Loading...
BCC Minutes 04/02/1996 R REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 2, 1996, OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS LET IT BE REHEHBERED, 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: CHAIRPERSON: John C. Norris VICE-CHAIRMAN: Timothy L. Hancock Timothy J. Constantine Bettye J. Matthews ABSENT: Pamela Hac'Kie ALSO PRESENT: Mike HcNees, Assistant County Manager David Weigel, County Attorney Item #3 & #3A AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I'll call the county commission meeting to order on April the 2nd, 1996. Mr. HcNees, could you lead us in an invocation and a pledge to the flag, please. MR. HCNEES: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. Our Heavenly Father, we thank you for your blessings this morning as we gather during this Easter week to conduct the business of this county government. We would ask you for a special blessing this morning on the family of our own Linda Fasulo as they grieve the sudden passing of her mother. We also ask that you be with our seasonal residents and northern visitors as they begin their journeys home as well as with those of us who may be away from home during the Easter holiday. Please grant us safe passage and see that all return safely home. We ask you for your blessings and guidance this day. We ask these things in Jesus' name. Amen. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I see we have a few changes to a very short agenda. MR. HCNEES: Yes, we do, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. We have an addition item, 8(A)(1), a routine acceptance of a plat for recording. We would ask that you add that as item 8(A)(1). We have another item that will become item 8(B)(3). It's the extension of an agreement, a contribution agreement, facilities contribution, that staff has discovered expires I believe today and has asked that that item be added today for your action so that it can be -- can be extended. It's a routine extension of a contribution agreement. We have one item to be withdrawn which is item 8(B)(2). I'm sure you're all aware happily that we received the permit extension on the beach renourishment project; hence the discussion of potential trucking need not be held. I'm sure Mr. Conrecode would be happy to -- if you have any questions regarding that to answer them. We have one agenda note that you will be holding briefly at eleven o'clock an HPO meeting. If -- if you are not concluded with your business, you'll reconvene then the Board of County Commissioners' meeting after eleven o'clock, after that meeting's completed. We have one request from the clerk's office under staff discussions that you have a discussion regarding setting a date for a workshop on the consolidated financial report. And I've asked the clerk's representative to be here to -- to have that discussion with you under staff discussions. Mr. Chairman, that would be all the changes that we have this morning. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, do you have one as well? MR. WEIGEL: Just a note for the record, and that is the written agenda provides that 12(C)(1) regarding the evaluation and appraisal report, the EAR, is going to be continued to the meeting of April 9, '96, and that the board will need to either at the outset of this meeting make that determination or during the course of the agenda continue it to that -- to that date of April 9. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We can make that determination right now. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion we approve the agenda and consent agenda with the continuation of 12(C)(1) for one week. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And with the other amendments COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- as noted. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, wait a minute. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Before we call that, let's see if we have some other changes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: But the motion is on the floor. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Obviously I don't have any changes. I seconded it. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Bearing in mind that there is a motion on the floor, I would like to make note even though I may vote yes for the consent agenda in general, my vote will stipulate a no vote to item 16(B)(2) which is a change to an agreement under ordinance. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: B as in Bob? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: B as in boy which is a change to an agreement under ordinance ninety-two twenty-two. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Your vote's duly noted on that. Any other changes? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. No thank you. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I have no changes and will reiterate my motion. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. I -- I do have a change. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, then I won't second. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You guys are in a rush. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Go ahead. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I do have something I need to add on. I apologize for the short notice. As you know, I don't like add-ons myself, but I have a -- there's a time constraint on a -- on a item that I need to talk about concerning TDC funding. And I would like to have you consider adding that on under item 10 in case we want to take some action after you hear what I have to say about the item. MR. HCNEES: That would become item 10(B) then. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll amend my motion to include 10(B). CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Second amends? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, finally. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed? There are none. Item #4A MINUTES OF REGULAR BCC MEETING OF MARCH 5, 1996 - APPROVED We have minutes under item 5 for some reason, but there they are. