- as of March 19th the proposal was they would be private natural resource protection areas. The recommendation that you have before you today is to designate those rural fringe and only to change the future land use map to include those in natural resource protection areas when they have been acquired. COMMISSIONER BERRY: And in the meantime, though, they stay as they are. MR. MULHERE: They would have an underlying zoning of rural agricultural. Also rural agricultural comprehensive plan designation with a sub-designation of subdistrict of rural fringe, which does provide those additional natural resource and cjustering protection standards as an option. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Bob, in the meantime, can a TwinEagles proposal come in and be approved on some of those gray areas? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's the critical question for today. And Page 33 May 18, 1999 as far as I'm concerned, what's the bad news is that not only could a TwinEagles type proposal come in and be permitted in those gray areas, something more intense than TwinEagles could come in on those gray areas and be permitted, if we adopt the committee's standards. And that's where the development pressure is. The eastern Collier stuff -- I'll save my comments. Sorry. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I don't know if that's totally accurate, but let's wait till we get done with public speakers before we have that debate. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, I think it is, but go, Brad. MR. CORNELL: Again, I'm Brad Cornell. It's nice to see you again. A couple of comments on the rural fringe area. I want to express my concern that this whole process initiated by DCA and with Collier County Audubon and Florida Wildlife Federation and the school board as interveners was a very comprehensive process. It was looking at, really, the entire county and growth issues throughout the county. Sixteen very large important issues. And I'm concerned that what's gone on now is that we've divided this whole issue up, not unlike an analogous division of permitting of single projects and then losing what whole we want to retain. So I feel that this process is not a good one. I don't subscribe to, I don't believe -~ the Collier County Audubon Society does not endorse the committee's recommendations as either the eastern lands committee nor the rural fringe committee. Again, eliminating the NRPA's is ill-advised. It's something that is overdue. It was supposed to have been done by 1994. We still don't have those sorts of protections. And that's the sort of guidance that we need if we're going to have development criteria for individual projects. We need to know what large systems we're going to maintain without NRPA's, which is a minimal level of identifying those areas. We're lost, literally. And in the rural fringe, let's not kid ourselves, if we're going to extend water and sewer and have golf courses and cjustering and not reduce the density, then really what we're going to be doing is encouraging development that otherwise would not incur (sic), and this essentially becomes an urban fringe, extension of the urban area. We have to be honest with ourselves about that. Many people, including growth management experts, some that have come in front of you here, and other development projects, have said that one unit per five acres all over rural Collier County is over capacity. That's too many units. It's too dense. So we have a problem with that. The quote, rural fringe is a rural agricultural area, it is not an urban area, and we shouldn't be making it fit that description. And finally, I would just address the concern that too much of Collier County is preserved in open space and natural resource protections, or that so much is already, why do we need to do any more? And Collier County is a wonderful place to live because of its internationally unique natural environment. That's why so many of us have moved here. As you've heard many times, we do our community a disservice not to add every protection that we possibly can. This is not a normal place. We do not -- we should not be doing business as they do it in Cleveland, Detroit, and Boston. We should be doing business to fit the unique, wonderful systems of Southwest Page 34 May 18, 1999 Florida, which are not like any other place in the world. This is why we advocate for stronger protections and for eliminating growth in the rural areas. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have a question, Madam Chair. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Please. COMMISSIONER BERRY: In regard to flow ways and those kinds of things, which the chairman and I have had the opportunity to go out and take a look at, aren't some of those concerns addressed, though, when projects are permitted -- and I don't know, Brad, if you're the one to answer that, or if Alan or staff. Are those things that are not looked at -- aren't they looked at when projects come in? It was my understanding that they were. MR. MULHERE: Well, that's the whole premise behind this proposal is that no single piece of land is exactly the same as another piece of land and whether or not and where flow ways and wildlife corridors may need to be located will differ from one piece of land to another. And therefore, yes, we will look at those when they come in, subject to these conditions or these parameters. Whether the wildlife corridor needs to be on the southern half of the property, the northern half, intersect the property through the middle, whether or not there's a flow way that should be on the eastern half of the property or the western half of the property in order to connect up to existing historic flow ways is something we will have to look at on a case-by-case basis. I don't disagree that in some cases we know. Okaloacoochee Slew is one example of a very large wetland system. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. The same thing would be pretty much true with Camp Keais Strand. MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I mean, you already know, and also South Florida Water Management District is well aware of that as well. MR. MULHERE: And the Corps of Engineers as well. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Exactly right, and the Corps of Engineers. So this is where I'm getting confused. I'm hearing from one side that says we're more or less ignoring these kinds of things, or I think that's kind of what I'm hearing. And then I'm -- on the other side, I'm -- you know, I think I know that -- the different groups that monitor these kinds of things when projects come in. So it's like doesn't everybody know what we're doing? I mean, I think I know what we're doing, but it appears that there is not a cohesive knowledge here that -- I don't know if Brad's group doesn't know or the community doesn't know or what's going on. MR. CORNELL: May I offer my response to that? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Sure. MR. CORNELL: I think it's the general consensus that if you don't put it on the map, even though everybody intellectually knows Okaloacoochee Slew, Camp Keais Strand, CREW, are all important areas. If you don't put it legally on the map with certain meanings of -- protection meanings to being on that map -- in other words, like an NRPA or whatever you're going to assign to that -- then there's no legal trigger for the Army Corps or the South Florida Water Management District to apply any higher level of protection standards than they do to any other project. They're only going project by project. And so therein lies the difficulty. The local government -- and they're really looking to the local government to tell them if there's something special about your area, you need to tell us and put it on Page 35 May 18, 1999 your map. And this is what I think we are all advocating. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Brad, you're not suggesting that the Army Corps or the Water Management District don't have any restrictions on those things right now, are you? MR. CORNELL: No, but they're on a project-by-project basis. They can't -- if they're called in, they're only looking at one project. They can't come in and do our comprehensive plan for us and say well, you know, you've got this whole big system. All they're looking at is the one project. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'm not sure I want Jacksonville or Washington telling me how to do the whole comprehensive system. MR. CORNELL: Exactly. We need to do it for ourselves. Exactly. I agree. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And I just have to comment, too, because I -- this is -- there are two things here: One is, be careful that we don't get distracted by the talk of protecting the NRPA's and how important that actually is. But that can be so distracting, because there is that comfort level that the Water Management District and the Army Corps, et cetera, are taking care of those. But, for example, that little piece of land down there in the south part of the county that I went and showed, you know, at last Tuesday's meeting, even though that is poised for development -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Because it's bare farm ground right now, for the most part. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And it's also a hole in a donut of a water shed. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Even though because it's been bare farmland for a long time, Corp won't have any jurisdiction or the Management District won't have any jurisdiction. We can't count on them to do anything. And we can't count on them much on any of these fringe questions. Absolutely -- I'm not losing sleep, and I can vote for that eastern Collier deal because -- despite the environmentalists saying that it's the wrong thing to do, I can vote for it, because I know that agencies are watching and protecting those. And that, coupled with what we've got in the plan is safe. But this -- the gray area is what's not safe. Don't be distracted. Because there's no freeze on that. And there are lots of those areas that the other agencies have no jurisdiction over. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But Commissioner Mac'Kie, aren't we trying to focus more of our effort on protecting those areas that are, as I think David described it earlier, as fragile, rather than -- to me, that's far more important than some piece of ag. land that has been cleared and farmed, or not, but cleared for 30 or 40 years. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's certainly in the prioritization of things more important. But it's also important when you have a cleared piece of land and you have land that's part of a -- what Commissioner Carter keeps talking about, something that's part of a functioning system, whether it's a wildlife thruway or it's a thruway for water. If it's part of a functioning system or part of a system that is important to be restored so that it can function efficiently, then we have to watch that. And, you know, because of what the -- let me just finish. Because of what the fringe committee has done now, and I can see why they did, Page 36 May 18, 1999 but if we have no NRPA's, the gray area gets bigger, okay? The fringe gets bigger and includes land that we know is sensitive. And we're saying, you can't do urban and it's not quite fair to call it urban, because the density is much less than urban. It's 1 to 5. But it's hard to look at TwinEagles, for example, and not call that urban. It's hard for me to not see that as urban. And that's what we're saying. That and something more dense, or more intense from an impact is absolutely, if we adopt what the staff -- I mean, what the committee is recommending. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Explain to me how. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'll tell you. Because the standards for open space and for retention of natural areas are stronger in the TwinEagles standards. They're stronger -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, we're talking about the standard the county has right now, not one individual project's standards. So when you say this will weaken it, it won't. It will strengthen it. It may be weaker than one individual project, but it is considerably stronger than what the county code is right now. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But listen to what my point was. My -- and you're entitled to your position, I understand that, respect that. But this is the point that I'm making. TwinEagles, if you vote for the committee's plan, you are voting to permit development in the gray areas with lower preservation standards than TwinEagles. True or false, Bob? MR. MULHERE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And my point is, TwinEagles is not the benchmark for the county. The county code is -- and we're all saying the county code should be strengthened. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And what this committee has brought forward is considerably stronger. What's interesting is, you talk about aiming for those things that have been targeted, and making sure we protect those things that have been targeted and are part of a system. And at the same time you pointed out that gray block down on the East Trail, which is neither. That has specifically been excluded from all the programs, and is not part of any system. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Have you seen the map of the -- the map of the alternative developments from the EIS that the Army Corps has done? You know, the draft ADG is coming out. There's a map that they've developed that shows where there are areas that they would say have -- are more controversial for development. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We've seen that. And that square I keep pointing to is white on their map, and what that means is it will be the most intense scrutiny possible by them if they have jurisdiction, which they won't. We're the only ones who do. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We've got a couple of folks here that sat on that committee, and they can correct me if I am wrong, but white on that map means there was no consensus among the group. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And the result of that will be, what we'll be getting is, there will be a list of questions developed. The questions will be longer for white, a little shorter for gray, and then -- and the questions will define whether it's difficult or easy to permit. And that gave me great comfort when I saw.that little square down there in white. And I said, oh, Carmel, this is great, there's going Page 37 May 18, 1999 to be some help for preserving that, or restoring that. And he said, don't get too excited, those are farmlands that have been farmed for a long time so that the soils don't even test hydric. You know, we identified that as an area that should be scrutinized, but we, the Corps, won't have jurisdiction to scrutinize it. We're the only ones. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Let me ask a couple of questions here of staff, if I might. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we finish with the public speakers? COMMISSIONER CARTER: The private NRPA's -- Brad, you don't have to go away. These private NRPA's, I mean, I see two distinct divisions here. I see the ones up here at the top part of this that we -- that are under discussion surrounding watersheds and areas that -- and I'm just wondering if we can't possibly separate those out and maintain those and everything that we're doing and keep those as private NRPA's until we get a better handle on this. The second one is a southern NRPA which, as I understand, could be a flow way. But if it was developed properly, and Commissioner Mac'Kie, I don't know how these standards -- you can put those in here -- but actually develop properly with retention lakes and all of that would probably be better preserved than it is today. We would enhance what we need to do versus it sitting there as vacant farmland. So I'm looking for a way, and I don't know how to get to that way, but I'm looking for a way to make sure that that is done appropriately, Bob. And maybe you can help us with some wording and some suggestions to protect that. I'm trying to separate the two out. I see two different discussions here. MR. MULHERE: Well, I guess I have a couple of comments. Obviously the staff's original recommendation was to include those into privately owned natural resource protection areas because of their environmental sensitivity. I guess I have to kind of repeat that. And although our understanding of the direction of the board was if they're privately held, they should not be a natural resource protection area. That's the premise that the committee worked from. There are a couple of options, I guess, in direct response to your question. One, Commissioner Mac'Kie raised the issue of the preliminary environmental impact statement due out from the Army Corps of Engineers. I respect the fact that the board would certainly want to look at that before they made any reference to that. However, you certainly could retain the option of revising our comprehensive plan amendment to reflect greater protection based on the preliminary environmental impact statement or final environmental impact statement that the Corps issues, if that identifies areas that might be necessary for establishing flow ways. That's an option. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That report is due in June now? MR. MULHERE: Preliminary, yes, it's due any day. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would just be more comfortable doing that rather than on a conversation you had with Colonel Miller somewhere. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No, there's a map. The report is out. The map is out. Do you have it? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The map is out. And again, the white on that map was a no-consensus area. Not that somebody felt there should be more scrutiny, they may have. But other people didn't. The white was a no-consensus area. Page 38 May 18, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And that means there will be more scrutiny. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That may be. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You guys were on that committee. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But that doesn't necessarily mean that it's more valuable or more -- it doesn't mean anything except that there is no consensus on the board. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. MULHERE: I think that my point was that that's a preliminary environmental impact statement, not a final one. And we have not seen a copy of the text or the map. And what I read is that it would be issued on June 4th. So I didn't have anything to react to. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Morton seems to have a copy of that. Maybe you can put it on the visualizer. MR. MORTON: I was also a member of the ADG. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If you would, since I have referred to it, it would be nice for it to be on the visualizer so people know what I'm talking about. MR. MORTON: If you have any questions for ADG, I could clear up what I know. MR. GUGGENHEIM: David Guggenheim, also a member of the ADG. Colonel Miller and his staff briefed members of the environmental community last week at The Conservancy, and in that discussion it was clear that those areas in white would indeed need to meet a higher level of rigor and review by the Corps. That -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If they have jurisdiction. MR. GUGGENHEIM: That's correct. They would need jurisdiction. It would need to be jurisdictional wetlands, et cetera. But those areas, based in part on the controversy and the fact that no consensus was able to be reached, triggered in the Corps process the need for a higher legal of rigor in their review process. And the message there was that it would be -- it would be more difficult to permit something in those areas. But that's my understanding from that meeting. I hope that's helpful. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My whole point, and we had this discussion a week ago, but is that those areas that were cleared and have been cleared for 30 years, I don't want to penalize someone from developing that if their alternative is to go tear up a bunch of trees and roust a bunch of bunnies and destroy good land. And so by making this more and more difficult, we are encouraging that as an end result. And so I think we need to be careful here when we say well, the Corps would, if it was jurisdictional wetlands. It's not. It's ag. lands. It's been that way for 30 years. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Just which side are you going to argue? MR. GUGGENHEIM: Commissioner, I just wanted to respond to that by saying -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've been clear all the way through on the same side. MR. GUGGENHEIM: -- again, it was the intent of the EIS and the Army Corps to look at the entire system and to look at all of these projects in the aggregate and not go project by project. And I think it was their sense that we're trying to protect entire water sheds. So while we may indeed have some destruction of viable lands here and there, the overall benefit is magnified for the entire system. And I think that's what we all have to bear in mind when we consider this map and the EIS, is that it's looking at the big picture. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, I agree. But this is by no means Page 39 May 18, 1999 the first time -- speaking only of this little block down off the East Trail, this is by no means the first time anybody has looked at that overall impact. When the state has done its buying or the Water Management District has done its projections for what was necessary to restore some of over there, they had specifically left some of that intact and specifically targeted other areas for purchase. So this isn't the first time anybody has looked at how that whole water system is going to be impacted. MR. GUGGENHEIM: Well, I would agree with part of that. Certainly, there was a comprehensive review of -- by the Carl Land Acquisition Program in a ranking that is ongoing, looking at how to prioritize environmentally sensitive lands and relating the importance of those lands and the interconnectivity of those lands to the greater water shed. The difference here is that we're actually overlaying that information with additional information about future development and about water quality and other biological indicators that may indicate degradation of the environment. So there is a difference. What this does is it builds upon that information, but also gives us information, information that we -- for example, we might not have in terms of water monitoring and other areas as to us. We need to be careful about development because there are serious impacts to -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand. MR. GUGGENHEIM: -- to water quality, as well as to endangered species. MR. MULHERE: May I just add, my reason for bringing that up is nevertheless, I think it's a little bit premature to utilize any of the potential preliminary environmental impact statement standards. We haven't even had the public hearings that will be a result of that. The Corps hasn't even held public hearings. And for that reason, I was simply suggesting that that may be something to look at in the near future as that's released and as there's final public input on that document, that they could identify some specific areas for flow way connections. And that as I understand it, the Corps can through their review process in those areas require more stringent permitting requirements. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And there's nothing that prohibits us from reacting once we actually have that information in hand. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. MR. MORTON: Could I just add one thing to that? You all authorized a several hundred thousand dollar -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: For the record. MR. MORTON: -- study -- Mark Morton, for the record. -- to John Boldt, who was actually studying that entire water shed for the county, and it deals with those agricultural lands. I'm just aware of it. Also, just a misconception is, being familiar with agricultural land, most of your agricultural land that you see that's cleared like that, you don't see a bunch of ponds around it, where they dug holes and pulled dirt out of it and threw it on the land. Most agricultural clearing has occurred in uplands. That's not a wetland area. It's probably typically historic -- I'm not intimately familiar with that area. I don't know for sure. But actually, that entire flow way flows around that property. Page 40 May 18, 1999 And what -- John Boldt's now looking at it, the Big Cypress basin board's looking at it, what the Corps pointed out during the issue is, that whole water shed needs to be looked at on how it does discharge. Should it discharge back to the north? Should it discharge east, west, south? So I think your rural -- the thing you have today is you have nothing on it. As I think you've pointed out, Commissioner Constantine, today, now you have a 1 to 5 grid allowed there. None of the rural fringe is required on any of these other lands that are surrounded. And having sat through that committee meeting last night, they were grappling with what more do we put on these properties, whether it's a private NRPA or somebody surrounded by a NRPA. And the main issue was that if you have -- generally your private NRPA's have been shown on top of future acquisition lands. And it didn't seem from a legal position, as one position, that the county -- historically this commission has said we don't want to regulate somebody away so we can pick them up cheaper as an acquisition land. So the reason -- one of the big debates on the private NRPA was you were going very far with the rural fringe, so if you stuck at least the rural fringe protection until it was purchased by a public agency, you could not be criticized by those property owners as having taken all of their rights away and really setting it up for public purchase. So that was one of the really overriding things that I heard yesterday discussed. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And I -- MR. MORTON: So the protections, we're really getting there because of rural fringe, remoteness, a lot of it, and the fact it is on a bunch of maps, and a lot of people do know those are acquisition lands. And all the agencies do give them a tremendous amount of more scrutiny. So it seemed like from that level where you are today to where you are going, there was a lot of protection. And frankly, hopefully the state and other agencies are going to start purchasing those lands. And that's the way to ultimately protect it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I appreciate that. The only point that I want to say is, please don't be distracted, again, by the question of whether private lands should be in NRPA's or not in NRPA's. As to the gray on the maps, the question is, the density is 1 to 5, do you want the standards for development? I understand whatever we do today will be better than what we had yesterday. But we also could do the best possible job. And I think that would be the TwinEagles standards and The Conservancy standards that came out as a result of that discussion. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If you're going to do something less -- just be aware that we're talking about what's going to happen in those gray areas. There's no freeze on there, no moratorium there. That's where the development pressure is. And the question is, TwinEagles, is that intense enough or do we, you know, want to do something more? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, when we're talking about intensity, they don't get bonus units per acre or anything out there. One unit per five is 20 times lighter than the urban area. So we're not talking about -- when you say it's going to be just like the urban area, well, it's not. It's not -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's going to be just like TwinEagles. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- even remotely -- it's not even Page 41 May 18, 1999 remotely close. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I wish. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But when you say boy, if we do what they're recommending, it's going to be like the urban area. Or if we do what they're recommending, it's going to be far more intense than TwinEagles. That's not accurate. It's still going to be 20 times lighter than the urban area. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But it's also true to say that it's going to be more intense than TwinEagles, and -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- that's opposite. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Describe intense. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's going to be more intense in the destruction of natural areas -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are there going to be any more units? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- and the percentages -- no, not dense, intense. And if I'm using the words wrong, I apologize. I'm not a planner. But that there -- certainly nobody can debate that the whole reason the committee has this recommendation for us is that they don't like the TwinEagles standards. They don't like The Conservancy standards. So surely there's no question about whether or not what's proposed by the committee is more or less intense than The Conservancy standards. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would just describe it a little differently. I wouldn't say they don't like those. I would say they don't recognize -- they do recognize that one size doesn't fit all. And I think we had -- during our public hearings here, we had two or three examples of how you essentially rendered a product undevelopable (sic.) if you did it that way. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, that's wrong. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the idea was -- no, it wasn't wrong. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No, no, no, that picture that was put up there and used as an example misinterpreted the standards, as I've had explained to me later. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, the point -- I disagree. And it may have been one that was up there. There are certainly any number of examples in the county where you are putting an undo burden on certain properties by doing that. So we can disagree. But to suggest that we're settling for something terrible or -- is just -- it's not doing anybody a service. We're making it far more intense, far more challenging and certainly far more nature friendly than current standards. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I agree. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just because it doesn't meet one particular development and that size doesn't fit everyone doesn't somehow render this process moot or render this process as a bad one. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Other comments? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah, the only other comment that I have is that you continually talk about TwinEagles. And I think no one should forget that we actually had a much better product before we went back to the original zoning. And we wouldn't be back at the original zoning had this not been contested by two groups who would not come to the table. And I think this is important for people to be reminded of this. Page 42 May 18, 1999 COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Who are those two groups? COMMISSIONER BERRY: The Florida -- the Audubon Society and Florida Wildlife. And they would not come to the table, and they should have been at the table. And they would not go. And you had a much better project going when we -- when they came back the first time. But I can certainly understand going back to the original zoning the way they did. And I think that's very unfortunate. And that doesn't seem to ever get caught in any of our discussion, and I think people need to be reminded of that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I think we were in public speakers, weren't we? MR. FERNANDEZ: You have one final speaker that registered late. And it's your discretion whether you want to receive that. Ray Pelletier. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Board members? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Fine. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Sure. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just as Ray's coming up, at least twice today it's been mentioned that two commissioners have toured the property. I assure you that while I was in Nebraska last week and missed whatever official tour was going on, I too have toured out here and am intimately familiar with it, so -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: What are you talking about? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Touring the swamps. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: These various areas and the NRPA's and the impacted areas per our changes. MR. PELLETIER: Thank you very much, Commissioners, for allowing me into the process by which we were about to -- where we were actually considering giving away a lot of our personal property rights for conservation. And I would just like to preface my remarks by saying that The Conservancy's goals were very admirable. And I wish that there was alternative funding methods that we can go about attaining those goals. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Ray, would you identify yourself for the record? MR. PELLETIER: Oh, yes, I'm sorry. Ray Pelletier. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, John. MR. PELLETIER: The problem with The Conservancy program, as I understood it was, was that they were going to basically take 50 percent of a person's property away unless they bought that 50 percent or more somewhere else. I didn't -- I had an ethical problem with that. I know that the goal -- the goals were admirable, but the way that they tried to approach what they were trying to get to was not, in my mind, an ethical way to go about it. I think that you would probably try for -- or at least consider an environmental impact fee. If you had a piece of property that was going to be not preserved above and beyond the already jurisdictional bodies that are in place now to protect the environment and, you know, that a certain scale should be put on that property as far as its environmental sensitivity, that would be something that the voters could vote on as a community and say yes, this is the funding source by which we're going to recover or recuperate the property owner for what they're getting. I didn't disagree with the plan that they put forward before you so much as the premise that it's the county'.s job basically to dictate Page 43 May 18, 1999 environmental preservation standards. I think my opinion is, is that the jurisdictional bodies are already there to protect the environment. You heard that said over and over again. I think that basically if you go with the setbacks in the plan and put in the native plant material and keep the traffic going and the economy going, I think that the public will be served well. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: No other speakers. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. MULHERE: I think probably we're looking for a couple of things that we were taking, I guess, a straw ballot or the board was taking a straw ballot on each item, and then we were looking for probably a direction for the staff to prepare a final response to the DCA, which, by the way, I need to get up to them by tomorrow afternoon. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No pressure. Is there -- are there any items on the committee's recommendations that anyone is interested in discussing? I mean, are there percentages that you think might be higher, or are you just completely happy? Because I could make my next speech again about why I don't like it. But there's no -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion that we go ahead and support the ad hoc committee's report and work and recognize that as we get the Army Corps' report back and the various things that go with that over the coming months, we have the opportunity to address it. But I think this adequately addresses our needs. It goes well beyond where we are now. And I think as Mr. Reynolds pointed out, goes well beyond what virtually any community in the State of Florida is doing. So I think instead of focusing on gee, it doesn't meet one particular community, we need to look at how far it does go. And I think the reducing of the urban areas is a giant step in the right direction. It not only is a good thing and has some good impacts but answers what a lot of the public is asking for, and that is, to reduce the future population, and it does exactly that. The rural fringe, I think we do the same thing. We have -- if we set aside some particular property in any future development in that area, and public is asking for that as well. And it goes way beyond where we are now. As you know, I'm not particularly supportive of waiting the three years on the other one, but the majority spoke on this, we won't go back through that. My motion there is just to hit the third item, we've already voted on the other two, and that is to support the ad hoc committee's recommendation on the rural fringe. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And I'll second that with the -- also, I'd like to commend the ad hoc committee for all their work on it. They had to -- it was quite an imposition at times to jump into the schedule that they had to do with so many meetings so quickly. And they all were good troopers and got in there and got the work done, and I think we owe them a little round of thanks for that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I would weigh in there on that point, that I genuinely appreciate the hard, hard work. And there was a tremendous amount of work done in a really short period of time. And I thank the committee members for that, even though I don't agree with the outcome. Page 44 May 18, 1999 And the only other thing I'll say is I'm not suggesting that TwinEagles is the standard by which all should be measured and that that's the nirvana. The only reason I continue to point to it is I want you -- it's a tangible example of the standards that are reasonable compromise standards. And the standards that we have I think in front of us today, don't do enough. Any other discussion on the motion? COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm still troubled by the NRPA's, I will tell you that, the northern ones. The southern one, I still, I believe, if properly addressed could end up being in a better position than we are now. And I don't know how to get around that. And I don't know really how to amend the motion to protect those northern NRPA's until such a time that we've got more information to deal with that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What about having the standards proposed in the settlement agreement applied to those areas? COMMISSIONER CARTER: I can live with that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's not great, but it's better. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't follow you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, the property that the committee has recommended and you guys have agreed to take out of natural resource protection areas, that the higher standards, the TwinEagles standards, because that's how we've all come to know them, be applied to those properties. It's something. It's better than nothing. It's still not enough. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess we need to be very careful here. Because while I introduced the whole density reduction thing and very strongly feel we need to deal with the growth issue, we have to be pretty careful with private property rights here. And when we talk about NRPA's on private property, these folks need to have the ability to use their own property appropriately. And if -- I think Nancy mentioned, Picayune State Forest, and I said boy, does the state own that? Because when I was a kid growing up in Maine and I went to Baxter State Park, the state owned that. It wasn't, gee, they hoped to have it some day. And the state doesn't own that property yet. And if someone chooses to sell it to them, great they can. But if they choose not to, they ought to be able to use their own property. And the same applies whether that's north or south of 75. If somebody has a private piece of property, until the government chooses to buy that, they ought to have the ability to utilize that property within certain standards. And so to create some extra harsh hurdle for them is unfair to private property rights. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Any comment on that, Mr. Mulhere? MR. MULHERE: Well, we can certainly accomplish either direction as the board gives it to us. We can either apply those standards or not. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That would equate to no comment? MR. MULHERE: Difficult position that you put me in. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll withdraw the question. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, it might be more appropriate, just while we're trying -- you know, you may not want to ask the question at all, but it's really a question more for Mr. Lorenz more than for Mr. Mulhere, frankly, because it's an environmental question. MR. MULHERE: Good. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Bob's happy about that. Bill's not crazy Page 45 May 18, 1999 about it. MR. LORENZ: The committee did debate that issue yesterday. And I'm reflecting the committee's recommendations, because as Bob had earlier said, staff did provide the recommendation for the original agreement. But the committee debated whether to apply additional standards, development standards, to these areas that you discussed. Number one, additional numbers; let's say using the same framework but, for instance, just doubling the numbers, if you will, 80 percent vegetation preservation, up to a 50 percent total site set-aside. They also discussed the idea of reducing the number of uses within those areas as well. So rather than having the same set of land uses that the rural fringe has, you would back those land uses down to pare those down. And the committee did debate that. They discussed that actually on Friday and voted on it yesterday. And they decided that the recommendations that they brought to you with regard to the rural fringe standards applying everywhere would be sufficient. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me -- maybe I'm not following this as well as I ought to, but those are targeted for -- or were, I should say, targeted for NRPA designation because they're sensitive wetland type areas. So, I mean, all the other agencies are going to have a say in whatever happens. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. Which triggers ~- if it's sensitive, it already triggers an Army Corps' review or -- that's my whole point is it's duplicative. Can we call the question? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Any other comments? If not, all in favor of the motion, please say aye. Opposed? Aye. MR. MULHERE: I just wanted to discuss very briefly one last issue with regard to timing that Marjorie originally discussed. We will be then preparing a response to the DCA for their consideration later today and tomorrow, and sending it up to them both electronically and overnight. And they will be meeting with the secretary tomorrow afternoon. And we expect to get, as Marjorie indicated, a response from them late on Friday, the 21st. Late on Friday of this week. Late being after 5:00 or thereabouts. I discussed this with Mr. Arnold and thought with the board's consent that perhaps the committee would want to meet again on Monday, the ad hoc committee, to review the comments of the DCA with respect to what we send them, and then perhaps the board also -- this won't give us much time to prepare anything in advance, but we could certainly give and you a verbal report on their comments on Tuesday, May 25th. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We certainly need to get that report on Tuesday. And I would ask -- I have a fax at home, I would ask that immediately I get it when you guys get it. MR. MULHERE: We'll distribute the report. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm sure other board members would want to get it over the weekend. Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have just a question as far as procedure. If you go to Tallahassee, as I understand you plan to the first week in June, I need some assurance that you won't hedge. The Page 46 May 18, 1999 majority of the board -- I disagree on one part, you disagree on a couple parts, but the majority of the board has spoken. And I need some assurance that you'll present the board's core, you know, group belief with no ands, ifs, or buts. The state shouldn't have any idea that you feel any different on some parts or that I feel any different on some parts, and that our presentation will be one solid united presentation. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I hope that the people who were in the room at the time that I did the presentation asking for the extra 45 days will reassure you that despite the fact that I had a lot of hesitation about that, I was a very aggressive advocate on behalf of the board's position. And I will take that -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I ask that only because in the early Nineties we had a chair who didn't do that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is that right? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No, I know my job. Commissioner Carter, do you have a comment or question? I thought I saw you waving down there. COMMISSIONER CARTER: No, I agree, we need to have a unified front, and I would want a report as quickly as possible as to what's developing in this process. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Margie? MS. STUDENT: I just wanted to ask if you wanted to perhaps reserve an agenda item to discuss it at the board meeting, just an abundance of caution. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, if nothing else, just informational. I mean, maybe they'll agree with us on every point or -- and maybe even if they don't, we won't want to change their minds. .COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If they will buy a lotto ticket, it's worth 66 million this week. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And Marjorie, you had said something about an overall wrap-up motion that you needed from us. MS. STUDENT: I don't know if there -- is there any more, Bob, that the board needs to address? MR. MULHERE: I think your direction's very clear to us. MS. STUDENT: Okay. Because typically what we do is just on the comp. plan amendments is do an overall wrap-up motion. I don't know that that is -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is this necessary? MS. STUDENT: -- necessary. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Let's don't do it if it's not absolutely. Item #3 RESPONSE TO THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND BUDGETING REGARDING THE SHERIFF'S BUDGET APPEAL APPROVED So we are finished with this item, we can move on to the sheriff's budget appeal item. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve staff recommendation. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Any speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: None. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Any discussion on the motion? Page 47 May 18, 1999 If not, all in favor, please say aye. Opposed? (No response. ) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Passes unanimously. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My compliments to Mr. Smykowski on the Page 48 MAY 18 1999 BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATION COMMISSION STATE OF FLORIDA IN RE: Appeal of: Collier County Sheriff's Office Appeal of FY 1998-99 Budget ) Don Hunter, Sheriff ) Collier County, Florida ) ) COLLIER COUNTY'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW CONCERNING THE COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S RESERVE FOR CONTINGENCIES COMES NOW, Board of County Commissioners, Collier County Florida, by its undersigned counsel, and files this Memorandum of Law. FACTS The Collier County Board of County Commissioners has a long standing policy to include a reserve for contingencies for the Sheriff's operating fund in the Collier County General Fund reserves. In fiscal years 1993 to 1996, no separate reserve for contingencies was requested. In fiscal year 98-99, a separate reserve was requested. The Collier County Board of County Commissioners reduced the Sheriff's reserve for contingencies to zero because of the County's long standing policy to include a reserve for contingencies for the 5heriff's operating fund in the Collier County General Fund reserve. The adopted budget policy related to reserves provides: Operating funds may budget, at a minimum, a 5% reserve for contingency. A reserve for contingency is typically budgeted in all operating funds, with the exception of the Constitutional Officer funds. MAY 18 1999 Reserves for the Constitutional Officers Funds shall be appropriated within the County General Fund. DISCU551ON The Board of County Commissioners exercised its discretion and acting in the best interests of the citizens of Collier County, placed a sum for the reserve for contingencies for the Sheriff in the Collier County General Fund reserves. Section 30.49(6), Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part that "... and the board or commission, as the case may be, shall include the reserve for contingencies provided herein for each budget of the Sheriff in the reserve for contingencies in the budget of the appropriate county fund." The Board of County