Loading...
BCC Minutes 05/12/1998 R REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 12, 1998 OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 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 9:05 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRMAN: Barbara B. Berry Timothy J. Constantine Pamela S. Mac'Kie Timothy L. Hancock John C. Norris Robert Fernandez, County Administrator David C. Weigel, County Attorney Item #3 AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning. I'd like to call to order the May 12th meeting of the Collier County Board of Commissioners. This morning, we're pleased to have with us the Reverend Dr. Les Wicker from the United Church of Christ. If you would please stand for the invocation and remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance. DR. WICKER: Let us pray. Almighty God, we give thanks for the gift of living in a land of democratic process and elected leadership. We pray your guidance on the concerns of this meeting of the commissioners of our county. Give to all sound understanding, far-sighted vision and integrity in judgment. As we gather to begin important deliberations, help us to remember the blessings of living in a great community. Make us eager to make good decisions for all of our people, that the concerns of all might be to their and the community's best benefit. May we be so guided by your spirit in this and every time of need as we offer this and every prayer in your name. Amen. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Dr. Wicker. Mr. Fernandez, do we have any changes to our agenda this morning? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chairman. We have three items. The first is to continue item 8(C) (1). This is the approval of the lease agreement and partial funding for the 4th of July festival. We don't have a specific date for that yet. The second is to move item 16(B) (2) -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's going to fall on the 4th of July this year, isn't it? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We got it and we didn't laugh, so I -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Bad joke. MR. FERNANDEZ: Why don't I just go on with this? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Why don't you just go on. MR. FERNANDEZ: The next one is to move item 16(B) (2) to 8(C) (2). This is waive formal bid process utilizing general contractor service work order system and award a work order to Professional Building Systems, Incorporated for timber and footing piers for Sugden Regional Park, Project 80081, staff request. I'd also just like to call the board's attention to the fact that item 8(B) (1) is a presentation. The consultant making that presentation on the interconnected traffic signal system will not be here until 10:30, so we'll have to wait until 10:30 for that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie, do you have any changes? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing today. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have no changes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have no changes. I will be adding something under -- well, not adding it, under 8(A) (1), have the benefit of discussion to provide you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We've just had notification item 12(B) (2) -- 12(B) (2) is to be continued. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Did they request a time of the continuation? MS. FILSON: I think she said the petitioner called and requested it be continued indefinitely. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, indefinitely? Well, that would just mean for three more weeks and then it must be readvertised if they wish to bring it back after then; is that correct? MR. WEIGEL: That's correct. If there's no date set today it will have to be readvertised. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If their request is indefinite, I'm not going to argue with it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. So that's item 12(B) (2), PUD-96-12. Ail right. Do I have a motion then? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve the agenda and consent agenda as amended. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. Ail in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. Item #5Al PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF MAY 16-22, 1998 AS NATIONAL SAFE BOATING WEEK - ADOPTED Moving on then to the proclamations. Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you, Commissioner Berry. I have Mr. William Reid, the executive officer of the Power Squadron here. Mr. Reid, if I could ask you to come forward to receive this proclamation. This is one that's important to me every year after spending eight years in the Coast Guard, and it's my pleasure to read the proclamation. If I could ask you to turn and face the cameras out here so everyone can see your smiling face. The proclamation reads as follows: Whereas, each year more Americans are choosing recreational boating as an ideal way to relax with their families and friends; however, what starts out as a pleasant cruise often ends in tragedy because boaters fail to teach their families to swim, fail to properly equip their craft with personal flotation devices and other protective equipment, or fail to instruct their passengers in the use of such devices prior to a boating cruise; and Whereas, every year hundreds of lives are lost in boating accidents. These fatalities can be reduced, and boating made more pleasurable, if those who engage in it will emphasize knowledge, care, and the courtesy necessary for safe boating; and Whereas, the Congress of the United States having recognized the need for such emphasis has, by a joint resolution of 4 June 1958, requested the President to annually proclaim one week as National Safe Boating Week. Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of May 16-22, 1998 be designated as national safe boating week. Done and ordered this 12th day of May, 1998. Signed, Barbara Berry, Chairman. Colleagues, I'd like to move acceptance of this proclamation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. (Applause.) MR. REID: On behalf of the Naples Power Squadron, I'd like to thank the commission for executing the proclamation. There's been a change made in boating in Florida with the passage of new legislation which requires education at the younger levels. This -- this change has changed the face of the Power Squadrons in Florida, and to indicate how much of a change it has been, let me relate a story to you. There were a couple of Power Squadron members who were at a meeting up in St. Petersburg, and one morning one said to the other, you know, I went to a restaurant last night and it was a marvelous restaurant, one of the best restaurants I've ever eaten in. The presentation was marvelous, food was great, price was reasonable, and the second man said, and what was the name of that restaurant you went to, and the first man said, it was -- it was -- it was -- well, there's this flower, generally red, sometimes pink, it has a long stem, there are thorns on the stem, and the second man said, are you talking about a rose, and the first man turned to his wife and said, Rose, Rose, what was the name of that restaurant we ate in last night? That happens less and less because we're getting a younger group into the Power Squadron. Safe boating is certainly needed in Florida. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, if I could add to that. The Power Squadron and the U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary offer safe boating classes, and if anyone out there, not just owning a boat, if you are on a boat occasionally, take the time. It's a good education and it may save your life. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good information. Item #5A2 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 15, 1998 AS LAW ENFORCEMENT APPRECIATION DAY - ADOPTED Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, we have a proclamation for law enforcement appreciation day, which will be May 15th, 1998. I believe we have a designee from the Sheriff's Office. Deputy Sanders. You know the routine. You've been here hundreds of times. Whereas, the problems of crime touch all sesments of our society and can undermine and erode the moral and economic strengths of our communities; and Whereas, we are fortunate that law enforcement officers from all area agencies dedicate themselves to preserving law and order and the public's safety; and Whereas, we recognize that the men and women in law enforcement risk their lives on a daily basis to protect our citizens and maintain social order; and Whereas, we encourage all citizens to pause and recognize our law enforcement officers so that we may not take their work for granted. Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the 15th day of May, 1998 be designated as Law Enforcement Appreciation Day. Done and ordered this 12th day of May, 1998, Board of County Commissioners, Barbara B. Berry, Chairman. Madam Chairman, I'd like to make a motion we approve this proclamation. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. (Applause.) MR. SANDERS: On behalf of the Sheriff of Collier County and all the law enforcement people associated in the state, not just Collier County, I'd like to thank the board for its presentation and the proclamation. The understanding of what law enforcement and in general public safety, not only law enforcement, but EMS and firefighters go through and what we put ourselves through on a daily basis in hopes that we can make the county a safer place for the residents here, and I thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. Appreciate that. (Applause.) Item #5Bl&2 EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Next on the agenda, Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm pleased to get to give the service awards today, both of them for five years, and first is Nyankadau Korti, and I hope I'm close on the pronunciation there, from Office of Capital Projects Management for five years of service. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: years, Charles Coomer, Jr. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And now for Domestic Animal Services, five If I were a stray dog, I'd be afraid of Don't leave without this. Item #5C1 BARBARA LEE, OFFICE ASSISTANT II, TRANSPORTATION/ROAD & BRIDGE DEPARTMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION, RECOGNIZED AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR MAY, 1998 CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And this morning also, it's my privilege to present the employee of the month for the month of May, and if we could have Miss Barbara Lee come forward, please, and if she'll come up here and turn around and face the camera, we'll talk about you, Barbara, for just a couple minutes, but it's all nice things, so you can -- MS. LEE: That's fine. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We're saying nice things behind your back. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right, we can talk behind your back now. Barbara is an excellent employee and this is reflected in her annual performance appraisal. In addition to her regular duties, Barbara is the county's Adopt-A-Road Program Coordinator. She performs these duties exceptionally well, and under her guidance, the program has been an outstanding success. It has been estimated that the annual savings from this program to Collier County citizens is $500,000. Under Barbara's leadership, the program has grown from 35 to 75 sponsors, with each sponsor being responsible for approximately two miles of county road. The program is nearing 100 sponsors. Barbara's dedication to this program goes beyond normal working hours. On her own time, she attends and speaks at various civic group meetings promoting the Adopt-A-Road Program. She has volunteered her time to events such as the Collier Cultural Festival and the Immokalee Main Street Program, and due to Barbara's volunteer work, the Adopt-A-Road Program is experimenting with an Adopt-A-Neighborhood concept. Barbara's patience, determination and active personnel time -- personal time and efforts continue to make the Adopt-A-Road Program a success, and that was what got her nominated for the employee of the month for the month of May, So Barbara, we're very pleased to present to you a plaque commemorating this experience for you -- MS. LEE: Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- and a letter, and normally we have a check and the check is not available. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's in the mail. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's in the mail. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Dwight got it. Uh-oh. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Rather than speculating on where the check may be at this time, we're sure Mr. Fernandez will take care of it. MR. FERNANDEZ: We'll take care of it. Item #8A1 CHAIRMAN TO SEND A LETTER TO COLONEL JOE R. MILLER, DISTRICT ENGINEER, ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, REQUESTING THAT THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING DIRECTOR BE ADDED TO THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEER'S ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT GROUP - APPROVED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Ail right then. Moving on to the next item on our agenda, item 8(A) (1) having to do with the -- authorizing the chairman to send a letter to Colonel Joe Miller requesting -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Would you like to know what we're going to request? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Anyway, I'll tell you anyway. We're going to request that our planning director be added to the ADG group and I believe that's currently the case in Lee County; is that correct, Mr. Cautero? MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero, for the record. Yes, Madam Chairman, the planning director of Lee County is a member of the group. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was going to do this under Board Communications, but it's more appropriate, obviously, under here. Two things have happened within the ADG that give me cause for concern, and there are directions that are in direct conflict with the MOU elements. As you may remember, we had a commitment from Colonel Miller that even though the MOU was not signed and acted upon by both sides officially, that it would hold as commitments by the Corps of Engineers. Two things have happened. One is the initial study area that was originally Estero Basin. The secondary, quote, unquote, secondary area that extends out to area 29 no longer exists. It is now all one study area as a recommendation by the ADG. A secondary recommendation by the ADG was the elimination of the word streamline in the phrase streamlining the permitting process. These are two of the -- the core elements that were negotiated from the standpoint of our business community and our property owners, and everyone seemed to sign off on those and have no problem with them, yet they're being altered dramatically in the ADG. I'm going to contact Colonel Miller this week, and I believe the response I'm going to get will be something like, the ADG recommendations are non-binding on the Corps and the Corps commitment still stands. I hope that that is it. If it's anything other than that, regardless of it, I'll report back next Tuesday with what I have from him and we may need correspondence from the chairman to address those issues in writing to make sure that the commitments in the MOU are still being held seriously by the Corps of Engineers and will be held to it throughout the course of the process. So I wanted to bring that to your attention. I'm getting more information from some of our members on the ADG before I call him, but it's going in a couple directions that I think may give us cause for concern. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A couple of the appointments have been corresponding with me on their actions, and one of them expressed a couple of those specific concerns, and the group itself has -- certain members of the group itself have encouraged throwing out the MOU, which is too bad, including some of those people that we appointed. So I take real concern with that. The second area, separate from yours is, right now the Army Corps is saying through late summer or early fall, the group will work -- will put their work together, will turn in whatever they have to the Army Corps and then the Corps will put together the final project from that completely on their own without the group having any final say in what the product looks like, and again, A, I think that's contrary to what we had talked about with Colonel Miller, but also it concerns me a little bit that it's taking it back out of the public. Government, from time to time, gets accused of just going through the motions, and that certainly has the appearance that creates the perception that they're letting the public participate up to a certain point, now they're going to take their ball and go home and decide what the game's going to be themselves. So I appreciate your willingness to go ahead and talk with them because I think it's a very valid concern. We've got three or four areas that are not consistent with what they told this board and the Lee County board when we all sat down. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll add that as a point of my discussion with Colonel Miller. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just to let you know, when I -- the next Governor's Commission for Sustainable South Florida is in about ten days and I'll be spending three days with Colonel Miller and I'll be happy to hand deliver any, you know, any message from this board if that would be helpful and communicate with him. I also just wanted to let you know, although you probably know already, is that what will happen -- the Southwest Issues Group on which I sit is a sub-committee of the Governor's Commission, and the Southwest Issues Group is the committee to which the ADG will present its report. The Southwest Issues Group will then have input into that report before it goes to the Corps for its final refinement, but Bob Duane and I both sit on that Southwest Issues Group committee, so you know, to the extent things need to be communicated in that way, I'd be happy to help, you know, provide that line of communication. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie, question. When you sit on that board, do you sit as a representative of this board? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, I'm careful that I don't. As a matter of fact, they -- they have occasionally said a representative from the Collier County Commission, and I correct that because I'm confident that I'm there in my individual capacity. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just so you know, my discussion with Bob Barron (phonetic) of the Army Corps of Engineers was that the SWIG function would be a vehicle. It was not intended, and this was his statement to me, there was a clarification, because I raised the concern that the SWIG would be, in other words, another reviewing body of what the ADG develops, so if that does happen again -- if SWIG is under the impression that that's going to be their role, that again is an inconsistency and I will -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Our role is -- as I understand SWIG's role, it is to be the facilitator of communication between the general public and the ADG. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The place in which the final meetings are going to happen and whatnot, okay. The vehicle issue, that is consistent, but if SWIG is going to attach their comments, per se, and be given additional weight, that was my issue I raised with Mr. Barron and he assured me that wasn't the case, so if you'll -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, I don't think that is the case. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. If you'll be sensitive to that and at least let me know if that's happening. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely, and as we continue to meet, I mean we have -- the Southwest Issues Group has so far been the -- has been the conduit of providing the ADG committee and the Army Corps the information to come forward and present public information, and what Sue just reminded me of with her note, thank you, is that the board did appoint me as our representative to -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. The reason I asked that question is, there have been a couple of times where you have been a minority voter, a lone voice. I want to make sure if you are there as our representative that you are representing what the majority of the board has said, and if you feel differently, feel free to share that, obviously, but you need to differentiate those two. If you're there representing this board, you need to be representative of what the board's opinion is. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'm real aware, and feel free to check me on this, because you'll find that they know that -- I make them very aware of the fact that my positions are often different from the board's in general, on environmental issues in general, but on these particular issues. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I appreciate you making them aware they're different, but I hope you're making them aware of what the board's position is. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I believe that I am. You also have, FYI, Mr. Cautero, as a representative on the SWIG, Southwest Issues Group. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not to belabor the issue, but I do want to point out that even though we're seeing some things that maybe we as a board are not comfortable with in direction, that's the importance of having a voice in the appointment of individuals, is that we have this line of communication to people who are sitting on that committee so that we are still there. The question now is going to be whether or not the eventual course of this study is affected by doing that, and I think that's going to be the meat and potatoes of whether we should or should not have participated at this level, so I'm not going to pre-judge that, but I hope that it will have a positive outcome. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I had one question on the item itself before us, and that was that the staff report says that there is a vacancy. Is it a 30 member ADG and there's one open slot or -- not that it's relevant because I want to urge your appointment, Mr. Cautero, no matter what, but I'm just curious about that? MR. CAUTERO: Technically, there is no vacancy, but we were relying on statements that we heard earlier that the intent was one-third, one-third, one-third representation. That would be 30 members. There are currently 29 that were approved by the Colonel, so we believe that it would be appropriate to fill that last slot. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'll certainly, you know, use every opportunity to lobby him for that in addition to whatever formal action the board takes through correspondence and explain to him why that is so critical, because it is obviously critical that our comprehensive plan issues be adequately brought into consideration. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Anything further? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Question. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'll call for the question then. Ail in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we had a speaker registered. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm sorry, do we -- MR. FERNANDEZ: We have no speakers. I'm sorry, you added one late. Mr. Agoston. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. AGOSTON: Morning, ladies and gentlemen. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Morning. MR. AGOSTON: I want to express a disappointment at the current membership of the ADG and I also have received a copy of the directions they received prior to their meeting, and that doesn't offer me an awful lot of hope either. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Could you identify yourself, please? MR. AGOSTON: My name is Ty Agoston. I am from that endangered Northern Golden Gate Estates and I'm speaking for myself. There was a headline in the Golden Gate Gazette, which may not be the Metropolitan Daily, but it does cover the Golden Gate and Golden Gate Estates concerns, and the headline essentially pointed to the fact that the permitting process in the estates will change. I take that, in reading the various instructions to the committee, is pretty much negative to the estates, and in this room about a year and a half ago, the state department of the environment was here celebrating a victory over Southern Golden Gate Estates. At that time, some environmental activists made a statement that, well, now, it's Northern Golden Gate Estates turn. It appears that that time came now. I also would like to express a protest to adding any more planners to the membership of the ADG. To be perfectly honest with you, from the planning outcome of changing the zoning from five acres to 20 acres in the area outside of Golden Gate Estates, but the eastern side of the county does -- and exchanging the development rights to the interior of the county does not give me an awful lot of encouragement into whether the county planning department would mirror the county's wishes in terms of government behavior. Additionally, I don't -- I have yet to find government, city, state or federal in favor of promoting less government. They generally promote an expansion of it, being a promotion, what have you, so it's not something that I would be willing to promote myself. I'd like to bring to your attention one of the instructions that came out of the Army, because at this point in time, it appears that the central planning is backed by an Army, is the impact of implementing an alternative on development of economic diversity in the region, and I'd like to ask you, ladies and gentlemen, just exactly what kind of qualifications do ADG members have in terms of economics, economic planning or economic development? I don't see any experience there. I don't see any experience. They may know that the Brazilian Pine is an exotic, so consequently, they want to remove it from the shorelines, and I'm not quite sure how many people in the county agree with that, but I definitely think there's got to be something wrong here. I mean, the membership of the ruling elite in this county at least are really not paying an awful lot of attention to the members of the county at large. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have to point out that when Ty cited the Brazilian Pine as an exotic, which is a species that doesn't exist, this came right after he said in an EPTAB meeting he has no desire to learn anything about exotics, so you have -- you've been successful, Ty -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's an Australian Pine. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- with not knowing anything about exotics. MR. AGOSTON: I just read the big print in the newspaper. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Australian Pine, Brazilian Peppers. MR. AGOSTON: What did I say? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Brazilian Pine. MR. AGOSTON: I was close. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Same hemisphere. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Neither one of them are supposed to be around here, so whatever. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They're both bad. Item #8C2 FORMAL BID PROCESS UTILIZING GENERAL CONTRACTOR'S SERVICES WORK ORDER SYSTEM WAIVED AND WORK ORDER TO PROFESSIONAL BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC. FOR TIMBER AND FLOATING PIERS FOR SUGDEN REGIONAL PARK - AWARDED IN THE AMOUNT OF $236,000 CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Ail right. Moving on then to item 8(C) (2), which was removed from the consent agenda which was item 16(B) (2). This is Sugden Regional Park floating piers. Mr. Olliff? MR. OLLIFF: Good morning. For the record, Tom Olliff, your public services administrator. This item is actually a fairly straightforward item, and for the action being requested, it would have been left on the consent agenda, but we felt it important to at least bring forward to you and make you aware of what the fiscal impact of this particular item is, and we try to keep you up to date, and as you're aware, the project is funded and is structured upon regional park impact fees and a Florida Communities Trust Grant. The Florida Communities Trust Grant was budgeted this year at $750,000, which is a large portion of that construction budget, and to date, the grant bids have not yet been received. So we are at a point today where, because of cash flow on the project's construction schedule, for it to continue, we need to begin moving monies from regional park impact fee reserves in order to keep the project schedule. This is the first item that you'll see of this type. The worst case scenario, if for some strange reason we are not able to get the grant, then, in essence, we would use $750,000 of regional park impact fee reserve funds, and those would not be available to fund projects in the coming year, and we felt it important that you be aware of that. I think you would continue to want to support construction of Phase I of Sugden Park and see it through to its conclusion. The grant is being heard by the Florida Communities Trust Board on May 20th. We are told that it is supposed to be a consent agenda type item, but we did think it important enough we brought it to your attention just in case the worst case scenario did occur, we are beginning to dip into the regional park impact fee resources. With that, I recommend you approve -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Olliff, you -- I assume that when the grant does appear, we will replace the reserves? MR. OLLIFF: We will, and the mechanics of that are extremely complicated because you're working with impact fees which are regulated by ordinance restrictions, then you'll be working with a grant, but yes, finance tells me we can replenish the impact fees. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion. Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I have a motion and a second to approve the item. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can I ask a question? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Sure. Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are these the -- driving the pilings for the floating piers for the fishing? MR. OLLIFF: There's three different pier projects that we're involved in in Phase I. Most of them are for fishing. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Are there any other further comments? Do we have any public speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: No, we have none. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. I might want to also add for those people watching on TV or those of you that are here, last week was a dedication of Sugden Regional Park. If you haven't had the opportunity to go view this park, I would suggest that you do so out here off of U.S. 41 on the East Trail. It's an absolutely beautiful area. It's too bad if you didn't see it beforehand, you should have seen it and then see the progress that's been made now, because it is truly a beautiful place and certainly, I think going to be a great asset, not only to the East Naples area, but to all of Collier County. It is certainly a lovely place. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It will be once they get the grass in. When do we expect the grass in, Mr. Olliff? MR. OLLIFF: They're planting now. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: When will we be dedicating Hancock Beach? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: When the proverbial what freezes over, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: When I die. Item #10A RESOLUTION 98-130 APPOINTING FAY BILES TO THE UTILITY AUTHORITY - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Moving on then to appointment of member to the utility authority. We have one member? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It was certainly gracious of Dr. Biles to apply for this position, and I'll make a motion -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- that we should go ahead and appoint her to it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second for Dr. Fay Biles to be appointed to the Utility Authority. Ail in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. Okay. Fay, we've given you something else you can do as well. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If you get bored, Fay, give us a call. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's an important job though, seriously, one of the most important things you could do. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Absolutely. Item #10B RESOLUTION 98-131 APPOINTING ROBERT SCHOELLER AND THOMAS WATTS, JR. TO THE FOREST LAKES ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED Okay. Going on then to appointment of members to the Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage Advisory Committee. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, two openings, two well qualified applicants, move Mr. Scholler (phonetic) and Mr. Watts (phonetic). COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Scholler and Thomas Watts, Jr. Any comments or questions? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Second. We have two appointments, a Mr. Robert If not, all in favor? Motion carries five, zero. Item #10C REPORT PRESENTED REGARDING MATRIX OF COUNTY GOVERNMENT PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE PROJECTS Next item is the Matrix of the County Government Productivity Committee Projects. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I wanted to add this to the agenda because as the Productivity Committee has been refining their list of -- their to-do list, which I think -- I don't know if this is how they've always done it, but what an extremely organized and well planned way to do it with this Matrix. We have been discussing that it would be important to bring the Matrix to the board and be sure that all of these items, not only you wish to have included on the list, but also to receive your input about what the priority of certain items should be. These are items that the committee -- I couldn't tell you which ones were started before I came on. Commissioner Berry probably could, and which ones are proposed as new items, but they're all obviously on the -- on the table for your determination of whether or not they're what you would like to ask your Productivity Committee to be working on, and -- and in addition, if their prioritization of these are as you would like them to be. Would you like for me to just give you a quick description of them to the extent I can or -- or are they all familiar enough -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think they're all pretty self-explanatory, Commissioner. I guess the only -- you know, where I would like to start -- well, let's just start with each -- just go down through the list. They talk about the BCC board meetings being recorded. Now, that's not the first priority or a high priority -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, but it was apparently a very simple question to find out the answer to, and that is whether or not we should continue to have the expense of the transcription. That started before I got there. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The question was transcripts or tapes in addition to audio -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, it was having the court reporter here, because this was something that was started prior to and there was some discussion about that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It says final report to be presented May 20th, which is only a week away, two weeks away. So, that's fine. I can tell you from my standpoint, I've gone back and used those -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I love it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- dozens of times since we started doing that, so I don't have a whole lot of interest in not doing that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I gave them that same opinion, that -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's three. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If you go down to the next one, which is the economic development plan, my only concern in here are the E.D.C. grants. I'm not sure if that's all -- should all be tied in there or not. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I share that concern. Frankly, I was -- I appreciated the thought of their reviewing the county airport business plan just because I'm not particularly capable of doing that. I did wonder if -- if this was something that the board would see as a high priority to have the committee review the success or failure or, you know, whether or not we are appropriately investing in economic diversification. That's basically the -- the issue there, very broad. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The last two years we've ranked this as a high priority in our list as a board, so I'm comfortable, and while I may or may not agree from an initial standpoint on the grant items, I'd just as soon have them take a look. They're pretty thorough and I'd like to hear what they have to say. It doesn't mean we have to take action, but we usually have a pretty good group here as far as giving us all sides of it, the good, bad and the ugly, so -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's an incredibly talented group with experience in business and economic diversification plans and I -- I think it's important though that you know, and I'm sure you do already, that they do not want this to be viewed as some kind of a criticism or an attack. It's merely an evaluation and it -- to help us reach the goal that we've established of economic diversification. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I think that's in line with what we're trying to do. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, and I think generally, Pam, I don't think there's any -- I don't think there's any problem with that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: As I said though, when I read this and I saw the E.D.C. grants, mainly because there's no explanation as to where they're going to go with it or what they want to do. I don't know what they want to do with E.D.C. grants. Do they want to oversee when applications come in or if it was appropriate granting of funds or -- and what basis -- based on what are they going to make a recommendation? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll be honest with you, what I think is going to happen here is that once they get the information about what the outcome has been so far of the success on the dollar return for dollar invested of E.D.C. grants, they're going to be very pleased, but that's the question, what's the return on the investment and is there an adequate overall plan, and I think they're going to be happy when they look, but we'll find out. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Fine enough. It was just because -- my comment was the, you know, the fact that I didn't see any explanation as to what they wanted to look at. Okay. The next is the Department of Revenue. What can you tell us about that? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This one was one that -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can I just say let's do it? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good, because, frankly, this came up as -- we talk about it every year at budget -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We've raised the bar on Mr. Yankosky and, you know, I think there comes a point when some outside help may help that bar get there, and I think he would welcome that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That was one I really wanted on. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I like that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The next one, I wonder if this is a dead issue regarding the OCPM operations. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: With the pending reorganization, I think to start it now would be bad timing. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, it may well be that our administrator is ahead of the curve on what the productivity committee was looking at, and that was whether or not this was operating the most efficient way, not whether or not we should be doing it, but whether or not its organization was -- you know, but everything's on the table for them, that's for sure. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess my question is, it says estimated completion date, June of '98, which pretty much dovetails what the administrator's doing anyway, so maybe there's no harm in letting them finish. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And he is coming to our next meeting and to all of our meetings, as I understand now, and, you know, it would be good to let them talk about it at the next meeting. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Have they begun this already? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't honestly know. I don't know. Do you know, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: I don't know whether they have or not. C}{AIRPERSON BERRY: See, that's -- I don't remember any discussion about OCPM. I know they were doing the jail study, but I don't remember anything in OCPM when -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: From my standpoint, it may be appropriate for them to review Mr. Fernandez's plan as to its appropriateness and its justification -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's on here. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- but to start a review of OCPM now when there is a pending change in the mill, seems to me to be a waste of time. I'd rather either let that change occur or not occur and then initiate a study if we have questions at that time. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a real good point, and if it's okay, what we'll do is communicate that concern at the next meeting and -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask this. If they've already started, however, if they're halfway through the process, do you have any objection to at least getting their response back on how they -- it might be interesting to see if those match up. Bob's a fresh face and has only been with us a year and has had a chance to look it over and make suggestive changes, it would be interesting to -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: As long as it ties into what he's doing as either, this is good or not good, or this is recommended or not recommended, okay. I just don't want an overview of OCPM at this point. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right, and I agree that they ought to work with the County Administrator. I mean, I think it's something between the two of them. I really don't know that it's necessary that we have a report from them on this since our administrator is already dealing with this particular situation in the reorganization. This ms a matter of, you can sit down and they can -- they can hear you out first, and if they've got anything from their report that they think could be added, fine and dandy, but because -- this is your job. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're asking them to review and comment on the proposed changes relevant to OCPM by the County Administrator. Is that succinct enough? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like that a lot. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Then the landfill planning and options. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is one that you can see it got a low priority and may be irrelevant. It may not be anything you want them to look at. They brought this up to me that they would like to look at the fiscal repercussions of the board's direction on landfill planning. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, we did a two and a half year citizens' committee, so it wasn't just the board that was active in this that ended up with us having some choices. We have looked at the alternative methods, and frankly, the board has set a direction for a 30 year agreement, so this seems like it would be inappropriate, at best. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll just tell you -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Additionally, there was some fairly detailed analysis of the financial aspect of these decisions, so really, this would be -- it seems to me the timing is a little late, plus it would be a redundancy. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll tell you that the -- the similarities to this and to the economic development review are great because basically, what they wanted to do is to look at what our plan was and see if they agree or disagree with it as a plan. They wanted to review, just like they wanted to review on our economic development plan how we're spending money, whether or not our choices are some that they would agree or disagree with. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But the difference being the board hasn't given a 30 year direction for the economic development plan. I mean, this is like purchasing a car or placing an order for a car and then upon delivery of the car, going out and researching what all the information about the car is. We are having another group go do that, and again, we've had a citizens' committee go through this. We've had a detailed financial plan given back to us, paid people to do this. I don't know that we need to do it again. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They brought it up, and it's the will of the board, whatever you'd like. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right, and understand, I think the reason that I'm not interested in pursuing that, or at least directing them to do so, is, one, there are several projects on the table already that I think are higher priority -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And this did get a lower priority. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- but also one of the major issues in landfill relocation is not necessarily fiscal, and when I look at the Productivity Committee and its efficiency in fiscal focus, there is a general quality of life policy, you know, an informal policy that the board adopted relative to the existing landfill location, the majority of the board, excuse me, so, you know, I think that's something that, you know, when you look at just the numbers, it may be a little different decision than when you look at the -- human factor, and have your own opinions of that, so I don't think it really tailors itself to the Productivity Committee as well. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's three, so -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. And then on the next page, the personnel evaluation and the comp. plan, there's no priority given on this. These were new projects, apparently, that they're considering; is that correct, Pam? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It seems like, to me, we're always -- the Productivity Committee seems to always have something with human resources and -- and compensation and evaluation, and it seems to be this never-ending cycle that we -- we're currently looking at a change in the evaluation process, as I understand it, relative to the board's direction on eliminating -- you know, granting automatic cost of living to everyone and the merit, the 1 percent merit and whatnot, so maybe -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- it would be good for them to review the proposal, again, like we did with -- with the previous item, is to review what the county administrator is proposing and to -- to work interactively with him on that because, again, we have something in process. MR. FERNANDEZ: That's what they're doing. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think that's what their intention is. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I would assume that would be welcome and I'd like to see that happen. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Bob's been very good about providing them the information and I think is welcome to their input. Frankly, I think what we're going to hear is they think his idea is a great one, so he probably wouldn't mind if we ask him. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. And then the last item, I guess -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Actually, there's another page. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, yes, there is. I'm sorry, I flipped the wrong direction here. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Some of these are completed. I was noticing, this might be very helpful to the Marco Island cityhood, because that, I suspect, is going to be a challenge this summer. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, that one, as you can see, they put on hold because they didn't feel like they could give us enough valid information in the time that would be necessary, you know. I can tell them that we would like to have that by June if you'd like to make that a priority. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But the other critical factor in that is that we need to know from Marco Island what they want us to provide and we don't know that -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I look at this as really too complex in the short period of time. I don't think that it can be too beneficial. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's how they felt too. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's a timing issue, because the one month they meet and say, okay, here's what we're going to do, by the next month we will already have had that information in hand, so the timing isn't right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It was a nice offer. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let's go back up to the top then. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Purchasing debt. That's a complete one, but I do want to point out to you that a recent proposed addition is the question of what kind of purchasing policy we should have for T.D.C. funds. That, again, may not be relevant, depending on, you know, Commissioner Constantine's proposal and where we go with that. My suggestion was -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Assuming they still have Category B and C funds available, I'd like to put that on hold. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My suggestion was to put that on hold until we wait and see what we're going to do with the -- with the -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. I'll go with that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Then the budget review process? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That basic study's complete and they just want to continue to follow up -- I think basically what they're looking for is, if you see over in status, need to schedule an audit of county's implementation of their recommendations. Same question as what they're looking for in purchasing. That's why they're leaving these on the Matrix so they can continue to be sure, you know -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I think one of their concerns too is that they have offered several suggestions and they're basically trying to find out if the county has implemented the suggestions that we made. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's exactly right. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It seems like there were other outside groups who were making suggestions and it appeared that the suggestions made by the Productivity Committee weren't being implemented. I mean, that was just a perception. Some of them had been, but there was a perception that they weren't being addressed, so I think that they will probably want to continue to monitor and probably should. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, and I'd appreciate it too. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: This is consistent with one of the early comments that I made to the Productivity Committee. I indicated to them that I welcomed their involvement and participation in a number of items and that I would commit to them to give them a response back on their recommendations. I -- I didn't commit to follow every single one of them every time, but I would give them a reason why we chose to do something different and -- and this is consistent with that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think that's exactly what they're looking for, and I think this is probably one area where they can be a great benefit to the county is the continuing, you know, trying to streamline the process and -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Both budgeting and purchasing, both of those. The next one, sheriff and EMS overtime is pretty much done. We've gotten our reports from them. We've talked about Marco cityhood. The jail study update, you know, we've gotten the -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Continue with follow up. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, continue with follow up. Interchange of county information, I -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why was this one deleted? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't know. That was -- that was, frankly, as we talked about the priorities, it fell off. As I understood this one, it was -- the question was whether or not the county adequately corresponds with other communities so that we don't reinvent the wheel on different processes. My point was, that's Mr. Fernandez's job, and frankly, I can't imagine -- you know, every time something comes up, what we get is five copies of how they do it in Palm Beach and Seminole and 85 other, you know -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: From all these counties we don't want to be like, we get copies. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, I mean, it seemed to me that that was such a completely -- unless I've missed the point, Commissioner Constantine, if that was something that was left on from before and I didn't understand what -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I don't know, but I guess I disagree. I mean, all these -- virtually everything on here is -- when we say, well, that's Bob's responsibility anyway, almost all of these fall under county manager and we're just looking at setting policy. It just seems to me either through Florida Association of Counties or through Leadership Florida or others, we may communicate, and I know our administrator ms active around the state and he communicates, but I don't know if there's a formal manner in which we do that, and while we may not want to be like Palm Beach or Lauderdale or any of the other places, there are things we can learn. There are things -- we can learn what didn't work in other places as well as what has and -- and so I don't want to just dismiss this and fluff it off and laugh. I think it's one of the more important items, rather than starting from scratch, if we see what has and hasn't happened in other places. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe if we could define it better because they asked for a definition from me about, you know, what exactly is it the board wants from us on that. I was unable to articulate it. They were looking at things like, is there an adequate -- is there some sort of an Internet communication system for the Florida Association of Counties and what is the method by which they share information in counties one to another, that kind of thing. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The FAC doesn't really act as a clearinghouse on those things as much as an individual Web page from the county might, but what I would -- if this is -- and you know, laughing it off, I don't think is appropriate, because what I was saymng ms not that, you know -- I mean, we're a little different. We're going to do things a little differently here. It doesn't mean we can't learn from others. My experience has been, as we look at new ideas, is that we are doing just that, and so maybe the first step is for the Productivity Committee to have a discussion with Mr. Fernandez about what is the process by which we -- we gather information from other counties, and if that process is deemed by the Productivity Committee insufficient or not formal enough, then proceed with a recommendation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a great idea. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because I think we're doing it, and maybe the thought or the idea of formalizing it really hasn't occurred yet and it can be done and the committee can help, maybe it has, but I think that's the first step. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The last one is the HR data system, and they completed that report, but I do want you to notice that in status, they have a recommendation that I think they have concern about whether or not it's something that either can or will be implemented, and that is that we need better coordination among the agencies, and by that, they mean, constitutional officers, and what I've told them ms, you know, we agree. We are begging for better coordination among some constitutional officers and our offices, but we cannot mandate it, and they are going to try to communicate that themselves. I know that they have been invited by the Clerk of Courts to do some review of his shop and have agreed to do that. I expect to see that coming forward for your approval too. It didn't make it to this list, but they see a real problem that our computer systems are not interconnected, and that's such a basic fundamental problem. It's a shame that there's not an easier solution. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll look forward to the list from the Clerk's office, because I have a feeling it's going to be a selective list and there may be some broader issues we want to look at from a budget side. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yep. I'll bring that forward as soon as it's developed. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Very good. Is this an action item? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just appreciate the direction. I think between the minutes and my notes and Mr. Fernandez's notes, we can communicate back. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Then I don't think it's necessary to take a vote on these items. Okay. Very good. MR. FERNANDEZ: Appreciate the discussion on those items, Madam Chairman. Item #liB PUBLIC COMMENT - TY AGOSTON REGARDING EPTAB CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Moving on then to the next item, which is public comment. Do we have any registered speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, we do, Mr. Ty Agoston. MR. AGOSTON: Morning again, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Ty Agoston, Golden Gate Estates, that endangered one, and I'm speaking for myself. Let me thank Mr. -- no, Commissioner Hancock for correcting the name I misused. Like I mentioned earlier, from time to time, things get lost in the translation. The fact of the matter is, I'm not quite sure just exactly how popular that action of removing the pines off the beach is, but that's for you guys to figure out. There is something personal that happened to me that I am here to tell you about and express extreme resentment. I attended your technical advisory environmental whatever, please don't correct me now, whatever the environmental committee is, and the lady who was interviewed by the newspapers and called me, I believe, other worldly, the meeting prior to this made kind of a remark that she was gonna spoon feed me, which I can imagine can be done. There are many smarter people than I am, but yesterday, I was -- she informed me that there was -- you, Mr. Hancock -- Commissioner Hancock, expressed interest whether I behave myself, and she has also mentioned that another commissioner, was not named, also checked on my behavior. With due respect, ladies and gentlemen, first, I am tired of conservatives being questioned to their very humility. It's interesting that liberals never get questioned. Nobody asked Mr. Kennedy what he's doing. Everybody and their cousin have asked Mr. Gingrich as to his convictions and what have you. I am as good or bad of a human being as the next one. I don't expect to be checked on and I resent -- because what I'd then like to know is who's checking on the rest of the members of that commission or advisory board, or for that matter, who's checking on your behavior? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The whole world. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No question there. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And they're telling us what to do. MR. AGOSTON: I understand that there is a movement afoot, that want to check your pocketbooks and what have you. I'm not quite sure what's the sense, because the most common element of influence is something folding and anonymous, so I'm not quite sure. It's silly to begin with, but the fact of the matter is, is that I do not expect to be checked on. I don't believe that I have any credentials that would indicate there is a need for someone to check on my behavior and I resent the implication. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman. Once again, Mr. Agoston, by your inability to communicate on an effective level, which is picking up a phone and calling me, you've made some assumptions that are clearly erroneous, period, about me, and instead of standing at that microphone and casting aspersions and thinking that I spend my days and nights wondering what you're doing, you flatter yourself. I do not. I don't care what you do, Ty. However, when you're appointed to a committee and members of that committee phone me about your behavior and I explain to them that the board, in the past, has taken a ~osition that if someone appointed to a committee conducts themselves in a manner that is disruptive toward that committee doing any work, that person can be removed. That was the crux of the conversation. I'll say it to you, I'll say it to anyone on any committee. Those committees have a purpose, whether you agree or disagree with that purpose, that purpose is to be achieved in one way, shape or form and then transmitted to this board, and if you get in the way of that unnecessarily, not by just rendering your opinion, but by being a cog or a wrench in the works, then you're ineffective and you are wasting the time of other individuals. I'm not making that assumption about you, Ty. I only hear from others what you do or don't do and they call me. I don't call them. So to single yourself out as being a conservative who's being picked on by a conservative, you flatter yourself unnecessarily, sir. So next time you have these kind of concerns, you can either say them publicly and embarrass yourself with misinformation or you can pick up a phone and call me, which I think is the preferred method of communicating. If you then disagree with it and you think there's a board policy issue, feel free, but I think the way you've done it today is inappropriate. MR. AGOSTON: There were two of you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't answer for anyone but myself, Ty. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have any other public speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: None others, Madam Chairman. Item #12B1 ORDINANCE 98-35 RE PUD-97-20, MR. TERRANCE L. KEPPLE, P.E., REPRESENTING NORA PATMORE, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "A" AGRICULTURAL TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS THE GOLDEN POND PUD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF CR-951 AND NORTH OF VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD - ADOPTED WITH STIPULATION CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Then we'll move on to the afternoon portion of our agenda, item 12(B) (1), and I believe -- are we going to be using the new procedures this morning in terms of -- MR. FERNANDEZ: The technology? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, the disclosure and all those kinds of things. MR. WEIGEL: Well, the new procedures are really kind of a convocation of the essential procedures that we're doing, so -- MR. FERNANDEZ: It's a formalization of what we've been doing. MR. WEIGEL: Yeah, so the disclosure is appropriate at the beginning of the item, if there is anything to disclose. If there's nothing to disclose, no disclosure is necessary. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I was under the impression that we were going to -- the people from the Planning Department were going to introduce it in a little bit different manner than what we had done in the past? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, Madam Chairman. Since this is a quasi judicial matter and therefore it is necessary for -- to swear in all those present wishing to give testimony or to speak on this item. A board member should also be advised of any ex parte communications. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have nothing. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No ex parte communications. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Nor do I. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just by -- as long as we're altering the exercise, do we need to go down the line and disclose that there's CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask Mr. Weigel a question? Do we need to disclose that there's no disclosure? MR. WEIGEL: No. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That just seems like an unnecessary exercise. If there's disclosure, we should make it. MR. WEIGEL: As I stated, only if there is something to disclose is any kind of comment in the disclosure category necessary at all. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, Current Planning. The petitioner is requesting 75 units on 18 acres, which results in a four units per acre project. It's located on the west side of County Road 951. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm terribly sorry to interrupt, but this just kind of seems like a no-brainer. It's four units on an area that allows four units. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Seems pretty standard for the area. MR. BELLOWS: It's on a major arterial road. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there any objection from anyone on this? MR. BELLOWS: No. The Planning Commission recommended approval. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'd like to have some discussion on that. I notice that that -- that the property across the highway from it to the east is at two and a half units an acre and even Island Walk to the west is three units an acre, so this coming in at four units an acre seems to be denser than anything around at a time when we are sort of moving towards the -- the board policy of reducing density wherever possible. MR. BELLOWS: In reviewing this petition, the size of the project came into play. This is only 18 acres. Island Walk's a DRI project, much larger, and the -- Vanderbilt Pines is on the east side of County Road 951 where connection to utilities is more difficult. The petitioner's requesting four units per acre because of the cost of extending utilities to service that 75 units. If they were reduced in units, the feasibility of the project would be affected. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, as you know, Mr. Bellows, really -- market economics are not really -- MR. BELLOWS: That's how they -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- a criterion the board uses to determine its ruling on these items. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The criteria we do use though is the current Land Development Code, which does allow for the four units. I agree with you that we're trying to step back. It seems to me, we need to be a little bit careful until we do alter that plan, until we get those plans back and make our change. They're asking for, you know, a number that's consistent with what our law requires right now. I agree with you that as we go on, we want to try to make that number smaller, but until that change is made, it seems like their request is consistent with our requirements. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, actually, our law might allow it, but it doesn't require four units an acre. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is the -- if I may? Mr. Bellows, is this a private access road that there'll be no connection to adjacent properties? In other words, one way in, one way out? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that's the kind of development that's kind of put us in the transportation quandary that we're in. If this were, in some way, a traffic pattern that allowed people more than one way in and one way out, if they were to provide interconnections to adjacent properties or something, I can see the benefits of four units an acre. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's exactly what my notes are, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What page is the map for this lot? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Six. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Page 51 is the -- there is a vacant piece of property to the south that will -- under single ownership as I understand it, that connects to Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension; is that correct? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So there is the possibility of there being a secondary access connecting to and through that property, which is designated to be residential; is that correct, Mr. Bellows? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct, urban residential. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's something that, you know, as we go back and look at projects that we've done in the past and we complain about how we didn't require access to adjacent projects, I guess I'm kind of of the school that if you're not going to, you know, allow connection and, you know, we're going back to the days when, you know, Royal Poinciana disallowed public roads by its mere existence, and those were bad decisions. I don't want to keep making those bad decisions, so if they're not going to interconnect to adjacent parcels or provide for more than one way in and out of their project, I -- I'm comfortable at three units an acre, but I don't want to throw four units an acre all on a single access. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And frankly, that's exactly my thought, is that, you know, the justification for that is that the transportation impacts of that loop system, you know, the impact of it on the roadway without having an interconnection are so significant, and that that does justify a reduction of density unless we can get that kind of an interconnection. That's the way my thoughts were going too. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What may happen is the property to the south, as it comes in for development, if we have enacted, in whole or in part, some of the recommendations we made, that will be knocked down to three units an acre unless they go with a traditional town planning or a town planning designation. That was part of that eight or nine point motion that was made, so I don't want to disallow that connection from one to the other to, in other words, to reduce the burden on the intersection of VBR and 951 that, down the road, is going to be significant. So I'm kind of looking down that road at what board direction has been given, you know, to develop those policies and doing this at four units an acre with single point access ms a little different than that direction, and I'm not entirely comfortable with that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's the density at Vanderbilt Country Club? MR. BELLOWS: Two point -- the Vanderbilt Pines PUD? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that Vanderbilt Country Club? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Vanderbilt Country Club is on the northeast corner of that intersection; is that correct? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, roughly. They didn't use the intersection marks. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, that density is at 2.47. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Then as you go up the road, Crystal Lake is what? I know that's a different type project. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, it's a mobile -- or TTRV development, so I'm not sure of the density there. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ballpark? MR. BELLOWS: I think it's about five. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Under this current configuration, I can see three units an acre, but unless they are willing to provide interconnect to the adjacent parcel, particularly to the south, four units an acre is not something I'm comfortable with. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But the problem with that is, that's something that would certainly ameliorate the problem for me, but the problem zs that you're asking them to require some third party to provide access through their property as well. COMMISSIONER HAi~COCK: What I'm asking is to provide the opportunity for interconnect. When the parcel to the south comes in, if the board at that time, whenever that occurs, takes the same approach that if you're going to ask for the maximum density allowable in that zoning district, then there's got to be justification for it, which interconnecting and allowing people to use streets other than main arterials is, in my opinion, a reasonable justification for that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Basically what we'd be asking this property owner to do is to design his plan in such a way that there's a stub out for a road to connect is what my intention was. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But the problem then becomes the timing, because you don't know when or if that other property will ever be rezoned, and if so, to what and for why, what purpose, and -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But still, a road connecting through would be good. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But we can't force that third party property owner to provide the road. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see your point, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But what I'm anticipating is that we may have incentive for that type of design at that time. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, but we're at this time, and if we grant four units an acre, provided that this property owner provides a stub out, we don't know -- we have no control over what's going to happen to the other property. That's my point. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, but neither does this property owner, and trying to put that burden on him when it's something we can't even control, I think we can put -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's exactly my point. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think we can put, as Commissioner Hancock said, a stub out there and give the next one that comes in that incentive, but the next one comes in and says, no, I'm only going to do one unit per acre and I don't see the need, well, there really isn't a need, if they do a big project at one unit an acre to the south of it. So all you can do is create that incentive, and if they both go in at a higher density, then you require that of both of them, but I don't think you can force this homeowner to do something that is dependent on what the next guy does, regardless. MR. BELLOWS: I'd also like to point out that the project is proposed for private streets, so that would make it difficult to interconnect. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If it's private streets, and they're not willing to go to access or to do public access in and through their neighborhood, then I'm not going to go four units an acre, period. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Agreed. Going to have to have access through there. That's the point. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm trying not to make the same mistakes that were made 20 years ago, and when we looked at each project by itself and never looked at it as a part of a larger whole, we made some, you know, in my opinion -- and you know, it's not like anyone was being malicious, but it was just -- we were looking at the -- when I say we, past boards were looking at the borders of a project as that being the impact and it goes beyond that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Twenty years ago when you and I -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, 20 years ago when you and I were -- anyway. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That piece of property to the south, is that just a long strip of property? I mean, what -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I know that between the south property line of this one and Vanderbilt Beach Road is under single ownership. I don't know how long it -- how far it goes back. You know, there's also a potential at this intersection -- and again, we're looking 20 years down the road, that if it's not developed that it may be some type of a neighborhood small scale commercial development, you know, like just convenience commercial mixed in. To not have this piece connect to that would be a shame. So, you know, if they're saying private roads, nobody can use them and they're not going to provide any type of public interconnect -- I mean, it could be something as simple as a roadway along the rear of the property that allows people to -- to traverse the back of the property without accessing their neighborhood, I'm okay with that too. I'm not saying everything inside has to be public, but allow the people access to the rear of the property and it just connects everything better, and that's what we're missing right now. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, because you have a stub out that has a private entrance and exit. In other words, it gets -- so if you have that commercial property down there, everyone who lives in this area, which is really what we're concerned with, does not have to go out onto 951 to get down to Vanderbilt. It allows them to get to their private -- out of the private area into the commercial area without using a major thoroughfare, and that way it doesn't matter if it's private or not because if the guy, you know, across 951 wants to go through, that's not necessary, but it keeps 75 homes' worth of people off the main thoroughfare. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Absent the policy to -- my hope is someday we have a policy that says, if we can't get through your project, you've got to let us get around it, so that we have ways to move throughout the community without relying solely on arterial roads. Absent that policy, I'd have a tough time saying that that's not a reasonable request or a reasonable mitigation, you know, but we can hear from the petitioners as to what they're willing to do and not willing to do, but I don't think we've satisfied Commissioner Norris' concern about, you know, no matter what you do, you can't force the next guy -- and my hope is we have a policy in place by the time the next guy comes in that -- that dovetails with this kind of action, but we can't base today's decision on that policy. You're absolutely right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It sure is succinctly stated, what you just said, Commissioner, about exactly what I hope will be the policy in the future, if you can't get through it, you've got to let us around it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Without impact. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: This is one of the big concerns. Every time you talk to someone, it's this interconnect situation is that everything dumps out onto the main roadways and this has presented problems and we don't need to continue and keep doing this. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Unless we start making that a priority, you know, how is our staff going to know to at least inform applicants that this board has been seeking this kind of an approach, and then of course, if they don't want to do it, they don't have to do it, we can deal with it, but -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We'll hear from the petitioner. I don't think he was sworn in. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think anybody was. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Nobody was sworn in, so I think you need to swear him in. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Excuse me, Mr. Kepple, is there anyone else that's going to speak to this item, do you know? MR. KEPPLE: Not that I'm aware of. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. KEPPLE: Good morning. For the record, Terrance Kepple, Kepple Engineering, representing the petitioner this morning. I'll just get to the question at hand and answer it if I can. The petitioner has no objection to providing a~jacent -- access to the adjacent property. I guess one of the questions is, which property or properties do we need to provide it to, just the one to the south or the west and the north also? I'm not sure. I can't answer that at this point. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, the one to the north doesn't seem to have any benefit, but the one to the south may, because if you go to the north, there are several owners that you're -- you're not going to be able to drive, I don't think realistically, drive through the projects. The one to the south is my concern because there's only one owner between there and Vanderbilt Beach Road and I'm trying to reduce the congestion at that intersection eventually. MR. KEPPLE: We're in agreement that we would provide access, an interconnection to that property, and if it's the board's request, we would make sure that it would be either a public road or a public access through to that point rather than private -- private roadway. Again, it was set up originally for private access, having only one access point on 951. There was no need to provide public roads in there and burden the -- the public with maintaining those roads. By providing the access, interconnecting access, yes, public -- either some type of public access or publicly dedicated road would make sense and the petitioner has no problem with that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any questions of Mr. Kepple? I think that answers the questions. MR. KEPPLE: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Did we have any public speakers on this one? MR. FERNANDEZ: You have none, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Then I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Move the item with that stipulation on public access that Mr. Kepple has agreed to. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That we'll have continuity from 951 to the southern property line project is that -- at some point on the southern property line of the property; is that what you're envisioning, Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Southern. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Who did the second? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, I did. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. All in favor? Opposed? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries four, one. Item #12C1 ORDINANCE 98-36 REGARDING THE COMMUNITY AUTOMATED EXTERNAL DEFIBRILLATOR ORDINANCE - ADOPTED Moving on then to item 12(C) (1), to adopt the Community Automated External Defibrillator Ordinance. This is to jump start your heart. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As tempting as it is to just move approval of this, I think it's worth letting the public hear about it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: What it is. What it is. Introduce yourself. MS. FLAGG: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Chief Diane Flagg of Emergency Services Department. Commissioners, the proposed ordinance before you is to establish a community automatic external defibrillator program for Collier County. What this program ordinance will do will set minimum requirements for training, data collection and coordination for members of the public to use an automatic external defibrillator for a victim of sudden cardiac death. The current resuscitation rate of sudden death victims throughout our nation is 2 to 4 percent. In Collier County, the resuscitation rate of sudden death victims is 26 percent, or more than five times higher than the national average. With the adoption of this ordinance and use of AEDs by trained community members, the resuscitation of sudden death victims in Collier County should increase an additional 10 to 15 percent more. Commander Jorge Aguilera is here today with one of the several types of AEDs that will be available and to also provide any additional information that you desire. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand you're going to test it on Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He has no heart. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's hard to start something that doesn't exist. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's not there. MR. AGUILERA: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Commander Jorge Aguilera with the EMS Department, and before you ask any questions, at the advice of the County Attorney's Office, he has recommended a revision to the ordinance. On page three, line seven, I believe there's -- once this gets moved up into the state level, the statements of the whereases are dropped off, and in order to ensure that the ordinance is properly identified, we would like to go ahead and on line seven, spell out the AD to say automatic external defibrillator, and add on from that point on whereas as AED, so that's the only change. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. AGUILERA: Do you have any questions? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let's see the machine. MR. AGUILERA: Let's see the machine. This is one of really three vendors that are pretty much out there in the market right now. There's potentially others that will come out as this becomes a little bit more popular out in the environment, in the community. This is actually the first community-wide AED program that we know of definitely in the state, if not in the nation. There have been several communities that have tried it in very local pockets of a community, but to take the proactive approach of providing these community-wide, we are the first, so we're pretty proud of that. Let me show you this machine here. The -- the technology of defibrillating the heart has been -- under sudden death has been around for over 50 years. That's not been a secret. The problem is finding a solution where the machines can be made so easily to be used that they could actually be operated by somebody with about four to five hours of education, and this is probably the first or second generation. We've had AEDs coordinated by the EMS Department for about ten years through the first responders in the fire department, so we've had some experience in the coordination of this for many years, but this is obviously a new venture. The machine is real simple. This machine itself has three buttons, one that turns it on, one that analyzes, and then one that actually delivers a shock. The machine is automated. It speaks to the user, tells them step by step instructions what to do. There's other machines on the market that are simply one button. Once it opens up, it starts up. It's relatively simple. It comes with the two pads with instructions on how they go on. Once a user -- and I just don't have all of the attachments, but once you turn it on, the machine itself will do a self check and verifies everything's working. It actually tells the user what to do. If the electrodes are on improperly, it will tell the user that the electrodes are not put on correctly. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So if they're wearing them as earmuffs, it won't -- MR. AGUILERA: Exactly. Now that you mention that, that was one of the large concerns early on is what about if the machine itself -- or can it be misused. The answer is -- I'll turn this off. One of the things is that the machines are really up to about 99 percent s~ecificity that they will not misfire. Unless the heart is actually in a fibrillation mode, this will not fire. It cannot be used if somebody decides to take it out and play with it as a toy or so on. It is pretty much safe proof. That's one of the reasons that through state statute they moved it into the Good Samaritan Law, which is where it's placed, in order to create a little bit more of a safety net for those users that wanted to use it from the Good Samaritan standpoint. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So the machine monitors the heart. If the heart goes into defib, it then delivers the shock? MR. AGUILERA: Yeah. The machine would only give the user the -- allow them the permission to actually shock if the heart is in ventricular fibrillation. It will not allow them to do anything else after that. The machine will basically stop at the point that it senses something different and just tell the user, continue to assess your patient and so on. So we know that if we can get a machine beside -- or that can deliver electrical shock to a heart that's in defib within two minutes, the success rate of that heart returning back is in the 80 to 90 percentile, when we've known that for years. The part is, is how we can get this to the site that quick, and this is probably one of the best ways of doing it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What about, and I'm sure this will be covered in the education, is these are -- because it will be you folks that go out and talk to the condo association or the businesses or whatever entity it is that is going to ask for one of these and actually fund it themselves; is that correct? MR. AGUILERA: Yes, sir. They will fund it themselves. We do have several machines right now, 40 from two different vendors that have been donated to the EMS Department in order to be deployed out into the community as they sell -- seeding of the system and getting it going. What will happen if a community member requests, a condominium or organization, for an AED, they will contact the EMS Department through the ordinance through a form that we have developed. What that would allow us to do is we will send a -- one of the paramedics out to the location to, number one, assess where they're going to put it, talk to them about the different types, not necessarily pick one for them, but go through the different types, do an emergency action plan, which will designate where is the best place for this machine to be placed. In a condominium, that might be with security. In the resident -- in a business, it might be somewhere else, but design an actual emergency plan for them on where it's best to be placed, and then providing the training that goes along with it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does this -- what is the use of CPR in conjunction with this? If you place this on a patient, do you still need to keep doing breathing for them? MR. AGUILERA: Yes, this will be tied into CPR training. At this point right now, it's essential that the airway, breathing and circulation, the ABC's are always a priority. There is some discussion now nationally whether it becomes D, A, B, C, where actually if a defibrillator is available, that the defibrillator is the first thing that's actually done, so there is some discussion that that might change, but at this point in time, it's going to be taught in conjunction with the ABC's. One thing else that this machine does, it's actually a computer that stores data. The moment it's turned on and used, it stores what actually happened. We will have the ability, through the vendors, to be able to capture this data and be able to do a couple things. Number one is quality assurance to make sure that the training that we're providing is actually being successful in educating the users, and also to be able to provide data that can be used through national research projects on, you know, how can we better approach the disease of sudden death. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: After we use up the 40 free ones, what's the cost? MR. AGUILERA: Right now I've been working with several of the vendors to, if you can say give us the McDonald's value meal price for us. It's around $2,800 right now with the different -- $2,800 is what the vendors are selling these for. Yeah, retail, they're anywhere between 3,000 and 3,500, so -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But if you start looking at the group areas that they're going to be in and you break down the cost per person, that's -- that's reasonable. MR. AGUILERA: Yeah, it is reasonable, and I think as this becomes -- again, we are the first community to try this, and I think the data that's going to come out of Collier County will be used to implement projects other places in the state, if not in the nation, especially this ordinance. It is a first. I think you'll see the prices of these machines obviously drop as it becomes more readily available. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great work. Motion to approve. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Should we close the public hearing? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We can close the -- it's not -- oh, it is a public hearing. Okay. I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'll restate my motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hats off to EMS. Good work. We're saving lives, we're reclaiming water, we're running the gamut today, kids. Ail in favor? Item #12C2 ORDINANCE 98-37 RELATING TO THE COUNTY'S RECLAIMED WATER SYSTEM - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The next item is approval of an ordinance related to the county's reclaimed water system. Mr. Clemons? MR. CLEMONS: Good morning, commissioners. I'm Tim Clemons, the Wastewater Director. Item 12(C) (2) before you this morning is an ordinance related to the county's reclaimed water system. The ordinance is brought about as a requirement of the Florida Administrative Code and also a current consent order that we're in the process of closing out. The ordinance simply spells out policies, procedures and conditions that we've been working under since the initiation of this program some eleven years ago and will serve as a tool in the future for our staff. Staff this morning seeks the board's approval of this ordinance. Are there any questions? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This -- we've had this discussion before, but we don't ever anticipate this being a retrofit to existing areas, this is something that we're just making sure new areas -- MR. CLEMONS: No, sir. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- take advantage of? MR. CLEMONS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Under the whereas section of the ordinance, one, two, three, four, five down, it says, whereas, Collier County has decided to establish and construct a reclaimed water system which will make reused water available, are we making that mandatory in certain areas? MR. CLEMONS: No, sir. That's the -- the purpose behind that is simply the areas that have been brought before you in our master plan and that the board has approved. We're not making it mandatory anywhere, and the ordinance states that further in, that all connections to it are voluntary. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. Any speakers on this item? Probably not. Too late anyway. I'll call for the question. Ail in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. MR. CLEMONS: Thank you. Item #12C4 ORDINANCE 98-38 AMENDING ORDINANCE 98-13 CORRECTING A SCRIVENER'S ERROR ATTRIBUTABLE TO AN OMISSION TO REFERENCE A MASTER PLAN AS A PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER FOR THE ENLARGED FIDDLER'S CREEK LAND AREA AND TO MAKE SAID MASTER PLAN A PART OF SAID AMENDING ORDINANCE 98-13 - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The next item has to do with the correcting of a scrivener's error, I believe. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Close the public hearing? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I will close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion. Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry I'm so confused, but was that 12 (C) (3) ? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That was 12(C) (4) . I think we skipped three. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, we didn't, Commissioner Constantine made a motion on it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You mentioned a scrivener's error, and the scrivener's error is 12(C) (4)? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: 12(C) (3), the vacation of the utility and drainage easement, we didn't hear that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry, my motion wasn't tendered for the scrivener's error on 12(C) (4). COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's a verification of the item we are now discussing. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I didn't vote on -- I'm confused. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me ask that we -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let's go back. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can we rescind that previous vote and -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. Let's go back to item 12(C) (3). This has to do with Petition AV 98-004 to vacate the 20 foot wide utility and drainage easement. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, I think since the motion was made, whether it be on the inappropriate item or not, we have to have a motion to table, otherwise the motion stands on the floor, so I move we table -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It was called. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It was called. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It was called. It's done, unless you want to go back and -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: As long as the record reflects that that was for 12(C) (4), then we should be okay. I don't think anyone is going to contest it, but -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If it's 12(C) (4), I'd like to add my vote in favor of the motion, because I'm required to vote on an item if I'm in the room. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. The scrivener's error then, let's go to item 12(C) (4) for just a moment, which was the scrivener's error, which we voted on and that was four of us voting. Commissioner Mac'Kie wishes to have her vote added to that, so let the record reflect that she was in the room and did vote in favor of 12(C) (4). COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. Item #12C3 RESOLUTION 98-132 RE PETITION AV-98-004 VACATING THE 20' WIDE UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT LYING ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY 10' OF LOTS 2 THROUGH 7 AND ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY 10' OF LOTS 81 THROUGH 86, PINELAND-ON-THE-TRAIL - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let's go back then to item 12(C) (3), Petition AV 98-004, the vacation of the 20 foot wide utility and drainage easement. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is the property we recently heard for a rezone down on the East Trail, isn't it? MR. GRIGG: As far as I know. I really -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Would you identify yourself, please, sir? MR. GRIGG: Yeah, Rick Grigg, Transportation. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's no objections? MR. GRIGG: None that I know of, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Any speakers? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have any speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Then I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to approve Petition AV 98-004, the vacation of a 20 foot wide utility and drainage easement. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, I don't think it's required by law, but I do serve on a volunteer board with Dr. Fueredi, but there's no compensation involved, but I at least wanted to mention that for the record. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. At 10:30, we really need to take a break, number one, for our court reporter, and after that item, we will go back and hear the item on the transportation, the closed looped -- whatever, the loop system for the transportation. So we'll take about a ten minute break and we'll be back after that. (A recess was had.