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve the minutes of the March 5, 1996, regular meeting. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Or are we just approving -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- the proclamations of March 57 COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for the minutes. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? None. Item #5B EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED We'll go straight to service awards, and we have a few today. Is that a five? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Our first service award is for Thomas Palmet from the county attorney's office. Tom has five years. We have three people with ten-year service. We have Sandy Taylor from real property. We have James Capps from transportation. And we have James Willis from OCPH. Mr. Willis, are you here today? He's probably got a big job and he couldn't show up today for this little presentation. We'll -- we'll pass this down to the county manager's office and let them forward it to him. Item #7A MS. LISA GARHON REGARDING THE CONTROL AND USES OF JET SKIS - BCC TO WAIT FOR REPORT FROM THE PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD COHMITTEE Our next item then is public petitions. Our first one is Lisa Garmon regarding control and uses of jet skis. Before our public petitioners start, I'd like to remind them that we -- we allow ten minutes for a public petition. We will not in all likelihood take any action today on the petition other than to decide whether we want to hear that as a regularly scheduled agenda item at some point in the future. So, Hiss Garmon, if you would like to start, you have ten minutes, please. MS. GARHON: Thank you. First I'd like to have you have a fact sheet that our committee prepared for you and a copy of the petition I'm going to present today. The committee to control the uses of jet skis of which I'm chair represents a group of citizens who have become alarmed at the increasing numbers of jet skis on our beach front in Marco Island and in the Ten Thousand Islands. We have a problem with rented jet skis on the Marco Island beach front. We bring with us the responses of over 800 people, most of whom are property owners and residents of Marco Island. And I have them over here in this box. Jet skis are like an alien invasion of our beaches and our waterways. They have come upon us suddenly like a dangerous virus. You need to know that it's getting worse and it's happening rapidly. It's happening so fast that we do not blame you for being unaware of it. We come to you today because we trust that you want what is true and best for Marco Island. We've been told that you do care about us. What we hope to accomplish today is to have you understand that there really is a problem with jet ski rentals on our beach and that there are solutions that other people have done that are legally tested and that are fair. Before I read our petitions, I want to read you excerpts from -- approximately a hundred people have written us notes and letters, so I will read you from just a few. An attorney on the beach front writes, my in-laws own a beautiful condominium on the Marco Island beach. Our visits used to be so relaxing before the incessant noise pollution created by jet skis. I remember what a pleasure it was to sit quietly on the beach watching dolphins playing in the waters. The peace and quiet are gone thanks to the short sighted profiteering by a very few. Jet skis must be banned. Their use has turned a once peaceful paradise into the auditory equivalent of living next to a logging operation. The horrible mechanical whine of those jet skis never stops and has greatly diminished the quality of life on your beautiful island. Please persevere in your efforts. Your success at ending this noisy infringement upon the rights of all islanders and visitors to enjoy Marco at its finest is crucial to the future of the island. From the Tradewinds, radios are not allowed. Surely the noisy engines must be outlawed. From Barfield Drive, we miss the dolphins. South Seas East writes the peace and tranquility were major reasons for buying on Marco Island. Royal Marco Way, this letter, the noise is intolerable for those of us who enjoy the quiet beauty of our home. We have also found that many of those who operate the jet skis are unaware of the risks involved. Please vote in behalf of preserving our quality of life. I swim in the Gulf more than anyone. I've almost been hit a couple of times by jet skis. They do not follow the rules from Sand Castle 2. They are a nuisance from San Marco Drive. I want to see dolphins again from my sixth floor unit, a time share owner. An 85-year-old widow who's lived on Marco Island 26 years, now I am so sorry when I walk the beach. A bad accident waiting to happen from 58 North Collier. The case you make is strong and legitimate. We have moved from the south end because of the noise from Henderson Court. Even putting them in the water is a noisy operation from Ludlow Street. We have been telling realtors who try to sell us beach-front condos for several years that the price of -- these properties are going for one shouldn't have to put up with that constant noise produced by jet skis and other recreational power boats on the beach. It's true they sound like chain saws. Paradise deserves better. This is today's petition: Boats, including jet skis, do not belong where children play on the beach and people swim just as swimmers do not belong in boat launching sites. We do not want the pollution of irritating noise, the spillage of fuel in the water or on the sand, or the smell of exhaust on our beautiful beach, especially the oil-laden exhaust from two-cycle jet ski engines. We do not want danger to people who enjoy the serene and natural pleasures of the beach. Marco Island deserves better. We request the following: That the Marco -- one, that the Marco Island beach front stay in the domain of the Collier County parks and recreation department and continue to have annual vendor permits; Two, that