Commissioners determined that it is fiscally responsible to reduce the proposed reserve for contingencies in the Sheriffs budget to zero and include a reserve for contingencies for the Sheriff in the Collier County General Fund reserves. The Board of County Commissioners determined in the public hearings held pursuant to Section 200.065, Florida Statutes, that the "appropriate county fund" for the 5heriff's reserve for contingencies is the Collier County General Fund reserves. The practice of Board of County Commissioners utilizing the "appropriate county fund", viz, the Collier County General Fund rese~es, per Section 30.46(6), Florida Statutes, is consistent with Section 30.49(7), Florida Statutes, which provides: , The reserve for contingencies in the budget of a sheriff shall be governed by the same provisions governing the amount and use of the reserve for contingencies appropriated in the county budget, except that the reserve for contingency in the budget of the sheriff shall be appropriated upon written request of the sheriff. The Collier County Board of Commissioners applies the same provisions governing the amount and use of the reserve for contingencies appropriated in the county budget. If 2 HAY 18 1999 there were a reserve for contingency in the bud_get of the Sheriff? then pursuant to Section 30.49(7), the Sheriff could appropriate the reserve amount by a written request. Although the Board of County Commissioners, pursuant to Sections 30.49(6) and (7), Florida Statutes, selected the Collier County General Fund reserve as the "appropriate county fund" for the 5heriff's reserve for contingencies, it is noted that the Board generally has not denied the 5heriff's previous written budget amendment requests for additional monies from the County's General Fund reserve. The Board has fulfilled its responsibilities, utilizing the empowering and discretionary language of Section 30.49, Florida Statutes, particularly subsections (6) and (7), construed in pari materia, to achieve a legal budgetary determination for the Sheriff. Previous history of the Sheriff's own budget proposal submissions for prior years documents that the Sheriff doesn't perceive that a dollar amount specifically itemized as "Reserve for contingencies" per Section 30.49(2)(a), Florida Statutes, in the Sheriff's budget is required - because it didn't appear in the Sheriff's budget submittals for fiscal years 1993 - 1996. The Board of County Commissioners has reduced an otherwise significant millage increase impact upon the property owners/taxpayers of the County for a Sheriff's reserve for contingencies by not placing it directly in the Sheriff's budget. Nonetheless, the , Sheriff's reserve for contingencies exists, is recognized and available within a county fund and the Board, charged with the County government and constitutional officer budget adoption process, has acted responsibly in its fiduciary role to the residents of Collier County. 3 HAY18 1999 CONCLUSION Collier County's placement of a Sheriff's budget reserve for contingencies in the Collier County General Fund reserves is consistent with Section 30.49, Florida Statutes, and it benefits the citizens of Collier County. Respectively Submitted, 'David C. We'll; EEqui~ '~ County Attorney Florida Bar No. 369233 Collier County Govemment Center 3301 Tamiami Trail, East Administration Building, 8~' Floor Naples, Florida 34112 Tel: (941) 774-8400 Fax: (941) 774-0225 and H~idi F~,Shton, Esquire Assistant County Attorney Florida Bar No. 966770 Collier County Government Center 3301 Tamiami Trail, East . AdministBtion Building, 8~ Floor Naples, Florida 34112 Teh (941) 77~8400 Fax: (941) 77~0225 h:publi~f~99memd cc 5heriffis R~e~e 4 May 18, 1999 Item #4 PUBLIC COMMENT - JOHN BOLDT REGARDING SUPPORT FOR THE COUNTY 'ADMINISTRATOR MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chair, you have one public comment. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Excuse me, we're not quite adjourned. We have one public comment on general topic that's on our agenda. Excuse me, we're not quite adjourned, we're back in session. MR. BOLDT: John Boldt, for the record. I ask you to just bear with me on this. This is really unorthodox and without precedent. I'll be very brief. I just want to make a statement, if I could. If you noticed this morning when the board first started, there were a number of department directors here. We had them lined up against the back wall. And there was about a dozen-plus here. I called all these department directors. And the reason we were here is we want to add our support to our county administrator, Mr. Fernandez. And I say, this is very unorthodox. There's no precedent for it. I don't remember in my 16 years anybody ever doing something like this. But obviously we feel very strongly about it or else we wouldn't take that measure. First of all, they were all here because of my initiative. If there's any blame to be had for this or any credit, I'll take full blame for it. I initiated it. I did all the calling. I did tell Mr. Fernandez what I was doing, but he had no part in this action whatsoever. Obviously, we're here with some strong feelings. Also, you need to know that we're on leave time, just to make this very correct. I told these gentlemen they need to take some leave time. I'm also on leave time, sitting here this morning to do this. But we just want basically for you to know that we appreciate Mr. Fernandez and his management style. He has empowered us as department directors to do our job. And I'm sure maybe not be perfect, but considering the complexity of this county and the growth and the issues you have to deal with, we think it's very appropriate, considering all the things that are going on. We're one of the fastest growing communities in the United States, and for somebody to be on top of it all the time is asking the impossible. We're just basically asking you to reconsider your action the other day and give us department directors an opportunity to give him the type of support that he really needs for providing you with the timely and factual information that he needs to keep you well informed. Some of us have let him down and have provided him with some untimely information. He's at the top, he gets the blame, that's where the buck stops. But really, the blame lies with some of us guys that haven't been doing our job in supporting him like that. So we just thank you just for this brief opportunity for expressing it. Obviously, if we weren't real strongly feeling about this, we wouldn't take the time to be here this morning. And I thank you very much. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, John. MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you, John. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Anything further? MR. FERNANDEZ: Nothing further. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We're adjourned. Page 49 May 18, 1999 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:55 a.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX PAM~S. MAC ~E, C~IRPERSON AT~. DW~iG.H~ E CLERK These minutes appro~ed by the Roard o~ ~.~, y.,,~,~..~ , as presented /or as corrected /. ' ' TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, NOTARY PUBLIC Page 50