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let's reconvene the Board of County Commissioners' meeting, please. Item #8B1 REPORT ON THE RESULTS OF THE COUNTYWIDE INTERCONNECTED TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM STUDY - REPORT ACCEPTED AND BCC TO CONTINUE TO SUPPORT COUNTYWIDE INTERCONNECTED TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM; COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR OR DESIGNEE TO SING OFF ON LETTER At this time, we'll take up item 8(B) (1). This has to do with the county-wide interconnected traffic signal system study. Mr. Kant? MR. KANT: Good morning, commissioners. Edward Kant, Transportation Services Director. We're very pleased this morning to be able to present you with the results of the -- the Florida Department of Transportation study for the county's interconnected signal system. About a year ago, we presented an introduction and overview of the system, and since that initial report, the FDOT, the City of Naples staff, Collier County staff and the consultant, Kimley-Horn Associates, have been working diligently to complete the series of tasks necessary to provide design direction and future implementation for this system. The study is officially complete and this presentation is a wrap-up of that study. Today Kimley-Horn Associates will be making a short presentation to the board, and both the consultant and your staff will be prepared, we hope, to answer your questions. Basically, they're going to summarize the results of the study, and an executive summary was provided to you approximately a week ago so that you have a little bit of advance of what's going to be shown today. We're going to talk about the type of system communications, the impact of the proposed system on our existing signal operations, and also on our staffing and operational issues. They will present phasing and scheduling of the proposed project, as well as the user benefits, and without any further ado, I would like to present Mr. Bruce Friedman who was the project manager for Kimley-Horn. We also have representatives of FDOT. Joining us in the audience is Mr. Chris Barseck (phonetic) from District 1 who was the FDOT project manager. Bruce? MR. FRIEDMAN: Can we get the lights dimmed facing the screen there? Thank you. Great. Good morning. I really appreciate this opportunity to speak before the commission. As Ed said, I'm here to summarize the results of a recent study for the need for a computerized traffic control system in this county. There are 154 existing signalized intersections in the county that could be coordinated. During the 14 month study period, major decisions were made by a coordinating committee that was comprised of FDOT, City of Naples, Collier County, MPO and consultant personnel. The City of Naples and Collier County are popular destinations for full-time residents and vacationers. The Naples Area Chamber of Commerce estimates that during the peak month of the winter, the county's seasonal population is approximately one-third greater than its permanent population. Especially during the winter months, U.S. 41, Airport Pulling Road and many of the other major arterials frequently experience severe traffic congestion. Federal, state and local government policies emphasize and encourage the development and implementation of improved signal timing as an alternative to expensive road widening. Centrally controlled signal systems offer one of the most promising means by which improved signal timing can be achieved. As documented in this study, the application of computerized signal control technology in Collier County offers the potential for significantly reducing the existing and future congestion problems at your 154 signals. The primary goal of the new system will be to improve the traffic conditions in the county from both a safety and convenience perspective. This can be achieved by developing system timing that reduces the number and the length of stops at signals on arterial highways. This will minimize congestion and air pollution and is expected to reduce rear-end crashes. The new systems will need to be flexible enough and sized adequately to be able to be expanded as new signals are added. The new system should maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of the county's staff, both operationally and for maintenance. This can be done by giving the operators the ability to make changes to signal timing from the control center, thus saving numerous trips to the field intersections, and by giving clues to the nature of malfunctions so that the maintenance staff will know whether the repair needs to be made immediately or can be scheduled and the type of equipment to bring to the field. When incidents occur such as major traffic crashes or cargo spills, the county staff will be able to assess the nature of the traffic problems that are caused and respond by initiating special timing plans that can handle the changes in traffic flow patterns that occur during and immediately after the incident. For this reason, 27 camera locations were selected in the city and county for the placement of closed circuit TV cameras for monitoring traffic. The locations were determined based on the criteria that both directions of 1-75 would be seen from all three interchanges and that video coverage would be provided for corridors that typically experience congestion. Although the county does not now have a centralized signal system, it does have 42 intersections currently operating under a wireless form of coordination. The study determined that 21 areas of the county and six areas of the city could benefit from having coordination. These 27 control sections where signals will work together are shown on the maps of the system that are on the floor in front of me here, and it's also figures five and six in your executive summary, those same maps. These 27 control sections include 74 of the county's 104 signals and 39 of the city's 50 signals. The new systems will feature central monitoring of system performance and the ability to change system parameters and timing plans from the control center. Besides the development of system goals and the determination of the 27 control sections, another major emphasis of the study was to analyze a variety of system and communication alternatives and select the most appropriate. Several types of communication system alternatives were considered. This was a critical aspect of the study, as the design and construction of the communication system is one of the most expensive elements. Among the land line or hard wire types studied were the traditional twisted pair copper cables and also the newer technology, fiber-optic cable. Two types of wireless communications were also studied, radio and microwave. A worth analysis was conducted in which goals were established and given relative weights, and then the cost of each alternative and the ability of the alternative to satisfy the goals were compared. Lou, you've got to move the slides. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, I think you're one behind. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You're one behind. MR. FRIEDMAN: Are you having trouble with the equipment? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, I think he's caught up now. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, we're fine. MR. FRIEDMAN: Okay. Based on the results of the worth analysis and other factors, the most appropriate communication system was determined to be a network of fiber-optic cables connecting many of the intersections throughout the county. However, extending the fiber-optic cable to remote areas like Marco Island and Immokalee wasn't determined to be cost feasible, so the field equipment in these two areas would communicate back to the control center using telephone modems and dial-up telephone lines. The proposed systems will have 113 signals altogether in 27 control sections. Central monitoring and adjustments to timing will be provided and traffic flow changes resulting from traffic incidents will be able to be managed from the control center. The CC TV cameras will verify that the signal timing changes made in the vicinity of an incident have improved the traffic conditions. The primary benefit of the coordinated signal system will be the improvements in traffic flow. Although drivers will still encounter red lights as they drive on various roadways in the county, the ability to easily implement and revise timing plans will increase the probability that a driver will arrive during a green interval. This, in turn, will maximize intersection and roadway capacity. Although the systems can be set up to switch between different timing plans based on a predetermined schedule, it will also have the ability to select the best timing plan based on real-time data coming back from traffic detectors strategically placed in each control section. The systems will also make it easy for separate sets of timing plans to be implemented in the different seasons of the year. The spare capacity of the fiber-optic COM network will allow for the future installation of more CC TV cameras and changeable message signs to communicate with the drivers. Evacuation of the area when a storm is threatening can be enhanced through the systems through the implementation of special timing plans that are developed in advance for such a situation. The strategic placement of CC TV cameras will allow your emergency preparedness personnel to monitor how well the evacuation routes are moving traffic. The county's operational and maintenance staffs will be informed when repairs are needed and where, but also the nature of the problem so that they can be more efficient in scheduling their field visits. Improvements will be made in traffic flow characteristics, such as travel time, delays and stops, which will in turn reduce pollution and gas consumption and reduce rear-end crashes. Please note that all of the stops and delays will not be eliminated. However, comparable systems in similar areas have provided a 25 percent reduction in stops and delays and this can be very significant in terms of traffic flow. The cost savings associated with the 25 percent reduction in the City of Naples and Collier County is estimated to be approximately two and a half million dollars per year. The recommended location for the county's control center is here in the government complex. Monitoring stations should be established at the county's signal shop and at FDOT's offices in Barrow. By putting the county's control center at the government complex, this will allow the system operator to coordinate with the county's traffic engineering staff on a continuous basis. Monitoring stations will be established at the county's signal shop on County Barn Road, which will be connected to the control center via the fiber-optic network. That's the County Barn Road now on the screen, and also at FDOT office in Bartow, which will use a telephone modem to connect to the county's control center. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sometimes a picture's worth just a few words. MR. FRIEDMAN: During the installation of the new system, signalized intersections will be upgraded to the current design and safety standards. Thirty-two intersections will be rebuilt, receiving new mast arm displays and hardware. In addition, the system will either replace or upgrade all of the signal controllers within the project. Also, the installation of 34 new crosswalks is recommended as well as new curve cut ramps at 34 corners to comply with the ADA, Americans with Disabilities Act, and also in order to comply with ADA, an additional sidewalk will be installed at 18 intersections so that the pedestrian detectors will be more accessible to the disabled. The design and construction of the signal system, plus the development of the initial set of timing plans, are going to be funded by FDOT and FHWA. By the time the city and county systems are fully installed, a total of almost seven million dollars will be spent by those agencies on improving signals in the county. During the study, the construction costs were estimated and it was determined that the system should be built in two phases. The next step will be the design of the first phase of the system, which is control group one, design group one, which starts in December of this year. A complete set of construction plans and specifications will be prepared. The construction of design group one is expected to start in July of the year 2000 and go for about two years, ending in the summer of the year 2002. The design and the construction of design group two has not yet been scheduled or funded, but with your support and the support of the MPO, the Florida Department of Transportation can schedule the second phase of design and construction and the MPO can determine its priority. At the present time, it appears that the county's signal maintenance group is understaffed. Even if a new signal system is not being installed, this study would still recommend additional maintenance personnel for the county. However, with the installation of the system at 74 of the county's signals, a system operator, an assistant system operator and four maintenance technicians should be available on a full-time basis. The county has existing personnel that can fill two of the maintenance technician positions, but they need to hire two other maintenance technicians immediately to take care of existing needs, and they need to create a new system operator position most likely in the year 2001 to take care of the first design group, and the new assistant system operator position in the year 2005 when the second group comes on line. The county will need to add about $175,000 per year to their operating and maintenance budget. This recurring cost will primarily cover the cost of the new personnel, as well as the cost of 14 additional telephone lines. The county's need to hire the two signal maintenance technicians is related to current workload needs rather than work created by the new system. In order to secure federal funding for the project, it's essential that all of the agencies involved in operating and maintaining the system be committed to providing these services. To ensure this commitment, the Federal Highway Administration requires that agencies involved in operating and maintaining the system enter into an understanding or memorandum of agreement that's signed by each head of the operating agencies, also the governing state highway official and the federal division administrator. This memorandum of agreement is called the implementation plan. The implementation plan for this project was developed by FDOT with input from the county staff and the Federal Highway Administration. We're requesting your support of that implementation plan and we're requesting that a signature of concurrence from the head of your agency for the implementation plan be provided at a point in the future. This will allow us -- or allow the project to be kept on schedule and a signal system be constructed that will benefit all of the road users in Collier County, and with that, I'll conclude the formal remarks, and if you have any questions -- do you want to talk now? Why don't we entertain questions first? Does anyone have any questions relative to that? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just wanted an English language translation of what's this going to look like on the road? What are people gonna see? What's the difference? I mean, I understand the goals, I understand that technically now you can confirm that this system will meet the goals and objectives that we have. Give it to me in English. MR. KANT: Basically, you won't see -- the system that will be in place when the system is finally constructed -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 2000. MR. KANT: -- from a user point of view will be transparent in the fact -- in the sense that when you drive up to a signal, it's either going to be red or yellow or green. As far as the timing and all of the technical stuff, that's going to happen back at a control center. As far as the -- the monitoring of the intersections with the closed circuit charge couple devices, which I think we now call -- are being called cameras, but they're not true cameras in the sense of like those cameras out there, because they are basically presence detectors, in addition to the fact that they don't have that type of resolution, are used strictly for monitoring the traffic flow. One of the advantages of a system like this, and these systems are in place in a number of other locations, I can invite you to Tampa or Orlando, any of the major cities in Florida, is that when an incident happens, whether it's anything from a lamp that goes out to a crash, to a spill, we get much better early warning. Our problem -- existing problem is that typically, we don't even find out about these unless somebody phones it in. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How does this affect the efficiency of being able to go.through the lights, you know, you catch one, you catch them all, isn't that supposed to be one of the benefits? MR. KANT: Typically with the lights, as we say, are timed, and again, an example today would be if you wanted to go from, let's say roughly Davis Boulevard to Pine Ridge Road, in an ideal situation, you would be able to pass through Davis on a green. Going at or within a couple miles an hour of the speed limit, you should be able to get all the way up to Pine Ridge Road or perhaps even through that, and that's the concept of the control sections. Once the control -- the control section helps the traffic to platoon, that is to get a group of cars to move as a platoon through that section. Therefore, the -- the whole system works more efficiently. The side streets are all stopped at about the same time. You can anticipate as you look down the street, sometimes you see the light is red, but again, if you're moving with traffic, when you get to that intersection, that light will be green and that entire platoon should be able to move through. Today, the only way we can attempt to do that is with what we call time based coordination, and all it takes is somebody to not start up on time or somebody maybe to go a little bit slower or a little faster and it -- it messes the entire system up. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The beauty is, that kid that flew by you at 65 will be sitting at the light waiting on you when you drive by at 45. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like that. MR. FRIEDMAN: Can I add something to Ed's answer? I agree with Ed that the technology of this new system isn't going to be that visible to the public. Unless they happen to go to the control center and look at the TV monitors that are going to be available or the graphics up on the computer screens, they're really not going to see the technology that's going to be put in place, but what they will see, as the commissioner touched on with her second question, is improved traffic flow. They're going to encounter more green lights. They may not all be aware of why that's happening, but it is going to be happening because of a very powerful tool that's been put in the traffic engineer's hands. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The bottom line is, the level of service is better, which means we spend less money in the long run trying to improve our road network. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Fewer interchanges, fewer flyovers. Does this ring with anybody? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Rings with me. MR. KANT: If there are no other questions, I want to make one final comment. In the very tail end of Mr. Friedman's presentation, he mentioned the implementation plan, and FDOT is here this morning and they were real eager, we were ready to give signatures, but I explained that we needed to review the plan in a little more detail, and we plan to come back to you most likely before your summer vacation, sometime near the end of June, and request that you accept the implementation plan and request authorization to have the chair sign that plan and we are, at the present time -- two things that this will do. One, it will make sure that this project continues to advance so that FDOT can go out for the design contract and ultimately the construction contract. Mr. Friedman also mentioned that the second phase was not funded or scheduled. However, we plan to come back through the MPO, we believe we found a project and some money which we can present to the board which will enable us to get the second phase both funded and scheduled, but that's something that is more appropriate to present through the MPO prior to presenting it to this board. So we are, as far as a staff perspective, we are dedicated to moving this ahead and we would like at this point to -- to get your concurrence that, in fact, the board is also with us on it. MR. ILSCHNER: Madam Chairman, commissioners, Ed Ilschner, your Public Works Administrator. I'd just like to mention that this system, once implemented -- you've been concerned for a while about eight-laning facilities in Collier County and some of those types of flyover concerns. This system has a great chance to reduce the potential for that. It may not eliminate them completely, but I think it may forestall it for a number of years into the future. So this will be a very important implementation program for you to consider. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris, I believe you had a question. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Kant, just briefly on the funding of the -- the capital cost of this will be through federal funding? MR. KANT: That's correct. That's the -- the reason that both -- I say both, the Federal Highway Administration, the Florida Department of Transportation, Collier County and the City of Naples will all be parties to the implementation plan. Again, without getting into the technical detail, the City of Naples will have their system, Collier County will have its system, but the two systems will -- will talk to each other in the sense that we'll be able to see theirs, they'll be able to see ours. There will be an interconnect there. The funding is presently, for the first design phase, there's approximately -- design and construction phase, there's approximately three million dollars in the FDOT work program that's been identified. The second phase, as I indicated to you, we weren't real sure where that was going to come from, but we think we may have found a solution and I want to present that to you possibly at the June MPO meeting. I have to talk to Mr. Heatherington and see how the scheduling will go with that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine. Then I know Commissioner Constantine has an additional question, but I'll make a motion that we accept this report and continue to support the goal of developing this system. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would your motion include authorization for staff to sign off on the letter the DOT folks requested? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what I was just wondering too, instead of having to hear it again. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Does staff want that authorization? MR. KANT: If that's the wish of the board. The -- the point is that regardless of who signs off, it will be the county's responsibility, and either Mr. Fernandez or Mr. Ilschner or myself could be designated for that chore. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd be satisfied to leave that in Mr. Fernandez's hands. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Or his designee. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I will then include in my motion that Mr. Fernandez or his designee sign off on the -- on the letter. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Do we have any public speakers on this item? MR. FERNANDEZ: You have none, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'll call for the question then. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. MR. KANT: Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I might add one thing. Is there anyone here -- who deals with the lights -- the height of the lights of the signals? MR. KANT: Well, the minimum heights are dictated by state and federal standards and the manual uniform traffic control devices. MR. ILSCHNER: The answer is, we take care of that. MR. KANT: But we maintain those. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. There's a bit of a concern about the new one out on Immokalee Road. MR. KANT: Yes, ma'am, we're aware of that and we've already begun to look into it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We've had a little -- few problems. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Too high or too low, just out of curiosity? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, it's too -- well, you've got two lights, one on each side of the interstate, and you hit one and you can't see the next one and it may -- the one you come to first may be green and the next one may be red and people aren't quite tuned to that yet. MR. FRIEDMAN: You can't see it because of the underpass? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You can't see it because of the underpass, exactly right. MR. KANT: We've been made aware of that and we are looking into it and we'll fix it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Very good. Thank you. MR. KANT: Thank you again. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right then. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Some of these things are best handled in memos. They just look better. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, you thought for a minute we might have been talking about those panther underpasses out here on 1-75. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't think the panthers can see the red lights either. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: They wear glasses. They're trained. Item #12C5 RESOLUTION 98-133 RE PETITION CCSL-98-2, DARWIN STUBBS OF HUMISTON & MOORE ENGINEERS, REPRESENTING GENE L. AND SHEELAH R. WINDFELDT, REQUESTING A COASTAL CONSTRUCTION SETBACK LINE VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN ELEVATED PATIO WITH A SPA AND STAIRS FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT LOT 7, BAREFOOT ESTATES - ADOPTED Okay. Petition CCSL-98-2 having to do with a coastal construction setback line variance. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, unless staff has an objection, the term no-brainer kinda comes home on this one -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Me too. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- so I'm prepared to make a motion to approve it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I believe we have to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thus the term, I'm prepared to. MR. LENBERGER: If I may, Madam Chairman, this is a quasi judicial matter, and therefore, it is necessary to swear in all those present to give testimony wishing to speak on this petition and the board members should advise of any ex parte communication. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I have nothing to disclose, so -- okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: Swear -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is there -- if we're not going to hear this, if everybody's pleased with it, there's nobody that's going to be sworn in because nobody's going to get to speak to it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There's no public speakers? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've got kind of a wacky idea. What if we just let the chairman do her job instead of everybody else reminding her what to do as we go along. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What a concept. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That is a little wacky. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's just nice to have all this incompetent help. Anyway -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good help's hard to find. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: At this point in time, if we have no public speakers on this issue and -- I believe I already have a motion. Somebody would like to make a motion on this -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll move approval of CCSL-98-2 with staff stipulations. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. All those in favor, say aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. Wonderful presentation. Item #12C6 RESOLUTION 98-134 RE PETITION CCSL-98-1, DARWIN STUBBS OF HUMISTON & MOORE EINGEERS, REPRESENTING KATHERINE A. CLEARY, REQUESTING A COASTAL CONSTRUCTION SETBACK LINE VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A SWIMMING POOL, SPA, DECORATIVE WATERFALL, POOL DECK WITH STAIRS AND DRIVEWAY PAVERS FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT LOT 37, BLOCK A, REPLAT OF UNIT 1, CONNER'S VANDERBILT BEACH ESTATES - ADOPTED Thank you, and I think you have another one following this, item six, Petition CCSL-98-1. Let's go through your whole little story again, for the record. MR. LENBERGER: Yes, this is a quasi judicial matter and therefore it is necessary to swear in all -- all those wishing to speak -- to give testimony and wishing to speak on this petition and board members should advise of any ex parte communication, and for the record, Stephen Lenberger, Development Services. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I have nothing to declare. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have nothing to declare. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Does anyone need to be sworn in on this that wishes to speak to this item? I don't think anybody is going to speak to it. Okay. I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Move approval -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER HA/qCOCK: -- of CCSL-98-1 with staff stipulations. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. Ail in favor? (Unanimous vote of ayes.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. Item #13Al RESOLUTION 98-135 RE PETITION CU-98-2, KIM PATRICK KOBSA, ESQUIRE, OF TREISER, KOBZA & VOLPE, REPRESENTING GERMAIN PROPERTIES OF COLUMBUS, INC., REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE "4" OF THE C-4 ZONING DISTRICT FOR A USED CAR LOT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY EAST OF 50TH STREET SW AND WEST OF TROPICANA BOULEVARD - ADOPTED WITH STIPULATIONS The next item -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Little harder. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- item 13(A) (1), this is continued from April 28th, 1998, Petition CU-98-2. This is -- has to do with the Germain Properties of Columbus requesting a conditional use of the C-4 zoning district for a used car lot located on Golden Gate Parkway. Good morning. MR. MILK: Good morning. For the record, my name is Bryan Milk. This is a quasi judicial matter and therefore it is necessary to swear in all those present to give testimony and wishing to speak on this petition and board members should advise of any ex parte communications. Should we swear in -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let's do the swearing in first, please. (The speakers were sworn.) COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As far as disclosure, I can't remember any specific meetings with anyone, but I have -- I would just disclose that I've gotten some feel of a community concern about -- about the possible location of this. I can't tell you who I spoke to, Klm. I'm sorry. I can't remember that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't believe I've spoken to anyone, but I do believe that I received some written correspondence in regard to this matter. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: As have I. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I've spoken with the petitioner. I've spoken with dozens of residents and probably had phone calls and letters as well. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Had written correspondence and spoken to at least one person, a resident of Golden Gate on this matter. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We'll continue. Mr. Milk? MR. MILK: Thank you. I am presenting Petition CU-98-2. Mr. Kobza is representing Germain Properties requesting Conditional Use 4 of the C-4 zoning district for a used car lot on the subject property. The subject property is located in Golden Gate City. It consists of four lots; lots three, four and five, which are currently zoned C-4 and undeveloped. On lot six, there used to be an existing -- there's a structure there that used to be a Papi's Pizza place, very much similar to a Juicy Lucy restaurant facility with a -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You know, I'm still dumbfounded how a drive-through pizza place failed. I can't figure that out for the life of me. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sitting in line while they cooked? MR. MILK: Anyhow, it has failed and it's abandoned. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Milk, is your microphone on? MR. MILK: It is abandoned at this point and is overgrown with weeds, bushes and the fence along the rear property line has been pretty much torn down. The property is located in the activity center in Golden Gate City. The subject properties both to the north, east and west are also zoned C-4. The property immediately to the east is a ~rofessional office building, Smuder-Faust. Directly across the alley IS an off site parking facility for that residential business. That facility is currently fenced. Immediately to the west is a car wash facility and a drive-through beverage facility. Immediately across Golden Gate Parkway, that particular area is undeveloped at this point. The Planning Commission heard this petition originally on the April 2nd schedule, and due to the concerns from the neighbors and the Golden Gate Area Civic Association, they had asked for a continuance until they'd met with some of the residents and the Civic Association. On the 16th of April, they reconvened, and with concessions and stipulations provided for in the resolution of adoption, I can't say that the Civic Association is here in support or not, but I think there's been many concessions on behalf of the applicant with concerns to loading, storage, parking, landscaping, architectural amenities, access to the site, a lot of that has been clarified also. An important one was that the petitioner agreed to relinquish the conditional use if, in fact, Germain Properties, Inc. no longer owned or managed the car facility as it's proposed, and if I can answer any questions, I'd be happy to do so. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I note in the staff report the phrase, will comply with architectural standards to the greatest extent possible. MR. MILK: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That doesn't fly with me. The either comply with them or they don't, period. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's the wiggle there? Why was there any potential wiggle there? MR. MILK: I think, like I said originally, that it looks like a Juicy Lucy drive-through facility and -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Bulldozer. MR. MILK: Quite frankly, the petitioner is willing to do cosmetic treatments to the facility, door and glass work, but the thought was, structurally, as a rectangular building, it would remain the same, so the canopy and the arcade in the front would come down. There could be some potential banding and some treatments to embellish the structure itself, but I think from a rectangular standpoint and sound, I think the cosmetic treatment that is required as a part of 2.8 would help that whole perspective greatly. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It will certainly help it, but from my standpoint, when we looked at architectural standards and construction costs, we took existing buildings like a Discount Auto Parts which used to be a box and said, what would it cost to bring that up to the current codes, and we're talking on a building of this size, 5 percent or less of construction cost, so I'm not -- the first thing I noted is, I'm not willing to let them out of any of the architectural standard requirements, period, unless there is a significant reason as to why -- you know, in other words what's the trade off there? I don't see a trade off, so that's the first thing I note, that they be required to comply with architectural standards, period, unless there's some tremendous mitigating circumstance that applies here. That's just my personal feeling on that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I agree. MR. MILK: And I think staff's standpoint is that, but there's also in that architectural for buildings under 10,000 square feet, it talks about if you add 2,000 square feet to the building or if you exceed 50 percent of the cost of the building, then you shall comply 100 percent. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 'Course, this is a conditional use, so the hurdle can be raised a little bit. MR. MILK: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just on that point, I can't see moving ahead unless they're required to comply fully with the architectural standards. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Does -- does the -- has the petitioner submitted any potential or proposed architectural plan? MR. MILK: I have a rendering that's proposed, but I do not have a perspective of the entirety of the building that I've personally seen, other than that -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There's something down there on the floor. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Probably part of their presentation, but it's just simpler for me, we have architectural standards for a reason, well thought out, adopted, either comply or don't. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tell us, you know, what about that doesn't and -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's -- to me, that's not an issue. Comply, period. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Agreed. MR. MILK: And given the form of the building and with some structural attention and some detail like that rendering, I think it can be altered to be exactly like that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's not that big a deal. It could be done. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think that and the landscaping, and I think definitely along the Parkway, I think -- I think that needs to happen out there anyway. I really do. I think that's a big concern. You know, certainly what's here is unacceptable and -- and I would think just the overall general appearance of the property -- MR. MILK: Two things are happening out in front. They do have to provide that 20 foot landscape buffer and they're also going to incorporate a sidewalk within that buffer to ultimately connect on both sides, a pedestrian walkway. It's kind of intermittent now at present because of the undeveloped areas, but that will eventually link itself. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: First National Bank of Naples has actually put in -- if you remember, they came in to -- and they've put in the first segment of that, so we're getting that into place. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What it does is it ties the median landscaping that has really become a trademark of that roadway to the other side of the road and that's pretty important, and I'll point out, if you want to talk about landscaping along a road for a car dealership, look at Naples Dodge. Look at what they did out there. I mean, it's -- it's head and shoulders above anything else I've seen for a car dealership, so in my opinion, they kind of raised the bar when they did that saying it's possible to do. I don't think we require the exact same thing. We don't want to cookie cutter it, but that kind of attention to detail on the front of the project is something that I'd like to see. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think it goes back to our statements that we've been making, we want it to look good, okay? Make it look nice. We don't want, you know, two or three little bushes or whatever. We don't want the minimum. We want it to look -- something that you can drive down the street and be proud of what you're looking at. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a few questions, but they're aimed toward the petitioner, so -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. We'll hear from the petitioner then, please. MR. KOBZA: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, members of the board, commission. For purposes of the record, my name's Kim Patrick Kobza. I represent Germain Properties. With me today is Emilio Robau of RWA Engineering. He has been responsible for all of the on-site engineering. I should mention that we had Christian Andrea (phonetic) prepare the landscape plans and we have had a substantial amount of architectural work done by Mark Dorman (phonetic) as well. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who did you say did the landscape plans? MR. KOBZA: Christian Andrea. Additionally, Mr. Robert Germain, Sr. is with me today and is prepared to address you. In terms of the current posture of this petition, I just thought I might share a few thoughts with the board. In terms of the specific stipulations, we've been at the end of a -- I wouldn't call it a long road, but certainly a very communicative road with the city and with the civic association out there. We went out, met with -- Mr. Germain did, with the general membership meeting. The intent here is not to meet minimum standards, but to create a facility that really exceeds your expectations, not simply meets code. That's consistent with everything that the Germains have done throughout. This facility would operate more to the standard of a new car facility, which is an allowed use in this designation and it really has to, if you -- if you step back and think about the Germain operations, they can't do something of lesser quality than they otherwise do in other locations, even by virtue of their franchise agreements. I mean, they're held to a certain standard of quality, whether it's landscaping or architectural or security or any of those issues or any of those items or concerns, they have to and they are prepared to meet and -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Kim, how does that translate into what exists in the Gateway Triangle right now? MR. KOBZA: I'm sorry, Commissioner, I -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, if they -- they've had that big vacant piece of property sitting there for a long time that is not exactly beautiful for that portion of East Naples, so how does -- how does the restriction you just described apply to that big vacant piece of not pretty property? MR. KOBZA: Which facility specifically? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Never mind. MR. KOBZA: I'm not -- perhaps Mr. Germain can address and answer your question. In terms of actual operation, the stipulations are that there be no drop off of cars, that all lighting be shielded, that the landscaping standards be met, that all architectural standards be met, and that there be security. All of those things are stipulations that have been agreed to. That there be no loudspeakers. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They were helping me figure out what piece of property I was talking about and I think it's not yours. MR. KOBZA: Right. Reason for my confusion. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I could ask him the same question, but -- MR. KOBZA: Unless Mr. Germain owns it and he doesn't know it. Okay. So from that perspective. Also, building a sidewalk which does not otherwise exist in this location. In short, this would be a tremendous improvement to this property. I've prepared a photographic inventory for you. You can see what exists there now. You can see what the context of the area is, and we believe that we can do as good or better a job to the standard of, for instance, First National Bank, and I think that is a good example of what can be done on the Parkway. We're prepared to answer any other questions that you might have. Again, this has been a cooperative exercise with the community and that -- that's the way we've approached it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We talked on Friday and I had two or three specific areas and I want to -- you didn't have any problem with them at the time and I just want to go back through those and make sure we have those commitments on the record. MR. KOBZA: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You've just talked about the Germain name and you can't afford to do anything less while the Germain name is affiliated with it, and you've agreed at the Planning Commission that the conditional use will only be while it's owned or managed by Germain. Two things, we might need to hear from our county attorney that we can do that with a conditional use, but also can we just take that a step further on that stipulation that it's while the Germain name is associated with that, and the concern I'd expressed Friday is, theoretically, you could lease that out to Joe's $500 Used Cars and it would still be owned by Germains, but no longer carries that name and no longer would carry the same necessity from your standpoint to maintain -- MR. KOBZA: That's a -- that's our understanding of the stipulation and we're prepared to agree to that. We believe that there are underlying uses there where, if for any reason, this facility didn't work, we have a partial property that can be used for other -- for allowed uses. The other thing we~ve been able to do, which kind of addresses that, is fairly unique and I think very beneficial for the Parkway, we've been able to assemble, through a long period of negotiation, two adjacent parcels, which are actually four undersized lots, 50 foot lots on the Parkway, that gives you a little more latitude in terms of your -- your setbacks and your ability to create the buffering needed for this kind of -- for any use really on the property, so you're not going to get two separate uses side by side, which would probably be much more intensive, but the answer is yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great, thank you. I have other questions too, but I just want to hear from our County Attorney's Office. MS. STUDENT: As I opined before the Planning Commission, it states in the stipulation that they agree to this, so as long as it's agreed to by the petitioner, we have no problem with it, and our code does provide that we can put reasonable stipulations on the conditional uses, and also there is some precedent. I think there is a batch plant or some kind of operation like that out beyond the urban area that the code doesn't say we have to bring back every five years, but we brought it back for renewal every five years, so there is some precedent for something similar. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question, if I may, on that point, just -- Marjorie? MS. STUDENT: Yes, ma'am? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a real important issue for me is whether or not that is enforceable and -- and, you know, cannot be weakened is a real important question for my vote, and so my question is, how will -- is this something that will be recorded in the land records? Will there be some public notice of this? How will -- how will it be enforced, I guess? Is it a code enforcement question? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Glenn Wilt will call you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If he got hit by a truck, what would happen? MS. STUDENT: I think it would be a code enforcement question. MR. KOBZA: We're voluntarily willing to make a recordation in the land records at the time of the purchase and that is probably the most effective way to do it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what I'd like to see is something in the land records. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The other things we had talked about, Kim, were landscaping, and not the front slide you have there on the easel, but the other one shows some very specific things. It talks about five feet in the rear of the property on the hedges or shrubberies and has some very specific things, and we talked about making sure that was at c.o. rather than at maturity, and Friday you thought you were very comfortable with that? MR. KOBZA: I'm very comfortable that it be mature landscaping and that it not be simply -- yeah, the smaller or new young -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Spindly little trees put in? MR. KOBZA: Spindly, right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So the commitments made from this layout here and from the specifics within that, both in writing and here where it references five feet and the different things with the staggered on the front, those -- you're comfortable doing all that at c.o.? MR. KOBZA: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And then, I just -- we didn't get a chance to hear from you on Commissioner Hancock's concern on the architectural standards and I want to make sure you were comfortable with that as well? MR. KOBZA: We don't believe we'll have any problems meeting architectural standards, and I don't know why that other language crept in there, but I -- I think it was because we were using the shell of an existing -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think our staff recognized an improvement would take place and placed that in there, but we're talking marginal difference. MR. KOBZA: Right, I -- from an expense standpoint, that's not an issue. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any further questions for the petitioner? MR. KOBZA: We do have the engineer available if, for any reason, any of the commissioners have questions of him or Mr. Germain. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do you wish to hear anymore? If not, I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think you might have speakers. MR. FERNANDEZ: You have two speakers. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have speakers on this? Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: You have two speakers, Madam Chairman, first is Cheryle Newman and then Glenn Wilt. MS. NEWMAN: Good morning. For the record, Cheryle Newman. Excuse me, I have a bad cold. I'm before you this morning to speak regarding this very important and difficult task, to represent the Golden Gate Area Civic Association general membership. Prior to the presentation made by Germain at our general membership meeting on April 13th, I would ~robably say we are adamantly against this request. That is not the issue at this time. Although I cannot stand before and you give our seal of approval, we understand Germain has been a good neighbor in the past at their other locations and do feel that they would not be any less than that to the citizens of Golden Gate. Some of the members feel this operation should still be along the business corridor on 951, but the elimination of the abandoned pizza parlor on our main thoroughfare would definitely be a plus. We do still have some reservations concerning the possibility down the road that we would encounter another skatery-bingo parlor situation. We would ask this commission to enter into the record all the concessions agreed to by Mr. Germain and Mr. Kobza at the Planning Commission hearing on April the 16th as part of this conditional use request. If you require a list of these concessions, I am prepared at this time to provide you with those. Thank you for allowing me to speak this morning. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Glenn Wilt. MR. WILT: Good morning, Commissioners. Glenn Wilt, Golden Gate -- representing the Golden Gate Code Enforcement. Let me correct an item that was mentioned in the staff summary, I believe it's printed wrong. It said used cars. It was sold a pre-owned car lot. Just terminology. I'm not picking on anybody this morning, but there is a difference, I think, between pre-owned and a used car lot. Big A1 sells used cars. I think Germain is talking about selling pre-owned automobiles. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think there's a difference in perception, yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, being a marketing professional, I think there's a huge difference. MR. WILT: My main concern is that -- in this issue, and I've met with the petitioner and their representative, been at the Planning Commission. I'd like to point out a couple of things, there are about three things. I read the executive summary. Not all the conditions that were agreed to were listed in your executive summary and I'd like to run over them just quickly and make sure they go into the record because that's what we agreed to. We've already discussed the enhanced landscaping. They said no fencing was -- we specified that, at times, there may be a need for a gate or something, but we absolutely do not want chain link fencing around that lot and I think that's all agreed to. No water color or soap advertising on the windows of buildings, like you see in some used car lots. Commissioner Hancock has already caught the one on upgrading to architectural standards on the Papi's Pizza building there. The low level lighting was mentioned by Germain's representative, but it also should be shielded for the residents that are on the other side of the alleyway at the rear of the property. They mentioned the sidewalk along the front of the property they've agreed to, but again, it was not in your summary, and the other thing we discussed was ensuring, again, getting into the traffic problem, was that they install right turn only signs out of that piece of property because they're coming out into a divided highway there and there's no cut through at the median where they're going to have their egress and exit from the car lot. With those stipulations, I realize that Germain will probably be a real good neighbor out there and I'm going to give them the credit up ahead. I still think it belongs on County Road 951, but sometimes you don't win all your battles. Do the best you can with conditions and move forward. At least we look forward to getting that piece of property cleaned up and something on it that will certainly look better than what it is now. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. MR. MILK: Can I have one comment, please? Mr. Wilt is correct, all those citations weren't formally executed in the executive summary. The highlights were. However, I believe in the resolution of adoption with your packet, 99 percent of them are. The only one was the commitment to landscape the site accordingly with the master plan and the mature trees at c.o. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we're safe if we adopt the resolution with that one addition about the landscaping? MR. MILK: That's correct. It talks about the fencing, it talks about the speakers, it talks about the pick up and delivery, display of automobiles. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Does it talk about that paint on the windows? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe just to clarify, we can ask Mr. Kobza if he agrees to all the items Mr. Wilt just outlined that were discussed as part of the Planning Commission meeting. MR. KOBZA: Yes, that's our understanding. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine has a question for Mr. Weigel. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, I just want to -- I think I know the answer to this, but I want to be sure. We can grant this conditional use, recognizing the unique nature of this property. This doesn't in any way set a precedent for other properties along the Parkway that may in the future want to come for this same use; is that correct? MR. WEIGEL: That is correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. If there are no further questions and no further speakers, I will close the public hearing. Do I have a motion? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'll make a motion we approve the petition subject to all the stipulations agreed to in Mr. Kobza's comments and in the package that we were provided by our staff COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The resolution. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. Resolution is the word I'm looking for. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Wasn't there one other stipulation about having the landscape -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's why I referred to Mr. Kobza's comments because he agreed to have the landscaping as it is represented at c.o. rather than at maturity. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So you've double covered it, which is good. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Next item -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, you know the one stipulation we forgot, no hollering ads on the radio. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we need to change court reporters? Okay. We'll take just a couple of minutes here, please. (Brief recess taken.) Item #13A2 RESOLUTION 98-136 RE PETITION V-98-2, MARGARET H. DUPREY, REQUESTING AN AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE OF 5 FEET FROM THE REQUIRED 30 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK TO 25 FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SANDALWOOD LANE, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We will resume item 13 (A) (2), Petition V-98-2. This is a request for an after-the-fact variance of five feet from the required 30-foot side-yard setback to a 25-foot setback. MR. BELLOWS: Madam Chairman, this is a quasi judicial matter; therefore, anyone wishing to give testimony should be sworn in and the ex parte communications revealed. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Go ahead and swear them in, please. (The speakers were sworn.) MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The petitioner is requesting a five-foot after-the-fact variance from the required 30-foot side-yard setback to allow an existing stable to remain as it currently exists. The property is zoned estates. It's off of Sandalwood Lane. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You know there's nothing I hate more than interrupting you, but -- MR. BELLOWS: This is pretty straightforward. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The work was done by previous owners. It's not these folks' fault. They've got the property. They've got an unusual circumstance and they've come forward and they're trying to correct it. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask one question. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: How does a property owner take title with a condition like this existing; shouldn't this be caught at that time? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If they had a good lawyer, I bet it would be. MR. THOMPSON: If I may address that issue. My name is Stuart Thompson. I'm representing the petitioner, Margaret Duprey. In fact, Ms. Duprey did require that the monies to pay me to get through this variance -- were escrowed out of the closing. Her attorney discovered it and it was taken care of. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So this is in the process of being purchased? MR. THOMPSON: It's already been sold, but the monies were escrowed to pay for this. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. All right. So it did get caught in the transaction. That was my question. Okay. The next question would be: Is this going to be one of those conditional variances of ours so if this particular horse barn is ever removed then the variance goes away? MR. BELLOWS: That's not in the stipulation, but if you would like we can add it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's what it will take to get my vote. MR. THOMPSON: That's acceptable. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: All right. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Do you wish to hear from the petitioner or would you like to close the public hearing? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I am comfortable moving ahead with the motion. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. I will close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER H3LNCOCK: Move for approval of V-98-2 with the condition that it be -- the conditional use be related to the existing structure only. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. If there's no further comments, all in favor? Opposed? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five zero. MR. THOMPSON: Thank you. Thank you. Item #13A3 PETITION A-98-1, MR. AND MRS. JOHN FRATZIS AND MR. JEFFREY C. KROZEK REQUESTING AN APPEAL OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A BOAT DOCK EXTENSION APPROVED ON MARCH 5, 1998, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 80 SOUTHPORT COVE IN LELY BAREFOOT BEACH PUD - APPEAL DENIED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The next item is Petition A-98-1. This is requesting an appeal of the Collier County Planning Commission's approval of a boat dock extension. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good morning, Commissioners. Chahram Badamtchian from Planning Services staff. The County Attorney informed me that this is a quasi judicial; therefore, anybody wishing to speak must be sworn in and the Board is advised to disclose any ex parte communications they had. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I have -- go ahead. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have spoken with -- I don't know which side you are. You're the respondent today because you're not the petitioner. With the people that want to build the dock. I have spoken with their two representatives. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have had outside contact, but I will base my decision on what I hear in this hearing. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I figured you would. I have also had outside contact. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As I have. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have met with the respondent and received correspondence from the petitioner today and another neighbor, but it will be on the information presented today to make my decision. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We need to swear in the individuals, please. All people wishing to speak to this item today. (The speakers were sworn.) MS. STUDENT: Madam Chairman and members of the Board, Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney. I just want to -- it has been awhile since you've heard a boat dock appeal. I just wanted to mention that there are two criteria in the code for appeals. And that is whether or not the decision of the Planning Commission is consistent with the Land Development Code in this case and also whether the decision of the Planning Commission was supported by competent and substantial evidence presented to them. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, hopefully, we'll just limit the discussion to whether or not those criteria are met. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The petitioners are requesting an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the boat dock on March 5th, 1998. On February 19th, 1998 the Planning Commission heard and continued this petition and requested that the applicant revise the design and shorten the length of the boat dock, which they did. And on March 5th, 1998 the Planning Commission heard and approved this petition. And two neighbors, Mr. Faratzis and Mr. Krozek, they appealed that boat dock extension approval. And the plan -- staff recommendation is that you determine whether or not the Planning Commission views -- the Planning Commission based their decision on substantial, competent evidence. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Could we hear from the petitioner in this case, please? MR. FARATZIS: Madam Chairman, I'm John Faratzis, the petitioner. On February 19th, 1998 my wife, Mary Ann, spoke at a Planning Commission hearing regarding the aforementioned petition. At that time she explained our objections to our next-door neighbor's proposed dock. The Commission listened and directed the petitioner, Don Churilla, to alter his plans and reappear before the Commission on March 5th. Before the March 5th meeting my wife and I spoke with Mr. Churilla and voiced our concerns all the time telling him we would be very interested in reviewing his revised plans. It wasn't until March 4th, the day before the second meeting, that we received a copy of his revised plans. That same day I authored a letter outlining our objections to the revised plans and faxed it to the attention of Chahram Badamtchian. I also faxed a copy to my next-door neighbor, Jeff Krozek. The letter I faxed Mr. Badamtchian did not reach his desk in time to be submitted at the 8:30 a.m., March 5th meeting. The letter I faxed Mr. Krozek was hand carried by him to the meeting and at the direction of Chairman Davis handed to the Co~nt~ attorney, entered into the record, but not read by anybody reviewing the petition. The transcript confirms that. As the next-door neighbor who is going to be significantly impacted by this dock, I was shocked to learn that the Board never considered our opinion. To confuse the matter, the petitioner, Mr. Churilla, perjured himself at the March 5th hearing by representing that he had spoken to my wife and we had no objection to his revised plans. Mr. Churilla, a practicing attorney with more than 20 years experience, would have us believe that in an emotional state he just misspoke, but the intent of his statement was clear. He wanted the Commission to believe that we reviewed his revised plans with him and had no objections. Allow me to read from the transcript of that March 5th meeting. Mr. Churilla speaking, "I have talked to the owners of lot nine. In fact, I sent them this revised plan, as well. I believe their name is Faratzis. Ms. Faratzis was here two weeks ago." All that is true to that point. "I met with her subsequently. She expressed to me she had no objection to this proposed plan with two docks." That is untrue. Not only are we opposed to his plan, but it wasn't until last night that I actually spoke to him about his revised plan. It's clear that it was Mr. Churilla's intention to mislead the Planning Commission with his perjured testimony. Had the Planning Commission taken just a few minutes to read my letter, they would have known that Mr. Churilla was lying. Considering that our opinion of the revised plan was never heard and the petitioner willfully and knowingly misrepresented our position to the Board, we respectfully submit the variance for Petition BD-98-01 be revoked and the matter more carefully reviewed and this time allowing us an opportunity to voice our specific objections to the revised ~lans. This is an important ~ssue not only for me, but for our community. The approval of the revised plan sets precedent forever changing the nature and character of our neighborhood, in addition to endangering the lives of boaters. I would also like to add that after the first meeting when he was directed to shorten the boat dock and to reconfigure it, he did some reconfiguration, but it was never shortened. He submitted it at 35 feet. He resubmitted it at 35 feet. There is also some question about comparing apples to oranges. What we're talking about here in most cases are people have 18-foot docks with a hoist added to it that takes it out to 32 feet. Mr. Churilla would like to build a dock -- a wooden structure that extends 35 feet into the waterway. In my mind there's a huge difference. I hope the Commission will consider my appeal and that I will have an opportunity to speak about this in more detail to the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question for the attorney. Mr. Weigel, did any of those matters relate to the criteria that we have for consideration? MR. WEIGEL: I believe so. Marjorie, you may want to comment a little more specifically at this point. MS. STUDENT: Are you talking about the contents? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I am talking about the points that were raised by this speaker that he didn't get his day in court, he didn't get to have a full disclosure, somebody didn't tell him the truth and didn't tell the Board the truth. Are those -- MS. STUDENT: Yes, it could. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've got some specific questions on the letter you had written, but let me ask a couple other things first. You just said, "Granting this would forever" -- and I am quoting I think exact. So correct me if I'm wrong. MR. FARATZIS: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: "Forever change the nature and character of the neighborhood." MR. FAP~ATZIS: I believe that to be the case. As I said, the overwhelming majority of the existing boat docks run parallel to the shoreline about 18 feet off and then go out another 12 or 13 feet with a hoist. And in my mind, that is far different than extending a wooden structure eight-foot wide 35 feet out. Also, most houses -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me run through -- I have an order of my questions here. Let me run through that. I wanted to make sure I heard that correctly, "Forever changing the nature and character of the neighborhood extending out 35 feet." Yours, I'm guessing, is one of those that you described where it goes out one set and then -- MR. FARATZIS: I never had a variance for mine. I have no -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You don't mind if I ask the questions, do you? MR. FARATZIS: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How far out does yours extend? Let's just ask that. MR. FARATZIS: Eighteen feet. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And is there a boat lift attached to that? MR. FARATZIS: No. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So the entire thing goes out 18 feet? MR. FARATZIS: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there -- are there any others on neighboring properties? The neighboring property on the other side, do they have a dock? MR. FARATZIS: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How far does that extend? MR. FARATZIS: I believe -- I can't tell you exactly, but I believe 18 feet. They don't have a hoist attached to theirs. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And you said some of them extend with the hoist as far as 32 feet? MR. FAP~ATZIS: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I'm trying to figure out how it will forever change the character of the neighborhood if things are already extending 32 feet and this will extend 35. It will change it three feet. MR. FARATZIS: Can I answer that? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure. Go ahead. MR. FARATZIS: Well, there is two issues here. He would like to dock two boats on his property. Most people are only docking one boat on their property. So that is -- certainly lends more to an air of a marina than a residential area in my mind. And that changes the character and nature of the neighborhood from my perspective. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I also heard you mention you were concerned about danger or safety. And I am trying to understand what the danger would be with this. MR. FARATZIS: The way his property lies, by putting this 35-foot dock onto the existing property it would extend a good ways into what is the middle of the thoroughfare. There are more boats that dock to the west of his property and my property. There are some areas that are set up as boat docks and some homeowners that have docks, as well. And it is -- there is a good amount of traffic that goes through there. There is a wide passage at that point. There is a cove. This is not a canal. This is a naturally existing cove. And it goes -- gee, on the south side of the waterway it extends some, but it's too shallow of an area for most people to navigate. Most people navigate through the middle there. I'm presuming -- I know from my experience that at dusk when you're returning home that it's difficult to see on some occasions and that somebody may accidently run into this dock because it is going to be well into that passageway. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That extra three feet, in your opinion, could be a danger? MR. FAP~ATZIS: No. It is not so much the extra three feet from what you're -- that is where we get into a situation without -- I apologize. Perhaps I should have brought some maps. I thought this was going to be on the merits of something else. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. We will get into your letter in a moment. I just needed to have a clear view. MR. FAP~ATZIS: His property -- the way his property lies by adding 35 feet of a wooden structure into the waterway brings it out into the thoroughfare. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. You said the letter was entered into the record, but was not read aloud -- MR. FARATZIS: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- at the Planning Commission. MR. FAP~ATZIS: That's what the transcript says. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Who entered that into the record? MR. FARATZIS: The attorney. MS. STUDENT: I did. MR. FARATZIS: Mr. Krozek delivered it. MS. STUDENT: I am the attorney for the Planning Commission. There are many items that I deal with. I do not remember this incident specifically, but there is no legal requirement that letters be read into the record. And if that was given to me by someone that was merely delivering it and they didn't read it themselves, I would have likely given it to the court reporter that was there to put with the record. And the usual practice -- because I have been doing the Planning Commission for nearly ten years -- is when somebody brings a letter and they wish to read it on behalf of someone else, they will read it. And they have to make that known. And that was not made known, as far as my recollection goes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, that's what I was going to ask. Was it a single copy; were there multiple copies? MR. FARATZIS: There was a single -- I faxed one to Chahram the night before that arrived in time. His explanation to me was that there is 144 people using one fax machine and the letter didn't reach his desk until after the hearing. The transcript says -- this is Mr. Krozek speaking. "Hi. My name is Jeff Krozek. I'm the owner at lot eight. I've received a fax from my neighbor in New York. He is at lot nine. Maybe somebody could read this for him because he can't make it today. Is there --" Chairman Davis, "If you give it to the County attorney, we'll enter it into -- that into the record." Mr. Krozek, "Thank you." MS. STUDENT: Well, if I might. Entering it into the record is different than reading it. If someone had asked me to read it, I would have been happy or I would have actually given it to Mr. Badamtchian because mn that instance the planner is the person that reads the things into the record. I was asked to enter it into the record. Thus, handing it to the court reporter is entering it into the record. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How is this relevant anyway to whether or not there is substantial, competent evidence for the Planning Commission to have made the decision they made? I don't understand. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's where I'm headed with this. I apologize for the length of time I'm taking. But the opportunity is there. That's what the public hearing is for. And the reason -- actually, there are a couple different public hearings in this case. The opportunity is there to come and speak to that. For whatever reason, you had a conflict and could not do that. You did provide in writing, but, again, the opportunity for someone to read that into the record is there and that was not exercised. It was placed in the record, but the fact that it wasn't read isn't the responsibility of staff that a private person has brought that forward and said that they want to enter that into the record and it's entered into the record. It's not the responsibility of staff to read every piece of paperwork -- if you look at our weekly agenda you can see why -- into the record. There is some responsibility there if you have a complaint or a concern or something that you want to make sure we hear, or in that instance the Planning Commission hears, that you take the initiative to make sure that happens. And while I understand the frustration on your part, I don't know that there was anything inappropriate done there by the fact that it was physically entered in, but not read because no one there requested it to be read into the record. MR. FARATZIS: I am reading from the -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Your neighbor or friend had the opportunity during his time to read that into the record and did not. MR. FARATZIS: Commissioner, I'm reading from the transcript. This is Mr. Krozek speaking, "Maybe somebody could read this for him because he can't make it today." When he handed it over, not being aware of, you know, exactly how the Commission operates, I think it was reasonable to assume it was his expectation that he was handing it over to be read because that's what he had just requested, instead of it to be entered into the record. Ignorance is certainly no defense, but on the other hand I think we made a reasonable effort. It can't be any clearer. He wanted it read. Perhaps there's a misunderstanding, us lay people who aren't involved in the running of the government or parliamentary procedures every day. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me. I think we've established that it was not read into the record. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're clear on that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Can we move on to another thing? MR. FARATZIS: Well, I'm just responding to the Commissioner's questions. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My point being that I understand your frustration, but it appears -- and when you continue reading that and Mr. Davis' question it appears that the request of your neighbor was complied with. "And will you -- is it okay if we enter that in?" I don't have it in front of me, but when you continued to read it Mr. Davis asked if they would go ahead and enter it into the record. And your neighbor replied affirmatively, so they did. It's not the Planning Commission's responsibility, it's not the staff's responsibility to read every piece of paper that comes. Your neighbor had the opportunity to read that himself while he was at the podium. My point being that there was every opportunity afforded and you did have a chance to take.advantage. If you did not take advantage of that opportunity that is not, in my opinion, an appealable reason for hearing this again. MR. FARATZIS: May I respond? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Certainly. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Just shortly. MR. FARATZIS: When the Planning Commission announces this sort of a hearing, they ask people who will be affected by it to either respond -- "All interested parties are invited to attend, to register to speak and to submit their objections, if any, in writing to the Board prior to the public hearing." COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Prior to the public hearing, sir. What happens is -- we've had this happen in the past. Somebody will bring a 30-page document and lay it in front of us at the beginning of a public hearing. It is not reasonable or prudent to expect a Commissioner at that public hearing to be able to go through 30 pages of information. Now, albeit this is one letter. We get stacks of letters here. That is why it says, "Prior to the public hearing," so that the Commissioner has an opportunity to review it before the item is being heard, not during. So that is -- procedurally what you have read was not followed. It was not submitted prior to the public hearing. MR. FARATZIS: I submitted it the day before via fax prior to the public hearing. As soon as I became privy to the revised plans, I authored a letter, sent it to Mr. Badamtchian. And he says he didn't get it in time because 144 people share a fax machine. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It doesn't matter how many people use that fax machine. He faxed it to me at 6:30, I believe, in the afternoon. We close at 5:00. The public hearing was at 8:30 in the morning in here. I had to leave the building at 8:15. I didn't have time to go through the stack of faxes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think we have to ask for a little measure of reason from you, as well. And sending something over the night before, which really leaves 30 minutes of business time to get that in a different building, then I don't think that's reasonable. And the fact is you had -- what you just read you had three things and you didn't exercise any of them. You could attend the public hearing. You did not. You could speak at the public hearing. You did not. You could provide that in writing ahead of time. And, frankly, you did not. So -- MR. FARATZIS: I didn't attend the public hearing because I have to make a living. I mean, certainly everybody can understand that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I can. I am not criticizing you. MR. FARATZIS: I was out of town on business. As far as -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me finish, sir. I'm not criticizing you for not attending. I'm saying the point that you read right there is there are three opportunities to comment. You didn't exercise any of them and now after the fact you're complaining about it. You had those opportunities. You didn't exercise them and now you want to appeal. I, for one, can't support that appeal based on the information you've provided. MR. FARATZIS: I responded to the revised plans as soon as I received them. As soon as they came to my home, I responded to them. The fact that the petitioner didn't get them to me until then, is there some consideration of that? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Frankly, it was a courtesy for them to give you. I don't think they're required to provide those to members of the public. And if a petitioner chose to do that, that's a courtesy. I would think that's a good thing that they provided you with the plans ahead of time instead of making you wait until the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Faratzis, the position we sit in as an Appeal Board isn't one of going back and revisiting every element of the decision, which I hope has been explained to you. It's not like we start from scratch, ignore what the Planning Commission did or didn't hear, and make a whole new decision today. The question is whether or not the Planning Commission in their decision not just erred as a matter of opinion -- that's not the litmus test -- but did they, in fact, consider all material provided to them in an ample time frame and make their decision according to the codes and ordinances of Collier County. Did you say that his fax was received at 6:30 p.m.? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I believe it was dated Wednesday -- whatever the date was -- the day before at 6:30 p.m. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The office had been closed for an hour and a half by the time your fax rolled into a machine. The hearing started the first thing the very next morning. So I cannot say that there was an error on our staff's part in not reading that into the record because it was not even faxed during a business day. MR. FARATZIS: It was -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I heard what Mr. Krozek said. Mr. Krozek was here. He had podium time and had the ability to physically read it into the record. As this matter was closing, if it had not been read into the record and that was clearly his intent, he had the ability to say that. He had the ability to ask, "I thought I asked you to read this into the record." That didn't happen either. When Mr. Davis says, "You can enter it into the record," Mr. Krozek said, "Okay." That's what he did. He entered it into the record. And that's different than reading. So our decision is not, you know, what we would do if we went back to zero and started all over. It is, was proper procedure followed? And from what I'm hearing, our staff followed a proper procedure. It may not have worked out in your time frame with getting plans at a late hour and whatnot, but I don't see that our staff erred in the providing of information on that given hearing. MR. FARATZIS: What about the perjured testimony; what about the petitioner representing that we were in agreement with this when, indeed, we were not? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The point that I wanted to make is that I think it is -- I feel it is disingenuous of you to tell you the reason Mr. Badamtchian didn't get your fax to the Board was that 144 people used the machine, instead of telling us, "By the way, it got there an hour and a half after his office was closed." That's not telling us the whole story. I would have appreciated the whole story. MR. FARATZIS: Commissioner, I'm telling you what he told me when I called him after -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You didn't tell us when you sent it. MR. FARATZIS: I sent it as soon as I could. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, that's -- MR. FARATZIS: As soon as I got the information. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's just not the whole story. They didn't have to give you -- the legal requirements of notice are not such that the plans have to be submitted to you at all. And my point is merely that it would have been -- I would be a lot more open minded to your complaints about other people's disingenuousness if you had told us the whole story about when you sent that fax, instead of just that Chahram didn't go by the fax and pick it up. MR. FARATZIS: Mr. Krozek hand delivered a letter. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He was home asleep. MR. FARATZIS: Mr. Krozek hand delivered a letter. It was there. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So he hand delivered the letter. So everything was appropriate then? MR. FAP~ATZIS: He hand delivered it. It was never read. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: He had an opportunity to read it. He was asked if he wanted to read it. MR. FAP~ATZIS: No, he wasn't asked. According to the transcript COMMISSIONER NORRIS: He was given the opportunity to read it and he chose not to. MR. FARATZIS: What about a decision based upon disingenuous information provided by the petitioner? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't know that it is disingenuous. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the fact of the matter is -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We don't have any proof of that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Although a Planning Commission -- when I make a decision up here, I care a lot about whether or not the neighbors support or oppose a petition. Nevertheless, I'm required to say, "Does this petition meet the requirements of the law?" And if it does, to approve it. And what I haven't heard from you -- and this was my complaint from the start -- is which of the criteria for approval of a dock extension were not met here. What you're telling us is that you didn't get to talk about it, you didn't get to have your day in court. I haven't heard anything -- and even if it's true that somebody said you agreed and supported it and you didn't, how does that bear on the criteria for approval of the permit or not? MR. FAR3tTZIS: I am sorry. I was under the impression that based upon the remarks starting out that that wasn't the criteria. We weren't judging whether or not this -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We're not. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're judging whether or not they had substantial evidence to make that decision. And you aren't even telling me which criteria we're talking about, much less which piece of evidence was not appropriate for the meeting of the criteria. MR. FARATZIS: I will let it go after this because I can see where this is going. But you just got done telling me that it's important to you when you make these sorts of decisions what the neighbors think. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of course. MR. FARATZIS: I never got that opportunity. I was never heard. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You were given the opportunity. MR. FARATZIS: That's it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You didn't exercise that opportunity, but you had that opportunity. You chose not to exercise it. Don't say you didn't have the opportunity. MR. FARATZIS: There was a letter delivered that was not heard. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Are there any other public speakers, please? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. Jeffrey Krozek. MR. KROZEK: My name is Jeff Krozek. I'll be quick. I live at lot nine. I retired down here two years ago. I have been boating 15 years. I have probably one -- a boat right in the area and one of the only houses. What's going on here is everybody is on about an 80-foot wide lot. Mine is like 80. Can we actually put two three-hoist turns coming into the property to overdevelop this cove? Now, if you go back into the cove where they put all these finger docks and all this stuff, there is a lot of dockage back there. Now the homeowners -- you've got an 80-foot wide lot. We're going to turn all these docks so we can put more in, more boats. I don't know how you drive two boats at the same time, to tell you the truth. What I'm getting at is: Can I do it, too? If you approve this, it's going to change everything. Because the lot next to me is vacant with a dock on it right now and that can be changed perpendicular three, four docks going perpendicular. See, that's what's going on here. That's why John is alarmed. That's why I'm alarmed. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me. Did I hear you say there is a vacant lot with a dock on it? MR. KROZEK: Next door to me. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Is that allowed under code? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, it's not. MR. KROZEK: That should be taken out. It should be ripped out. It should. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: A dock is an accessory structure. You cannot have an accessory structure without a -- MR. KROZEK: Then it should be removed. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's not what we're hearing today. MR. KROZEK: I know. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We appreciate it because I think our staff -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. They will make note of that. MR. KROZEK: They are overdeveloping. That is a real problem because we're in a cove. And my dock was an 18-foot existing dock. It goes out to 32 because of a standard 12-foot hoist. See, I thought from the first meeting this was going to go out 20 feet. The Commissioners said that if you keep the second hoist within 20 foot, for like a jet ski or something, the rest of the structure -- the three pilings or two pilings to hold up the hoist are at 32 feet. Well, now we've got a massive structure going out. It's like a setback on a house. You can build that whole area. Put a three-bedroom ranch out there if you want. It can't happen. It should be -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't think that's fair, Mr. Krozek. No one is approving a three bedroom, two bath house at the end of the dock. MR. KROZEK: The first drawing was. It was huge. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We are not dealing -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Excuse me just a moment. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're not dealing with the first drawing. What we're dealing with is what is before us and the decision of the Planning Commission. MR. KROZEK: The second drawing isn't to what the Commission said at the first meeting. They said the second hoist will be out 20 feet. It's not. They said the dock would be six-foot wide. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Again, we're not dealing with what we have in front of us. MR. KROZEK: What are you guys saying? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The item in front of us is: Was the proper information or -- MR. KROZEK: Right. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- procedure followed? The proper procedure was followed. MR. KROZEK: Right. Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's the issue before us today. It's not -- we're not hearing whether these docks should be built or not be built. MR. KROZEK: Yeah. What's the regulation; can you do that? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, we have people in our Planning Department that can give you that regulation if you have any question about it. MR. KROZEK: So you can build as many as you want perpendicular? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We're not dealing with this today. We don't have that information. I don't have that information in front of me. MR. KROZEK: It seems like a lot of development. That's all. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's an opinion. That's fine for you to have that opinion. MR. KROZEK: Yeah. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask Mr. Krozek a question. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We didn't get a very detailed map in our packet. Are you right next door to this property? MR. KROZEK: Two doors over. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Two doors over. Who is right next door? MR. KROZEK: John. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And then on the other side then is a vacant lot? MR. KROZEK: Is lot ten. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You've got the lot numbers or something wrong because the application, I think, is on lot number ten, isn't it? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Lot ten is where the boat dock is. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Krozek, what lot number are you? MR. KROZEK: Eight. And that vacant dock -- lot is at lot seven. It's the other side. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. You're a full-time resident down here? MR. KROZEK: Yeah, yeah. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And, Mr. Faratzis, you're part-time? MR. FAP~ATZIS: I'm part-time soon to be full-time. We're moving later this year full-time. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Krozek brings up a point that is worth consideration, but unfortunately isn't something we can use to reverse a Planning Commission decision. And that is, what is the ultimate build-out when everybody has the, quote, unquote, maximum dock they can have. It's something we may need to take a firm look at in this area. The problem is that when I look at the details of the decision of the Planning Commission, Mr. Krozek, your lot as an example, whether the dock is 18 feet with a boat lift on the end of it or whatnot, the physical effect is a 32-foot effect. The rear of your boat, whether it be stern or bow, depending on how you have yours lifted up -- I assume it's the stern -- the visual effect for your neighbors is 32 feet of dockage because there's a boat on the end of it. And that boat is the largest mass of the dock. When I sit in my house if I'm sitting next door and I look out across the water, I see a dock a few feet above the water and I see the mass of the boat at the very end. What is being ~roposed here and the Planning Commission based their decision on, mn essence, has a visual impact consistent with what your property has. Even though the dock may be 35 feet -- I understand it's turned. It may have 35 feet, but the boat lift is set back in where the stern of the vessel is going to be 32 feet or so. MR. KROZEK: These are eight-foot wide beams. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand it's a beam. But when you're sitting in your house and you look out across the water, you don't see eight feet of dock because you're on the side. You see just a flat level of dock. What the Planning Commission considers and -- one of the things is the visual characteristic. And what I was looking for in this appeal was something to show me that the visual characteristic was dramatically different than what's already been allowed. Since I haven't seen that, I can't -- I'm not comfortable overturning the Planning Commission on this particular issue. MR. KROZEK: I understand. Whatever. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I am trying to give you some explanation as to where we're going. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, more importantly, the requirement is that there is some procedural fault. And no one has even begun to address that. I don't know if we need a motion or if we just let it die as is. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Hold on just a moment. We have another public speaker. MR. FERNANDEZ: We have one more speaker. Richard Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Not to belabor the point, it's already been pointed out. There is no competent, substantial -- the record is clear that -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who are you? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Who are you? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry. I thought he read it in. Rich Yovanovich with Roetzel and Andress. Real quickly, there is plenty of competent, substantial evidence to support the Planning Commission's decision. I don't need to belabor the point. We'll rest on the record that's in there. We believe you should support the Planning Commission's decision. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Any other speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: No other speakers, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. Then I will close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Madam Chairman, I'll make a motion to deny the appeal. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to deny the appeal. Any further questions or comments? If not, I will call for the question. All in favor? Opposed? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five zero. Moving on then. Mr. Fernandez, do you have anything that you would like to talk about today? MR. FERNANDEZ: I have nothing further, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's a wise thing to do at this hour. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm hungry. I have nothing. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie? Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I wouldn't dare. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Nor me. Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. Making it unanimous. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Ail right. Then the meeting is adjourned. **** Commissioner Hancock moved, seconded by Commissioner Constantine and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted: ***** Item #16Al RESOLUTION 98-120 ASSESSING A LIEN TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 70609-009, RECORD OWNER EILEEN CURRAN, BLOCK 12 LOT 36, NAPLES MANOR ADDITION Item #16A2 RESOLUTION 98-121 ASSESSING A LIEN TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 70729-063, RECORD OWNER SYLVIA S. MILLER, LOT 22 BLOCK 191, UNIT SEVEN, MARCO BEACH Item #16A3 RESOLUTION 98-122 ASSESSING A LIEN TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 70902-044, RECORD OWNER BORIS & EMOGENE L. PUKAY, LOT 27, BLOCK 152, UNIT FIVE, A REPLAT OF A PORTION OF MARCO BEACH Item # 16A4 RESOLUTION 98-123 ASSESSING A LIEN TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 70904-042, RECORD OWNER THALES SELORENZI & PATRICIA CAMPELO, LOT 22, BLOCK 348, UNIT TEN, MARCO BEACH Item #16A5 RESOLUTION 98-124 ASSESSING A LIEN TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 70924-023, RECORD OWNER, H N H VENTURES, LOT 4, BLOCK 226, UNIT 6, GOLDEN GATE Item #16A6 RESOLUTION 98-125 ASSESSING A LIEN TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO.71002-041, RECORD OWNER MAURICE R & KAREN C SKIFFEY, LOT 12, BLOCK 276, UNIT 8, MARCO BEACH Item #16A7 RESOLUTION 98-126 ASSESSING A LIEN TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 80105-067, RECORD OWNER LLOYD G SHEEHAN TR, LOT 10, BLOCK 10, NAPLES MANOR ADDITION Item #16A8 RESOLUTION 98-127 ASSESSING A LIEN TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISA/~CE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 80116-015,RECORD OWNER, RICHARD F. MC CULLOUGH, LOTS 42 & 43, BLOCK 2, UNIT 2, TRAIL ACRES Item # 16A9 RESOLUTION 98-128 ASSESSING A LIEN TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 80116-018, RECORD OWNER BRUCE T & ELSYE K WHITMER, LOT 27, BLOCK 7, NAPLES MANOR LAKES Item #16Al0 RESOLUTION 98-129 ASSESSING A LIEN TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 80205-004, RECORD OWNER, MAURICE C RIX, LOT 16, BLOCK 5, NAPLES MANOR EXTENSION Item #16B1 - Deleted Item #16B2 - Moved to Item #8C2 Item #16B3 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR SUNNILAND WATER CONTROL STRUCTURE, BID NO. 98-2798, PROJECT NO. 31702 - AWARDED TO SALTSMAN CONSTRUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $105,250.00 Item #16C1 AGREEMENT WITH THE COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD FOR SUMMER CAMP FIELD TRIP TRANSPORTATION. Item #16C2 CONSOLIDATION OF TWO PART TIME PARK RANGER POSITIONS INTO ONE FULL TIME POSITION Item #16E1 BID #98-2796 FOR THE RENTAL OF TWO HYDRAULIC TRASH PUMPS - AWARDED TO SLOAN PUMP COMPANY, INC. AND APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM CAPITAL OUTLAY TO RENT EQUIPMENT Item #16E2 BUDGET AMENDMENT 98-224 Item #16H1 COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE GRANT APPLICATION FOR CONTINUED FUNDING FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIR'S ANTI-DRUG ACT FORMULA GRANT PROGRAM (SERIOUS HABITUAL OFFENDER COMPREHENSIVE ACTION PLAN PROGRAM) Item #16H2 COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE GRANT APPLICATION FOR CONTINUED FUNDING FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIR'S ANTI-DRUG ACT FORMULA GRANT PROGRAM (STREET GANG PREVENTION AND APPREHENSION PROGRAM) There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:18 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK BARBARA BERRY, CHAIRPERSON These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE BY: Heather Casassa, RPR, and Kelley Marie Blecha, RPR