Loading...
DSAC Minutes 03/01/2000 RMarch 1, 2000 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, March 1, 2000 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Development Services Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, as the governing board of such special district as has been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:30 p.m. in REGULAR SESSION at Conference Room "E", Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Dalas D. Disney Charles M. Abbott R. Bruce Anderson David Correa William P. Dillon Marco A. Espinar Blair Foley Sally Lam Dino J. Longo Thomas Masters C. Perry Peeples Herbert R. Savage STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Vincent A. Cautero Ronald F. Nino Edward S. Perico Stan Chrzanowski Tom Kuck Michelle Arnold ALSO PRESENT: David Ellis Jesse Kroese Jeff Purse Len Berringer Bob Pearson Page #1 March 1, 2000 CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Since we have a quorum -- hello, boys and girls. We have a quorum, we'll call the meeting to order. Since we have a quorum, we'll call the meeting to order. Thank you very much. First item on the agenda is approval of the agenda. Are there any modifications to this agenda? MR. SAVAGE: Yes. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: First -- no, wait a minute. MR. SAVAGE: First thing I think we should do is introduce all the people whom I don't know on the -- CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Hold on a second, Herb. We'll get to that. We need a motion and a second first, and then we'll ask for modifications; is that correct? MR. FOLEY: Motion to approve. MR. ESPINAR.' I second. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Any modifications to the agenda? MR. CAUTERO.' Mr. Chair, if there's no committee modifications to the agenda, staff would propose just one. We'd like to add an item under new business as Item 6-D, as in David. And if Mr. Purse is here? Jeff Purse called me a few days ago, and I asked him -- excuse me, I told him that I would request of this committee to add an item to the agenda. He wishes to address this committee regarding the parking standard ordinance amendment that was approved several months ago. If you're amenable, I'd propose that we add that as Item 6-D. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: 6-D, Mr. Jeff Purse. Any other modifications to the agenda? MR. CAUTERO.' Just one more. I propose that Item 6-C be continued. And that would be to be announced. I don't have a time or date certain. We're revising -- our consultants are revising for consideration by this committee and other interested parties, as well as the Board of County Commissioners, the library and EMS impact fee schedules. They're going to be proposing within the next few days a series of dates that they're going to be coming forward for public workshops and public meetings, including this committee. And at that time we'll be able to give you more information as to when it would come forward to you. But we have no presentation today Page #2 March 1, 2000 on that. We thought we would, but we don't. MR. SAVAGE: You did say 6-C? MR. CAUTERO: 6-C, yes. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: To be continued. MR. CAUTERO: To be continued. (Mr. Anderson enters boardroom.) CHAIRMAN DISNEY: That's it? MR. CAUTERO: That's it. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Nothing else? All those in favor of the approval of the agenda say aye, please. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Passes unanimous. Maybe we could ask, before we go on, for introductions around the room, for those of you who are visitors. Mr. Kuck, we know you, but why don't we start with you. MR. KUCK: Tom Kuck, engineering review. MS. ARNOLD: Michelle Arnold, code enforcement director. MR. PEARSON: Bob Pearson, Kay (phonetic) Homes. MR. PERICO: Ed Perico, building director. MR. BERRINGER: My name's Len Berringer. I'm just a taxpayer. MR. NINO: Ron Nino, current planning board. MR. PURSE: Jeff Purse, engineer and taxpayer. MR. NINO: I don't pay taxes. MR. PEARSON: And you said you didn't pay yours. MR. KROESE: Jesse Kroese, The Conservancy. MR. ELLIS: David Ellis. I'm with Collier Building Industry Association. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Hello, David, how are you? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: And I'm Stan Chrzanowski, I work for Mr. Kuck. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Stan, how are you? Next item is approval of the minutes for two meetings here. We'll go first January 19th, 2000 meeting. Do I hear a motion for approval? MR. MASTERS: So moved. Page #3 March 1, 2000 CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Modifications? MR. FOLEY: Yes, Blair Foley. I'm noted as Robert Foley. Blair would be appropriate. MR. CAUTERO: We've sent that in to the court reporter's office, and we haven't gotten the final sheets back yet. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Good. And Mr. Abbott. MR. ABBOTT: My only comment is I read them thoroughly, and I realize that possibly maybe I need to enunciate my words a little closer here. Just a general comment. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Oh, I see. MR. ABBOTT: Any number of -- CHAIRMAN DISNEY: We appreciate your comment. Thank you so much. MR. ABBOTT: I lost 20 IQ points or something. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Is there a motion for approval of the January 19th meeting minutes? MR. LONGO: So moved. MR. ABBOTT: Second. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Second, Mr. Abbott. Any other comments? All those in favor of approval. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN DISNEY: February 2 meeting minutes. Is there a motion for approval or comment? MR. FOLEY: Motion for approval, Blair Foley. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: And a second? MR. MASTERS: I second. MS. LAM: Second. MR. SAVAGE: Herb Savage, I second. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Everybody in the room. Any comments? MS. LAM: Yes. Why is the print so large? MR. LONGO: For us blind people. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Why is the print so large? So you can read it -- so Herb can read it real easily without his glasses. All those in favor of approval of the February 2, 2000 meeting minutes, say aye, please. Page #4 March 1, 2000 Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Hearing none, Item 3, staff announcements. Mr. Cautero. MR. CAUTERO: Couple of announcements, including the summary of ordinance amendments, which is in your packet behind the minutes of the meeting. We have a whole bunch of ordinance amendments that are pending, including three that were discussed last July. We've gone through those related to the Building Department. The Weed, Litter and Exotic Control Ordinance, Michelle will be bringing that back to your subcommittee this month. Land development regulations subcommittee, the Board of County Commissioners gave direction to amend the ordinance, consistent with your recommendation. Jumping to the bottom, if I may, of course you also made a recommendation on not only on the fee schedule for the rental registration fees, but the actual rental registration itself. This committee recommended, I believe, unanimously to-- MR. ABBOTT: To abolish it. MR. CAUTERO: Yes, to ask the Board of County Commissioners to rescind that section of the ordinance, and the Board of County Commissioners unanimously rejected your recommendation. And the -- so no ordinance amendment was initiated by the Board of County Commissioners. We feel compelled to bring back forward to you again for your consideration, and we fully understand what your recommendation was with regard to the fees, but we would ask for your official action on that in April. So we are going to bring that back again. The board was interested in seeing those numbers. We did tell them publicly, the program did not pay for itself, and they would like to see those fees. We're aware of your stance on that, but we would bring it back to you again for formal action, because we are compelled to by the ordinance. So there would be no ordinance amendment for rental -- for the housing -- the standard housing code, which is where that section is located. But you'll notice on your sheet here, it does Page #5 March 1, 2000 say fee schedule. And the reason why we're putting pending is because we feel compelled to bring it back to the board for their consideration, thus you have to make a recommendation on that. Mr. Abbott, you had a question? MR. ABBOTT: Well, just when you said that, they wanted to see our numbers or they wanted to see the dollars amount, why it didn't pay, or-- MR. CAUTERO.' The board will be getting that in their executive summary. We didn't give that to them in detail, because we weren't there to talk to them about the fees. We mentioned it to them, and it was part of the discussion, but we carried forward your recommendation on abolishing that section of the ordinance, and the board elected not to initiate that amendment. They believe that that ordinance is sufficient the way it's written. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Foley? MR. FOLEY: I have a question about Florida residents in that same ordinance. Was that brought up, and was that also not in favor of the -- MR. CAUTERO.' Yes, that was part of the executive summary that we brought forward to them and the board rejected it. They just felt the ordinance was written in sufficient format. We'll bring forward the fee issue again with an explanation of the fees, the charts that we brought forward to you. We actually refined that. So you'll be seeing some better numbers at your meeting in April. And then we would ask that you formally make a recommendation on that, and then we'll bring that forward to the board, so -- CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Vince, can I ask one question on that? MR. CAUTERO.' Yes. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: And that is, was it very clearly presented to the Board of County Commissioners that our reason for asking that this ordinance not continue as it is, is that it costs more to implement it than it does to go after the handful of people on an annual basis? MR. CAUTERO.' Unless I'm mistaken, Michelle can correct me, but we never got-- I'm sorry, ma'am. Page #6 March 1, 2000 MS. LAM.' I was watching TV that day, and their point of view was that they use that to find out bed tax. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: So they have ulterior motives in utilizing this for other purposes. MR. ABBOTT: But -- MS. LAM.' When I was watching, I thought that's what Tim said that was -- that through using -- through finding out where things were rented -- THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you. MS. LAM.' At the board meeting, the reason that the board went forward with maintaining it was that they felt that through the use of the registration of rental properties, they knew then where to get bed tax. And that's utilized. So therefore, that actually pays for this itself in a way. MR. CAUTERO.' Well, he did say that. Now that -- you're right. I don't know where he was going with that, quite frankly. We proposed that to this committee, and we'll bring it back forward to the board when we bring the fees that there's -- the fees generate so much money. And what we're trying to do is just establish somebody as a local agent in the event of a code enforcement action. That's the only reason why the ordinance was adopted in its final form. What the reasons were prior to that, what the reasons may be now, I don't know. I just know when we brought it to the board in '96, I believe, when it was adopted -- maybe '97, I think it '96 -- that was the reason it was ultimately given in the executive summary and so forth. We'll have better numbers, but the last numbers that I've seen from Michelle that were produced showed that the program didn't support itself. But Mr. Peek brought up a good question, I believe, on the record at the last meeting when he asked, for the amount of time that you're putting into it, were you -- in other words, if the program costs $50,000 a year to run -- these are hypothetical numbers, I'm using numbers out of thin air -- $50,000, but you only collected 35, are you spending more than $15,000 difference on code enforcement action? Talk slower. Sorry. Page #7 March 1, 2000 I didn't have a good answer for him. In talking to Michelle after that meeting, she informed me that it's costing more than the difference. And we need to just bring that to your attention for your recommendation and then the board. So -- CHAIRMAN DISNEY: I'd comment only because I didn't want our actions here in the amount of time that we spend on these issues seem to be frivolous and without meaning to the board when they see it. We're saying get rid of this particular ordinance for these reasons, and we have some good reasons for that. And I just want to make sure that they're not seeing us as going in opposite direction without any real thought. MR. CAUTERO: Right. That's an excellent point, and we will do everything in our power to bring those recommendations forward. But please try to understand or please accept what I'm about to tell you in that sometimes the board -- it's challenging for us, because sometimes the board doesn't let us get all of that in on the record. And that's the most polite way I think I can put it. And we'll do our very best to do that, but sometimes the board doesn't give us the opportunity to say everything we'd like to say. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: And all of us here should also recognize that we are an advisory board at the pleasure of the Board of County Commissioners. Okay. MR. CAUTERO: Questions? MR. ABBOTT: Well, just the bed tax issue. Bed tax isn't applied to longer term rentals, is it? What's the cut-off? MR. CAUTERO: I think it's 30 days, if I'm not mistaken. MR. PURSE: Six months. MR. CAUTERO: I thought it was 30 days. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Six months and a day. MR. ABBOTT: But anyway, I would think that the argument about the bed tax is weak, at best. MR. CAUTERO: We weren't prepared for it, honestly. MS. ARNOLD: If I may add that the reason that the committee gave for doing away with the ordinance was provided to the board in the executive summary, too. I mean, so we weren't able to explain it, but it was given to them in writing. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. Thank you, Michelle. MR. FOLEY: I think that's -- Blair Foley -- that's standard Page #8 March 1, 2000 procedure. And sometimes they may not read those and sometimes they may. Hopefully they read them all. In an effort to try to expedite the meetings, they do move along quite rapidly. The new chairman's policy is to move the meetings along quickly at times. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Right. Speaking of that-- MR. CAUTERO: Just two more things on this -- items on this sheet, Mr. Chairman. Right-of-way ordinance and telecommunications ordinance that my utility and franchise regulations staff is working on. They're pending due to legislation that is being considered by the Florida legislature, especially in the area of telecommunication, and a proposed telecommunication flat tax. We will have more information for you at a later date, so they're both pending. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. Mr. Longo. MR. LONGO: Vince, on the weed and litter ordinance, what is -- what is going to be enforced at this point? Is it the old ordinance that we -- we went back to a grace period of going back to -- or keeping the old ordinance criteria the same, and pending us revising or amend it. Now they've told us to go back and amend it to the original ordinance. So what's being enforced? MR. KUCK: We're enforcing the old ordinance. MR. LONGO: The old ordinance. Where does it go back to? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Savage. MR. SAVAGE: Speaking about the weed ordinance, exotic control, Marco Island is going to get bigger and bigger by the loud voices of Herb Savage about having to remove Australian pines. I don't know what brilliant mind came up with the idea that Australian pine was an exotic tree. They've taken trees down on some of these islands out here, absolutely looks like a bald head. And it's a disgrace to think that we don't carry those trees and leave them there to protect the soil and keep those islands intact. Now, whoever thinks that that does not happen, they ought to go back to 1925 in Miami and all those years that they built canals, and those Australian pines grew and held those islands together. And some brilliant mind came up and said those are Page #9 March 1, 2000 exotic, they should be taken out. And I'm going to challenge all that. I'm going to challenge that if we talk about it again in -- well, it says February 2. I'm going to talk about it from now on, about Australian pines having to be removed. It's absolutely ridiculous. I just want to add that to my general commentary later. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Thank you, Mr. Savage. You're on the record. Okay, we're going to move along. Old business. 4-A, citation program. MR. CAUTERO: Mr. Chairman and committee members, the committee asked several meetings back for some additional information to Michelle regarding the proposed ordinance amendment that we had brought forward, and that memorandum is in your packet under new business. And she'll go over that. Additionally, there's some backup information. FYI only. There was some discussion regarding -- during the discussion of the citation program, I thought it might be important to give you some information about our code enforcement efforts in more detail. I thought you might be interested in that. And what we have is a memorandum that was put together by my staff that provides an overview of the different types of certification programs that the staff goes through, and the different levels pertaining to that certification program, which is offered through a state-wide organization that has come up with some very good material and some very creative programs, called the Florida Association of Code Enforcement. And that's also in your packet as informational item. And I'll turn it over to Michelle to talk about the citation program and go over the memorandum she wrote. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, you all -- I provided for you in the memorandum some numbers in terms of number of citations that had been issued by our department since its implementation, and just the cost associated. And I tried to give you an idea of what the procedures are once the citation is issued, or, you know, it goes before the courts if not paid or contested. And there's a judgment that's filed with the court system to -- if it's not paid by the time that the citation allows for, which is generally 30 days. Page #10 March 1, 2000 I don't know if you have questions about the numbers that are provided. As you can see, it's -- this is something that we just use as an alternative to try to get compliance. Right now the ordinance limits the types of violations that we can cite people for. And what was being proposed to you, I think back in December, was that we just open it up. Because we find it as a successful tool to all the codes and ordinances that we currently implement. I think you all asked what are some of the things that we are not able to cite for right now. I had an example today. We have a case out in Golden Gate Estates where a property owner has several roosters or cocks or whatever. They are doing cock fighting. And we got them to reduce the numbers to the allowable within that general area. Well, this was done several weeks ago. We had a call today. They've gotten all the fowls back and they're at it again. But we can't cite them for that. We just have to go through the procedures over and over again. If we're able to amend the ordinance as we're requesting, that's something that maybe once we issue the citation for $105, the $5 is court costs, maybe it will address the situation. MR. LONGO: Wouldn't that be a law enforcement issue, if betting or any of those type of things are involved? MR. ABBOTT: With a far bigger bite than code enforcement. MR. LONGO: Yeah. MS. ARNOLD: Well, the issue was more the number of thing rather than the fighting. They've been -- the law enforcement office is addressing it from that point of view. But the neighbors couldn't wait for them to address that point. So we were asked to address the number of animals that were there. MR. CAUTERO: That particular case may be coincidental in the fact that law enforcement has some jurisdiction. I think there are other cases that Michelle could give you where law enforcement does not have jurisdiction that are very problematic for us and very problematic for the citizens that call. MR. FOLEY: I wasn't involved in this when this was first brought up. I'm a relatively new member. But why are you limited in what you can and cannot cite for, if there are certain Page #11 March 1, 2000 ordinances and the division was created for code enforcement or codes that are being broken? What's the purpose of-- MS. ARNOLD: I wasn't here at the time they initiated that ordinance either. The only answer I've gotten from my staff is that they wanted to just use the more prominent violations as a test to see whether or not this is something that would work. And so that's why they limited it to those select few. MR. FOLEY: I think that it would be a real deterrent, you know, if your hands weren't tied to a certain degree. Perhaps there are some issues where you may not want to, but you could use your discretion and the staff to report that. You wouldn't have to cite everybody. But it seems not to take advantage of a certain ordinance. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Masters. MR. MASTERS: My recollection of the discussion was, you know, was there an abuse of this power. And I think from the literature that you've given us, it seems pretty obvious that it's not being used frivolously or all the time. But I think that answers my questions, at least. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Sally? MS. LAM.' I know people have been kind of concerned about the abuse. What would somebody do if they felt that? In other words, are their safety checks within this. So let's say people felt that code enforcement was coming down too hard, how would a citizen address that problem? MR. CAUTERO.' Couple of ways that it happens. One is the administrative. I would get the complaints that would come through, either through the board office or through the county administrator's office or directly. They come in three ways. Or a call directly to a commissioner, and then that commissioner makes an inquiry. And so you mix in the political aspect of it as well. And at any time when an inquiry comes in, it's followed up on. But if it comes in through a commissioner's office, it usually goes to the administrator's office and comes down. That's the only safety check that I think we would have. MS. ARNOLD: And as a policy in the department, we don't typically -- the investigators usually consult with the supervisors Page #12 March 1, 2000 before they just go ahead and cite somebody. And as you can see, it's generally when there is a problem where we use it. It's not something that we're just going out and handing out tickets. MR. FOLEY: One way to correct that might be just to correct the code violation. Then there wouldn't be an issue. It seems very obvious, but -- that's because I know that sometimes there's some animosity that would build between the investigator and the individual. In my business, there are inspectors and some codes issues that are brought forth, and a lot of times it's personality more than anything. But it could be a real simple fix. Oftentimes that's overlooked. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: I think with the numbers here, out of 24,000 cases, you've only had 64 citations. So again, back on what Mr. Masters says, I mean that's certainly not an abuse of the situation at all. Good. Thank you very much, Michelle. Appreciate it. Was this informational? MS. ARNOLD: No. We need to get your authorization to proceed with an amendment to the ordinance. MR. CAUTERO: Right. And we'll bring it back in formal form. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: So we need a motion to forward to staff to proceed with an amendment to this -- MS. LAM: I'll move. MR. FOLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: So Sally moved for it And Mr. Blair seconded. Any other comment? MR. LONGO: What exactly is the amendment? MR. ABBOTT: Yes, I'm -- MR. CAUTERO: Yes, just -- we brought it forward once before. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, it would be to allow us to have the authority to cite for all codes and ordinances, rather than limiting it to a select -- MR. ABBOTT: Would that include building department type ordinances? MS. ARNOLD: Building Department would be handled by the Page #13 March 1, 2000 Building Department. MR. ABBOTT: That's where I've seen some of Michelle's people trying to pull Ed's guys into a ]ob on a 1960's something building to say well, you can't do this. And I said well, probably this whole building was built without a permit. MR. CAUTERO: But in those cases the building inspectors and the chief inspector and then ultimately Mr. Perico are making a ruling on what codes apply. The code enforcement staff may ultimately issue some type of citation, but if it's a building code matter, the Building Department staff makes the call on that. They enforce it. For example, on land use matters, Bob Mulhere or Ron make the call. But the code enforcement staff actually follows through with it. They're messengers in a lot of cases, too. And maybe we haven't done a good enough ]ob of explaining that to you. I think you just gave me an idea of a workshop at a future date. MR. ABBOTT: I would like to see more on this before I would say let's go ahead with this, because I was unimpressed with Collier County in this particular instance. MR. MASTERS: Well, we have a motion on the floor. MR. CAUTERO: But it would come back to you in a written form, anyway. MR. ABBOTT: I understand. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Yes, Dino. MR. LONGO: Are there provisions for repeat violators on this particular issue? Like first, second -- I thought it was. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Right. We have seen it before. I don't remember every detail of it. But general -- MR. LONGO: It's an escalating dollar amount. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. The way it works is if we issue a citation the first time, it's 100, $105, with $5 in court costs. And if they -- within that 30-day period, you can't issue a second offense kind of thing. You have to wait till the first offense has been adjudicated before you can consider it a second offense. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Anderson? MR. ANDERSON: As I understand it, all we're asking is that Page #14 March 1, 2000 she come back with what she's proposing, and put it in writing specifically. MS. ARNOLD: Right. MR. FOLEY: Exactly. MR. CAUTERO: Right. MR. LONGO: Call the question. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: All those in favor, aye. All those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Passes unanimous. Thank you, Michelle. MS. ARNOLD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Do we need to talk any more about the training program? MR. CAUTERO: No, that was informational. If anybody had any questions. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Informational. Very good. So we're to item 5-A, subcommittee reports, land development regulation. Mr. Duane is not here today. Is any other member of that -- MR. MASTERS: We didn't have a meeting. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: No meeting, so no report. MR. NINO: May I give you a heads up on that, though? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Yes, please. MR. NINO: Ron Nino, for the record. That committee will be meeting on March 16th for the first look at the proposed amendments of the Land Development Code for the first cycle in the year 2000. There won't be many, but there will be some. MR. ESPINAR: Is there a time set for that? (Mr. Peeples enters boardroom.) MR. NINO: 3:00. MR. ESPINAR: 3:00? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Thank you, Ron. Item B, construction code subcommittee. Mr. Longo. MR. LONGO: Mr. Chairman, we did not meet last month, but our -- the coordinated efforts of the City of Naples and Collier County and City of Marco and Everglades City met all together Page #15 March 1, 2000 MR. ABBOTT: MR. PERICO: MR. ABBOTT: MR. PERICO: for the record. with FEMA and Mr. Tomasello last month, and out of that meeting came a moving forward of hiring Mr. Tomasello to look at the methodology of FEMA on their proposed FERM maps. And it's just ongoing at this point. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Thank you. Wasn't there a FEMA meeting this morning? Yes, there was. Would you tell us about it, please? Based on what we did, we talked -- Ed Perico, We definitely talked with Washington FEMA by a conference call, and Tomasello expressed his concerns to them. And they're going to start revisiting a lot of what was being done. And they applaud us for going after them, so to speak. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Right, spending our money to correct their problems. MR. PERICO: So it looks like it's got a positive spin to it. And we'll know more about it within the weeks to come. MR. ABBOTT: Who all was involved in the conference call? MR. PERICO: It was -- I should have brought the paperwork. Myself, Devlin, Phil Overstreet, Ken Pineau, Ananta, from water management. THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, who was that? MR. CAUTERO: Ananta. MR. PERICO: And Everglades City was represented, Marco Island was represented. MR. ABBOTT: Was this just like building officials or related FEMA people? MR. PERICO: Yeah. MR. ABBOTT: Okay. MR. PERICO: People that were pretty much involved from the beginning. MR. ABBOTT: Are you going to issue the FEMA committee like a memo on that or something? MR. PERICO: Well, Bob Devlin's the one that's going to. MR. ABBOTT: Good. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Thank you very much. Utility code. Mr. Peek isn't here. Anybody else on that Page #16 March 1, 2000 committee? Did you meet, Tom? MR. KUCK: Yes. Tom Kuck, for the record. Here's a copy of the minutes that I received. I was late at that meeting. I had a conflict, so I had taken the later part of it. Herb Savage was there, he may be able to add to it. But the main thing they reviewed were the utility standard drawings, and did the final review. We're going to have another meeting on March 23rd of this month, which we will finalize the standard details for adoption. And one of the other things discussed was any other revisions that we've discussed over the last year with the utility ordinance. I think they're going to combine them and then go before the board for amendment or a revision to the utility ordinance. And that pretty much covers it, unless Herb's got something else. MR. SAVAGE: Herb Savage. I think the early part when you were not there, they spent all the time discussing the standard detail numbering system. In other words, they wanted to change the numbers. I said why don't you keep the same number, but a revision date or something like that -- MR. KUCK: Revision dates and identify them with S for sanitary, W for water and come up with an index for them to make it more friendly oriented. MR. SAVAGE: Right. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Good. Anything to make the utility code more friendly. MR. SAVAGE: Yes. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Very good. Thank you very much. New business. Item A is t999 annual report. MR. CAUTERO: Mr. Chairman, in your packet, you'll see a draft copy of the annual report. Your ordinance calls for an annual report to the board on your major activities. And what we've done is prepare that. I would like to thank, even though she's not here, Ms. Rautio, your former chairman, for her input on this. She made some very good comments, and we've incorporated those in here. Traditionally what we've done is send this to the board in Page #17 March 1, 2000 various ways through just an executive summary or just a memorandum or through a public presentation. We wanted you to look at it. We hadn't done that in the past. We've just run it by the chair. I thought it might be advisable for the committee to look at it and give us their input. Of course, the people who are newer to the committee weren't here for these issues, but their input is certainly welcome as well. So having said that, I'll just entertain any questions. We've tried to give an overview of your ma]or activities for the year. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: I think it's a real nice summary. I've read through it. And certainly we could all of us probably expand upon this to create additional volume. But as a synopsis, this is quite nice. Any other -- any comments from anyone? Mr. Savage. MR. SAVAGE: I'm not sure that this is within this area, but we talked some time ago about utilizing other services as inspections, and so forth. Would you have addressed this in here? I did not read this. You follow what I'm saying? We're talking about-- MR. CAUTERO: I think I do, but could you explain a little more? I'm sorry. MR. SAVAGE: Expert inspectors who are not employees, part-time employees, whatever. MR. CAUTERO: Budget discussions, I know it came up here. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Threshold inspections option? MR. SAVAGE: Yes. Are we doing anything about that? Are we -- I just can't see that -- I guess there's enough inspections. MR. CAUTERO: That came up over the last two years in budget discussions, if nothing else, and we certainly can put that in there and add that. I think to answer your question, though, we -- Ed and I have kicked this around a lot, and we just do not have in this community inspection firms that meet, it's unfortunate, the state statute and have that certification for building inspections. And that's really what hurts. So it's always been cheaper for us to hire people, train them, get them certified, and keep them on the payroll, rather than hire Page #18 March 1, 2000 people for peak loads. The costs are much more expensive than hiring our own staff. Plus the certification issue comes up. So we haven't been able to do that, no. MR. SAVAGE: Do you have authority to hire additional people? I mean, I thought there were limits on how many we could hire. MR. CAUTERO: I always have the ability to ask the board. And Ed and I are talking about going to the board and asking in the mid budget year. We were looking at some more numbers. The numbers have been very high this fiscal year, especially since January. So -- well, actually November-December were high, too. We'll probably make that decision soon after Mr. Olliff signs his contract and is seated as the county administrator, and make some proposals to him as to which way we should go. Ed has added temporary staff already that we want to fold into a budget request to the board that we'll bring forward to you. We may go with the inspectors now. We may not. If we don't, we'll go for the next year. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Well, if you use the March-April numbers for everybody trying to beat the -- MR. ABBOTT: Yeah, the impact fees. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: -- impact fee increase, you can justify a number of people for the rest of the year. Other comments on this? Thank you very much. That's a non-action information item? MR. CAUTERO: Actually, it is an action item. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: It is an action -- MR. CAUTERO: I would like -- yeah. I would like your -- well, if you don't want to take any action, then I would just assume that means that it's acceptable to send to the board. But if you want to take action, that would even be better. MR. ABBOTT: Would you like us to approve it? MR. CAUTERO: Yes. MR. ABBOTT: Okay. Well, I have a motion to approve it. MR. FOLEY: I'll second it. Blair Foley. MR. ABBOTT: I think it's a good ]ob. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Second. Any other comments? Page #19 March 1, 2000 MR. FOLEY: I think it's a good idea, too. It doesn't have a lot of detail; however, there's no need to. It is what it is, a summary. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Yeah, good. All those in favor of approval of this document, say aye, please. Anyone opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Thank you. Our next item is B, 1999 NEC electric code amendments. MR. PERICO: Clyde Amos (phonetic) was going to be here today. What he's in the process of doing, he's amending the 1996 electrical code to the 1999 edition. And basically what he's finding is just more format changes, and will probably get it before the subcommittee. And he's just about got the draft ready. We could probably have it for the next subcommittee meeting, which would be next week, if that's what you choose. MR. ABBOTT: We don't have one scheduled yet, but we need to do it. MR. PERICO: No, you can't. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Well, just as a comment on that, I think it's always helpful to get industry comment on this. And if it's not ready to put out now, to give people a little bit of time at least to review it and absorb it. It might not be fair to have a meeting next week, next Wednesday, for our subcommittee and have had no review time on it, but we certainly can get it out and have a meeting for next month. Charlie? MR. ABBOTT: What we got -- the E-mail we got this time from Jeff Purse's thing, I thought that was most excellent. That was a good way to read it up front and learn it. So possibly Clyde could write us a report on it and E-mail it around, or whatever he's supposed -- MR. PERICO: It would be whole ordinances. THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, I didn't hear that. MR. ABBOTT: Is it huge, or is it small pieces? MR. PERICO: It's whole ordinances. It's about 30, 40 pages. MR. LONGO: So based on that, would -- you think in good judgment it really would be ready enough to review-- Page #20 March 1, 2000 MR. PERICO.' Well, the draft will be ready. It's not in numbered page, but basically he's got the draft all ready to go. So we can start the process, if you'd like. MR. LONGO.' When do you need to bring it before the board? MR. PERICO.' There's no set time. MR. LONGO.' I'm in favor with what Dalas said. If we can get that out via -- I don't know if you can compress it down on E-mail, but if we can get a copy of that, we can at least study it, and I can bring it before industry, and then -- MR. PERICO.' We can do that much. MR. LONGO.' It doesn't have to be public -- it's not public workshop or anything like that. MR. CAUTERO.' No. MR. LONGO.' Just come before a subcommittee. MR. CAUTERO.' Correct. MR. LONGO.' So we'd probably do that in April. MR. PERICO.' We'll get you a copy of the draft to all the members of the subcommittee. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: As soon as you can, Ed, and then we can distribute it to the people that we use and get some comment for next month's meeting. That will give a good three weeks for everybody to absorb it and be ready for appropriate comments. MR. ABBOTT: This will be an example of when we wanted to drag in outside expertise concerning this. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Absolutely. MR. LONGO.' One more question for Ed. Is it possible to do a bullet point summary sheet, or is it that involved? Like this was this and this was -- you know, the old versus the new. MR. PERICO.' He's got some of it worked up; it's underlined and struck through. So we'll be able to see. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay, good. Let's see, we continued Item C. We're at Item D, Mr. Purse. MR. CAUTERO.' Yes. Mr. Purse called me a little over a week ago and wanted to address the committee dealing with parking standards that were adopted by the board several months ago. Tom Kuck and Stan Chrzanowski are very well versed on the Page #21 March 1, 2000 issue and I'll let Mr. Purse make his presentation to you and then we'll be able to answer questions. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Very good. Welcome, Jeff. MR. PURSE: Thank you. For the record, my name is Jeff Purse with Purse Associates. I've been an engineer in Naples for awhile and I've lived here for 27 years. I can only blame myself for this not -- for this happening, because I didn't catch it; you know, so you only blame yourself. Once I found that this had come out, I immediately voiced my opposition. I have some -- a hand-out, and then I'll talk for a few minutes. If you'd like to pass those around. I've been before the commissioners before, and I know if you're short and sweet, they like that. So I'll be very short and to the point. The regulations say that we can have an 18-foot parking spot and a 16-foot parking spot. The old regulations were that an 18-foot spot was as long as it was. A 16 would take two feet from the landscaping. What this new ordinance did, even though in Section 2.3.4.1.2 says minimum space size, each parking space shall be a minimum of nine feet by 18 feet size or 16 feet in depth, measured from the aisle width of the face of the wheel stop. See Exhibit A. I have in this attachment the exhibit that was crossed out by the ordinance. And also in the back there is a copy of the exhibit that is being -- that was given to me by Stan as Exhibit A. But I cannot find it in the ordinance. So I don't know if this got in the ordinance. If it didn't get in the ordinance, then there is a technical problem. My concern is, is that we've gone from an 18-foot space to a 20-foot space. We now have to reserve 20 feet, either it be asphalt or grass or sidewalk, for a parking spot. Now, it came to me -- to my attention because one of my projects, they bought the land, their engineers in Ohio came down here, got all of their information from here back in December, went back up and designed it. And in the SDP pre-application meeting in February, a couple of weeks ago, Page #22 March 1, 2000 found out we don't have enough room now, because we have now gone beyond the 16 and 2 and the standard 18. And in talking to Stan, it was my understanding that this ordinance came about because there was damage being done to the landscaping. And in these pictures here, you can see that the vehicle overhang -- and these were taken out front. And it's amazing, if you look out front of this building, people park one way, if you look out the back of this building, they park another way. So it's sort of like an average here. If you look on the -- at the front of the building, you'll see that the overhangs don't exist, that we're not going into the sidewalk. Now, I'm an advocate of the ADA in that the sidewalk has to be five feet wide. And if they're going to put a 16-foot space next to a sidewalk, they've got to add an additional two feet to keep that a five-foot walkway. What has happened in the ordinance, we now have to have a five-foot walkway and now we have to reserve three feet for the overhang of the vehicle. So now we're going to end up with an eight-foot sidewalk. In the exhibit that was handed out, the standard sidewalk is five feet wide, not four feet. And that's in the architectural standards, that you have to put a five-foot around. What I'm asking the board to do is to consider sending this back to subcommittee so that the subcommittee can re-look at this ordinance and then hopefully we can get it changed back to the way it was. Because I am not seeing the damage to the landscaping that apparently -- if there is damage, I would have to say, and I think most of you will agree, that the damage is being caused by the lack of maintenance and not by vehicles backing into the landscaping. And in talking to Stan, that was Stan's main contention. And this is where -- I've known Stan for years, and he's from up north; I've been down here a long time. I forgot about up north. And Stan backs in everywhere. And if you see one of the pictures, Tom Kuck's vehicle is there, so I've got him on record as backing in. MR. ABBOTT: Good thing you didn't have a trailer here. MR. PURSE: So his is a four-by-four. But he's -- if you went Page #23 March 1, 2000 out there right now and looked how Tom parked, his rear wheel is against the bumper stop, and he's not overhanging. MR. ABBOTT: And that's a rear back in. MR. PURSE: That's a rear. MR. ABBOTT: Much greater overhead. MR. PURSE: There is a problem with these big four 15 hundreds whatever, and then you see it -- you have one here. Someone in the county's driving one with a trailer hitch on the end of it, no less. So what I -- if the ordinance was to protect the landscaping, I don't feel this was the way to approach it. Something else, too. In looking at the ordinance 2000-8, which was adapted for the LDC, it did not change the section in the landscaping code that allows you to have a two-foot overhang into the landscaping. MR. ABBOTT: So you're saying this is a conflict between, let's say, parking standards and landscape? MR. LONGO: And the architectural. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: And the architectural. MR. FOLEY: I don't know that it's a conflict. It's certainly inconsistent. MR. PURSE: I'm of the belief that nothing needed to be done. It wasn't a problem. MR. SAVAGE: Jeff, Herb Savage. I don't see anywhere here where an overhang is into any landscaping, except grass. MR. ABBOTT: And it misses that by about two feet. MR. SAVAGE: Pardon? MR. ABBOTT: And it misses that by two feet. MR. SAVAGE: Yeah. I mean, landscaping -- grass is landscaping. I don't consider the fact that the bumper overhangs into the grass area is damaging any landscaping. MR. KUCK: I think one of the problems is, getting away from the landscaping, is the overhang. And these pictures may not depict it. Stan may have some pictures -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I only brought like one of each. I'll pass them around. MR. KUCK: -- and some of-- THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, I -- Page #24 March 1, 2000 CHAIRMAN DISNEY: One at a time. MR. KUCK.' No, I was just saying, I think Stan also has some pictures taken of this building where we have a sidewalk with a vehicle backing into the spaces. And with the larger vehicles, when they back in, they do protrude up to, I'm going to say, two feet into the sidewalk. MR. CHRZANOWSKI.' Our wheel stops in the back are two foot eight inches from the edge of the wheel stop to the sidewalk, not two foot, which is what the ordinance says. And you still, if you look at it, you will see that -- it's a Lincoln Town Car, but the other one is just a Dodge Dakota pickup, standard one-bed Dodge Dakota pickup. Not a boat. A lot of people drive those around here. And when they back in -- yeah, when they back in, they take up a lot of the sidewalk. Yeah, we don't want -- we don't want -- we don't care if you overhang onto the grass. We don't want you into a prescribed landscape buffer. M R. SAVAGE.' Why? MR. CHRZANOWSKI.' Because a lot of people plant the vegetation and the landscape buffer right at the edge of the landscape buffer. And we have had instances -- granted, not around here -- you want me go throughout the county taking pictures like this, I will. He took best case. I'll go around the county taking worst case pictures. If you want to bring it up for restudy, I'll be glad to come and talk about it and -- I don't see a big problem with the two additional feet. When you see those pictures, you'll see what we're trying to avoid. If you want to defend it -- if you want me to defend it again, I'll be glad to come back. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Dino? MR. LONGO.' I see a huge problem with two additional feet. Number one, the land taken up to protect plants, when your businesses are based on amount of parking, based on the occupancy and classification of a building, if someone's dumb enough to put their landscaping right next to a sidewalk instead of bringing it two feet back or whatever, then that's a landscaping issue. It's not required to be against that sidewalk. They need to have some prudent foresight and move their Page #25 March 1, 2000 landscaping and their landscaping details, rather than change an ordinance. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Before there's any other comment, realize that the ordinance has already been changed. This was adopted. This was in the last LDC cycle. It was in there. Now, I got a call and was questioned on this just before the board action, and it was virtually too late at that point to do anything about it. And I don't recall having seen -- there was some verbiage on it, but I don't personally recall having seen the iljustrations similar to this. They may have been there and I just missed them. But it's already approved. So anything that we would do or request be done would be in the next cycle, I presume. Okay. MR. ABBOTT: We might get the same result we got from our rental control. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: We might. MR. ABBOTT: Screw them up. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Marco? MR. ESPINAR: Marco Espinar, for the record. Actually, this kind of reminds me of that rental thing where we're creating a mountain out of a molehill. I mean, have we created an ordinance or amended an ordinance to correct people backing up into a parking space? And I mean, if you do, how many people actually back into a parking space? And actually, it's funny, a landscape architect did call me and asked if I was aware of this, because he was also upset. He was a landscape architect. And it's taking more additional space from a project design. I think we're correcting something for something that's, you know, not that significant. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Not much of an issue. Mr. Purse, you had another comments? MR. PURSE: I think it's been covered. My main thing is that there's really not a problem. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Blair?. MR. FOLEY: I think that -- Blair Foley, for the record. We got -- I got contacted as well before this was brought before the board, and it was late in the game. There certainly has been enough discussion in this room today that would warrant at least Page #26 March 1, 2000 visiting it again. And I think that's the purpose of Mr. Purse being here. And I don't really feel that we need to go into any more detail. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: That's a good comment. Mr. Abbot had a question. MR. ABBOTT: No, I was just questioning what Marco said concerning the -- I took it that you were in opposition to looking at it again, but apparently you're not? MR. ESPINAR.' To what, looking into this? MR. ABBOTT: Yes. MR. ESPINAR.' No, I'm definitely into it. I want to revisit this. I think it's a necessary. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Herb? MR. SAVAGE: Herb Savage. I want to tell you this: Any parking space does not need to be more than 18 feet. And we are not going to, in my book, change it to 20 feet. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Sally? MS. LAM.' I just was curious, where did the change come from? Who initiated the interest in increasing the size of the parking places? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Do you know, Stan? MR. CHRZANOWSKI.' About three or four people in our department, the landscape architect, the architect, myself-- me more for the sidewalks. I live in Santa Barbara Landings, and this is a common situation over there. The sidewalk is right next to the wheel stop. The wheel stop is two feet, as opposed to two foot eight from the sidewalk. On any given day you can't get around the sidewalk without doing this. So the logical thing is to widen the sidewalk. I can go around the county and I can take pictures of landscaped areas. And you may say it's just from lack of maintenance, but I'll show you where the vehicles are backed into the landscaping. You know, all -- 10, 20 vehicles could park in there correctly, one vehicle parks in there wrong and you lose like a couple months worth of growth. So all I did was put a two-foot buffer in there from the required landscape buffer to the edge of the asphalt, which is -- if you look in Sealy's, Sealy's will tell you to leave four feet from the Page #27 March 1, 2000 wheel to the back of the vehicle. That's what we did. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: And it's primarily to solve the back-in problem? MR. CHRZANOWSKI.' No, we have vehicles here that have a front-end overhang that's three and a half feet. I haven't found a four-foot front end hangover yet. But, you know, just in our back parking lot, I can show you one out there with a three and a half foot front end overhang. It's -- if people pull up to the wheel stop, they're going to hit something. And the four-foot is not the maximum. That's the common maximum. The maximum out there, like you were talking, the boats, Randy Casey's and a few others, we've got some out there that will take out most anything, and they still stick out into the 20-foot -- that truck is 21 and a half feet long, okay? There's a lot of vehicles out there that are 19 feet long. A standard parking space may be 18 feet, but, you know, I'm an engineer. I don't like to go to the minimum. You guys do, it's not a problem. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: So we'd entertain a motion, if someone cares to make one. MR. ABBOTT: I have a comment first. This directly impacted me one time. And one of my many duties, I managed Naples South Shopping Plaza; that's that old Winn-Dixie at Rattlesnake-Hammock and 41. And they wanted to add a bunch of space to Winn-Dixie, and it wouldn't work, because George Coopman -- Tom and I talked about this a long time ago -- he added all these handicapped spaces to bring it up to modern standards. And it was already a shopping center but didn't have enough room for the parking spaces, so on. And so he crippled the project. It just couldn't be done. And so finally after all this engineering and everything, I had to finally go see George. And I finally said, "Why are you doing this?" And he said, "Oh, I'm just trying to do good." And I said, "1 understand trying to do good. But trying to be practical is far more important. And since I'm citing that our remodel is less than 50 percent of the value of the shopping center, no, we're not going to do that." And so he just said, "Well, don't blame me, I was just trying Page #28 March 1, 2000 to do good." Well, sometimes you don't need so much do good in the world, and that's what it sounds like. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Would someone care to make a motion? MR. ABBOTT: I make a motion we revisit it. MR. ESPINAR: I second it. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Any other discussion? All those in favor?. Anyone opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Thank you very much. Committee member comments. We'll go around the room. Tom? MR. MASTERS: No comment. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Dino? MR. LONGO: Yeah. Based on this last issue, I think we just need to be a little bit more prudent on our bigger ordinance issues, like the LDC and those types of things that have a lot of amendment changes going through. We take it for granted the subcommittee does, you know, most of the work on it. And that's for all the subcommittees. Going back to one of your adages that we need to have some more professionals come into those meetings, because not taking away anything from subcommittee, sometimes there need to be other people there to ask the right questions. MR. SAVAGE: Tom Kuck wanted to say something. MR. KUCK: I'd just like to add something that Dino was saying, that I've had several engineering firms request that they sit in on the LDC subcommittees. And we have that in the utility subcommittee, and it works very well. Because we have contractors, engineers that are not part of this group, but they're really more or less the experts and the ones down in the trenches working with it daily. And it would be my recommendation that you incorporate that same thought into the LDC subcommittee. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Absolutely. We'll get around to you. Bruce? MR. ANDERSON: I have nothing. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: No? Mr. Dillon? Page #29 March 1, 2000 MR. DILLON: Nothing. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Blair?. MR. FOLEY: Nothing. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: David? Sally? MS. LAM: No. MR. ESPINAR: Quick comment. Did the EAC today take a look a the new gopher tortoise -- MR. CAUTERO: Yes, they did. MR. ESPINAR: What has transpired? MR. CAUTERO: They still -- they want to look at amendments to that. They've initiated amendments to the Land Development Code during the gopher tortoise habitat protection. Barbara Burgeson and I had a quick meeting, as a matter of fact, with Mr. Peeples before this meeting to discuss some particular issues to Perry's clients, but I asked her what the committee did. And the committee asked a lot of questions. It was over an hour and a half discussion, I believe, maybe two hours. They're going to revisit it again and look at it and put together a package that they believe the board should consider. You'll be looking at that, as well as the Planning Commission. There will be a lot of discussion on that. Quite frankly, based on their input and comments today, I don't know if it would be ready for the first cycle in 2000, the LDC amendment. We'll have to see what happens. Barbara did tell me, though, that they believe that the ordinance amendment package that was drafted for their consideration was inadequate. So I think there's going to be a great deal of discussion regarding that amendment. MR. ESPINAR: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Herb? MR. SAVAGE: Some time ago -- Herb Savage. Some time ago there was an item brought up in reference to selection of professional and business contractors in the county, and it was sort of a closed shop philosophy. That's not our area of responsibility, I presume. Is it purchasing department, I presume? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: It was -- you're talking about the Page #30 March 1, 2000 continuing services agreements? Yes, that was forwarded on to purchasing, Steve Carnell. I had a meeting with him and he is reviewing that for possible modification. There's no commitment, positive or negative. MR. SAVAGE: I did bring that to one of the commissioners and was somewhat irritated about hearing this situation existing. And I just wanted to -- CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Well, it's in process. And while we might be starting with the architectural selections on that, it may lead to review of every other continuing contract that the county contracts with. MR. SAVAGE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: You're welcome. Charlie? MR. ABBOTT: No. We did it. I like our being a little bit of an appeal for when we mess up. Construction code subcommittee has learned our lesson on passes, so it's about time the rest of you all learned something. Like on this parking and stuff. We've had to seriously revisit issues that we've just passed with kind of a broad brush and gone back and had to do a much better job at it. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: I'm sorry, Perry? MR. PEEPLES: I have no comments. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: I'm sorry I missed you. Very good. Motion for adjournment -- MR. ABBOTT: I'll make it. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: -- I guess it is, and a second? MR. MASTERS: Second. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: And all those in favor?. And anyone opposed? (No response.) There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:35 p.m. Page #31 March 1, 2000 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COUNCIL DALAS DISNEY, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, NOTARY PUBLIC Page #32