you not allow concessions of motorized internal combustion engine-powered vessels including jet skis on the Marco Island beach front and that resorts be restricted to quiet wind- or muscle-powered recreation. Proven solutions legally tested exist in other places; Three, that you tighten the Tigertail Beach concession agreement to clearly state the concessions of motorized combustion engine-powered vessels are not allowed. Because we understand that county attorneys may need time for analysis of item number two, we ask for that no additional vessels be allowed to operate on the Marco Island beach than currently exist at time of permit as of March 25, 1996; And five, that muffling of the noisy engines be required. We are counting on you to return to us the tranquil, often magical quality of our beach experience and to protect our wildlife, our boats, and our homes from further pollution and hazards of noisy rented vessels. I -- I want to say a word about the muffling. We feel that muffling these noisy engines is really an asset to the hotels. It's really in their highest regard. We understand that the county has been spending a lot of money promoting Marco Island to -- especially to Europe, especially in England and Germany. Our understanding is that the Europeans do not like noisy jet skis. My own experience, my husband and I went to Seachez (phonetic) south of Barcelona, a year ago, a lovely beach, very popular with Germans and -- and French. And I guess all over Europe it's very popular. The one thing that impressed me on that beach is that there was not a single jet ski. There was no noise at all, just the natural lapping of waves. So I want to alert you. The Europeans are coming. The Europeans are coming. And they don't like noise. Here is a poster -- here's a poster from the Marco Island Chamber of Commerce. And you can see the dolphins leaping. We really passionately miss watching our dolphins leap along our beach. They used to love to do that, and they don't do that anymore. We don't really know why. We suspect it has to do with jet skis since they did -- they were present after the beach renourishment. Vendors will tell you that they run behind jet skis, but we don't see them. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is the microphone on? MR. GARHON: I can't bring it over there, but I have a poster here to show you. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: You have to be on the microphone. Push the button up. There's a button on the side of it. Just push it COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We -- we can see from there, ma'am. We can see from there. MS. GARHON: Okay. Here I have for you to notice the location of jet ski vendors on the Marco Island beach front. The Marriott Hotel at time of permit has nine Wave Runners. We counted 12 the other day. The Eagle's Nest has four Wave Runners; Club Regency, four Wave Runners; Surf Club, two Wave Runners; Hilton Hotel, six Wave Runners; Radisson Hotel, seven Wave Runners. A total of about ten wave -- extra Wave Runners were counted since the time of permit, many of which are not certified yet. I have for you a video to show you -- demonstrate clearly what's happening on our beach front. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Miss Garmon, your -- your ten minutes is just about to expire. How long is this video? MS. GARHON: I -- I'm going to fast forward. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: In fact, your -- your ten minutes has expired, so we'll ask you to remove your -- your television, please. MS. GARHON: You won't see the video. Oh, dear. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Your -- your time is expired, Miss Garmon. MR. GASTON: I expected to be called at five minutes. I'm sorry. Well, could I please show you one minute of it? CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I'm sorry, Miss Garmon. Your time is expired. If you -- does the board have any questions of Miss Garmon, or do you have -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd -- I'd like to make a comment. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Sure. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I was talking with a member of the parks and recreation board last Friday, and I was told that they were looking at this issue also. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Who was that? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Parks and recreation board. And I -- I would suggest that we wait for them to complete whatever it is that -- that they're looking at and get a report from them. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, by what authority would we have to ban jet skis off our Gulf waters? MS. GARHON: We are speaking only of the rentals. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Miss Garmon -- MS. GARHON: Sorry. Sorry. MR. WEIGEL: Well, it appears that the issue is noise, and the approach offered by petitioner is regulation of the vehicles as opposed to direct -- any kind of direct local ordinance control, further control on noise. Of course, the county has a noise ordinance. Under ordinance eighty-nine eleven, the beach water safety and vessel regulation ordinance, it provides for the rules and regulations for the use and rental of not only sail craft but, of course, motorized craft from the beaches of Collier County. That does provide for a permitting process with safety controls incumbent and before permits are issued before an operator associated with a land-based property owner can utilize any kind of watercraft for a rental. That ordinance could be amended. It conceivably might run into a bit of difficulty with impairment of current contract that exists. It probably would -- could be addressed in a phased-in period. I would add, however, that the ordinance attempted to be farsighted when it was adopted back in 1989. It increased the no-wake or idle zone from 300 feet to 500 feet. And if bathers are experiencing a problem within 500 feet of the beach either from more than idle noise or improper navigation of whatever kind of vessel, that is a violation of the ordinance that currently exists. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Iill relate to the -- to the board that I attended a meeting on Marco back at -- January 17 at the Hilton, and the attendees were some of the beach vendors, a chairman of the committee on beach vendor monitoring, and representatives from both sides of this issue. At that meeting it was pointed out that probably only 30 to 35 percent of the jet skis around Marco are issued by vendors and that most of them are privately owned and be -- you know, you could -- you might pass regulation on vendors, but itls not going to have any effect on the private -- privately owned and operated jet skis. The -- the vendors themselves seemed at this meeting fairly willing to work with the -- the residents to do whatever they could in a reasonable fashion. But Iim not sure that we have the authority to do what Miss Garmon has asked. By the way, Miss Garmon did not attend that meeting which was held for her benefit and -- MS. GARMON: I -- may I -- may I say that I was not personally invited and it was not checked -- I -- I couldnlt be there. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, I know that not to be the case, Miss Garmon. And whatever reason you didnlt attend is immaterial. You didnlt attend, and -- and the meeting was held for your benefit. As a matter of fact, you brought the meeting to the fore. MS. GARMON: I did not request the meeting. I was told about it by a newspaper reporter. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Itls a moot point. The fact is that for your benefit the meeting was held. You were invited. You did not attend. Those -- those are the facts. MS. GARMON: May I say, sir, that Charles Hartinger (phonetic) when I spoke to him about the meeting told me that -- when I suggested that people were saying a thousand feet out might work, Charles Hartinger said to me that they would not be willing to do that. Theylre only willing to go out 500 feet. They were blatantly in violation of that rule. I didnlt know that 500 feet was the rule on the beach. When I found that out, I realized there was no reason for me to pay $600 to go to that meeting because they werenlt willing to do anything. I have on this tape -- and unfortunately, I had meant to ask for a five-minute limit -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. MS. GARMON: -- so that -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Excuse me. MS. GARHON: -- I could show you -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Excuse me. MS. GARHON: -- and I do have proof -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Excuse me. MS. GARHON: -- that the thousand -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Excuse me. MS. GARHON: -- feet does -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Excuse me. MS. GARHON: -- not work. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Excuse me, Hiss Garmon. Your time has expired. Do we have direction from the board? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, if the parks and rec. board is looking at it, obviously we can look at whatever they bring to us. But we're kind of limited on what we can do as far as if we can deal with rentals, that's one thing. I'm not sure I'm sold on the idea. But if parks and rec. convinces me, we can deal with it then. But I'm not ready to put it on a regular agenda until they've completed their task. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree that if not working on it we should ask parks and rec. to make recommendations to this board if they feel it's appropriate. But, Hiss Garmon, some of the things you cite -- this started off as an outright ban is what you proposed -- Hiss Garmon -- MS. GARHON: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- let me finish. MS. GARHON: Uh-huh. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You began with an outright ban -- MS. GARHON: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- which is absolutely illegal, cannot be done, period, of -- of personal watercraft on Marco Beach. You did not specify between rentals and ownership. You started out with an outright ban. MS. GARHON: Yes, yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Finding that that was illegal, you then came up with route number two which is let's go after -- MS. GARHON: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- the concessionaires. We have MS. GARHON: This has all -- all been -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Miss Garmon, you're going to have to let me finish. MS. GARHON: Sorry. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What we have, quite simply, is concessionaires that are renting -- that are a part of a noise problem. Host of the correspondence I have received are from people who live on Marco Island who own jet skis and keep them behind their home. These people don't run in the canals. They run out in the Gulf. They run in Big Marco Pass. They run in the areas you're talking about. The main point we have here is noise. The county has noise regulations. If the noise level is exceeded, I think we then have a -- a significant reason to address the issue. But let's assume it is exceeded. How do we differentiate between the concessionaires and the people who own personal watercraft? I think the parks and rec. advisory board will probably look at some type of limit on the number of jet skis per concessionaire. I think that's a reasonable step. I hope they'll take a look at that. But some of what you propose here becomes a quagmire of trying to -- to maintain it unless we do what you're asking which is just simply ban concessionaires from the beach from -- from renting jet skis. MS. GARHON: From renting jet skis, yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I am -- at this point I'm not ready to do that because I'm not sure that they are the bulk of the problem that you're talking about. We may have an enforcement problem that we need to contact the sheriff's office about. If there's a local ordinance of a 500-foot minimum distance for operation from the beach, that's an enforcement issue that the Florida Marine Patrol or the sheriff's office -- and I believe it would be sheriff's office that enforces the county codes. We may need to ask their assistance to enforce that ban or enforce that distance. So I think those are the steps we can take initially until our parks and rec. advisory board makes other recommendations. And that's in a nutshell where I'm sitting. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I have one final comment. Miss -- Miss Garmon -- MS. GARHON: Yes. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- I'd like to thank you for bringing this to our attention. But, Mr. Weigel, didn't I just hear you a few moments ago say that we could address this through expanding the no-wake zone? MR. WEIGEL: Well, the ordinance -- I didn't specifically talk about expansion of the no-wake zone. Our no-wake zone is 500 feet right now, and that is subject to our local regulation by amendment to ordinance eighty-nine eleven as amended. That is possible. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. I mean, I -- I just wanted to make note that there is a way to handle this should -- should we choose to do it. And -- and I'm -- I'm not sure that we agree we should do it. But to say there's no way to do it, our attorney has told us that if -- if we wish to address it we can. But I too prefer to wait for the parks and rec. board to come back with whatever they're going to recommend before we address it further. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: So it's the consensus of the board that we will ask the parks and recs. advisory board to give us a determination of their investigation of the matter? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think that's a logical first step. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. MS. GARHON: Would you be willing to listen to thirty seconds of the thousand-foot distance? CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: No, ma'am. As a matter of fact, we are through with this item. MS. GARHON: Hay I come to you personally to show you this video? CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: You -- you may do that. MS. GARHON: Thank you. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But you'll have to bring the TV with you. We don't have any -- MS. GARHON: Yeah, that's okay. It's 20 pounds. Thanks. Item #7B MS. PAUL SHIRGHIO REGARDING A NON-CONFORMING SIGN - PETITIONER TO PROCEED WITH VARIANCE PROCESS CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Our next public petitioner is Miss Paula Shirghio, Shirghio. Excuse me for the -- the mispronunciation. I'm sure I got it wrong. MS. SHIRGHIO: I -- I gave you the pictures and the survey because I only have one copies (sic) of that. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Please go ahead. MS. SHIRGHIO: Okay. We purchased the -- the 7-Eleven building that was -- that is across from Grey Oaks in September. And we are renovating the building. And we were getting ready to have our sign put up and were told that the sign is non-conforming. And we were told that we could probably get a variance and it would take months. And the cost I first heard was $850, and then later on I heard it was $425. And I sent a letter asking to be able to come to the public petition and make a public petition for being able to, you know, leave the sign where it is. The first reason I have is I intend to reduce the size of the sign 50 percent. And right now the sign is, I think, 100 square feet, and it would be reduced by 50 percent. The second point is we located the property line of Hawk's Ridge, and we were told it was four feet, but it is seven and a half feet from the property line of Hawk's Ridge. That's north of us. So that was another point I wanted to make. Hawk's Ridge is a planned unit development. And right now there's recreation facilities there, tennis courts, the little -- the rec. -- the little rec. hall. And as you can see on the survey, it's -- it's 96 feet from the sign to anything. The tennis courts start there. All the homes in Hawk's Ridge are west in back of our property. So the sign isn't really interfering in anybody's way or -- or unsightly. It won't be, you know, if we can put a new sign up there. And it doesn't block the entrance or the exit of Hawk's Ridge. And you can see in one of the pictures that it's quite a distance to the entrance and -- and -- and the exit. We've tried to make the building look nice. As you can see, we've redid the whole building, put the landscaping in. And to move the sign, prices are between two and three thousand dollars. That's putting electricity out to where we'd have to move it without even the cost of a new sign. So like I said, we've been working to try to open the building. And I would like to get the sign up if I could. And so I'm just asking if something can be done, you know, as soon as possible, you know, some kind of answer on that. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Go ahead. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Mulhere, we were recently talking about just this same type of situation in that where we have a non-conforming sign that is -- attempts are made to bring it closer to conformance or to reduce the size of the sign. Aren't we looking at some type of an amendment to the Land Development Code that would allow for that type of -- of action? MR. HULHERE: We are -- we are proposing an amendment that would allow for a non-conforming sign to remain in place and to be altered providing some aspect of that non-conformity be reduced, whether it's -- the issue here, though, it wouldn't really resolve this issue because -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Uh-huh. MR. MULHERE: -- the size of the sign is not non-conforming. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. MR. MULHERE: The only thing that's non-conforming about this sign is its relationship to the property line. It's four feet -- I -- I believe four feet off the property line. That's the only aspect that is non-conforming. So they would have to bring that into compliance even under what we were proposing. We don't know how that's going to pan out as we bring it forward to the planning commission and the board. There may be some changes in that which might make that feasible. The -- the -- it would be $425 because it wouldn't be an after-the-fact variance that they would be coming in -- it's not an after-the-fact variance. So the fee is $425. The code says that if a business has ceased to operate under the sign code section for greater than 30 days, then any future use of the property, signs, must be in conformance with the current standards. That's why the only option available to staff was to recommend a variance. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Let me ask Mr. Mulhere before you ask that other question, is the property -- it's four feet from the property line I think you said. Is that because of the expansion of Airport Road, how that got into non-conformity in the first place? MR. MULHERE: It very well could be when Airport Road was widened that it may have met the setback at the time. It very well could be. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Mulhere, the -- yeah. There are trees, if I'm not mistaken, on Hawk's Ridge property that are not under the control of this owner that go right up into -- to the right-of-way line. There's kind of a visual problem here; is that correct, Miss Shirghio? MS. SHIRGHIO: (Ms. Shirghio shook head.) COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No? MS. SHIRGHIO: No, and I think we located the survey -- they're saying it's four feet, but it is -- we measured it. It's seven and a half feet. We -- we found the post that's their survey line. MR. MULHERE: Okay. MS. SHIRGHIO: We measured it. MR. MULHERE: That -- that may well be. I didn't have a chance to see that survey. Yeah, I didn't see the survey. MS. SHIRGHIO: But it's still a little closer than -- you know, it's a little more in conformity than, you know, the four feet. But no, there's no visual, no, I don't think so. MR. MULHERE: It was just our recommendation that the -- there may be reasons why a variance may be entertained. It was simply staff's recommendation that that was the procedure to go through. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Mulhere, what's the time frame they could expect if they went through a variance procedure? MR. MULHERE: Probably the quickest, depending on how it falls in line with planning commission and board dates, would be six to eight weeks. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, I'm not sure. Maybe you can tell us if there is, but I'm not sure there's another way for us to legally handle a variance other than the established variance procedure. MR. WEIGEL: I don't know. I'm looking over to Miss Student to see if she has any further word there. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You may very well have a hardship particularly -- which would qualify for a variance particularly considering Commissioner Norris's point that if the county expansion is what caused that to be out of compliance, that would probably fall under a hardship. But I'm just looking legally how can we make that happen. MS. SHIRGHIO: Okay. MS. STUDENT: For the record, Harjorie Student, assistant county attorney. The variance provision in the sign code is the only provision available for a relief in this type of situation. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Have you had discussions with Hawk's Ridge as to whether or not they would object to the sign staying in its current location? MS. SHIRGHIO: Have -- have I? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. MS. SHIRGHIO: No. I wouldn't really know really who really to contact there. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. As a part of -- if -- if it is this board's direction to -- to say that a variance is the proper avenue, it would be important that -- if you could talk to the folks at Hawk's Ridge, find out if you can get a get a letter of no objection or something to that effect. It makes it a lot easier if the adjoining property owner is -- is in agreement with the variance also. MS. SHIRGHIO: I would assume that Southland was allowed to have the sign. I think everything's changed since then or at -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. MS. SHIRGHIO: -- that point because it's been -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Our signage restrictions have increased in the county due to a lot of the pole signs like what Southland was allowed to have. When you purchase property, you then have to bring it into compliance as you did with the landscaping. And unfortunately, the sign is a part of that. MS. SHIRGHIO: And the Brazilian pepper. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the Brazilian pepper. So if the widening of Airport Road has created a situation or has contributed to a situation that causes for a variance, then there may be a hardship that's acceptable, particularly with the reduction in the size of the sign. There's some public benefit to that. So I think there's a basis to look upon it from those two points. MR. HULHERE: I just wanted to add that if during the process -- the final Land Development Code amendment hearing is Hay 1 which would be probably before you would entertain the variance. And if during that process something is approved or determined that would resolve the situation, we'll be happy to, you know, take care of it that way. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: In the interim, though '- MS. SHIRGHIO: I can't do anything. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: -- it appears you need to go forward with the variance process. MS. SHIRGHIO: I guess because I -- you know, I just wouldn't want to open the business there until I did get my sign up, but I don't know what my, you know, options would be. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Unfortunately, we cannot issue an administrative approval for a variance or just tell our staff to approve it. There -- there is the process, and we are, because it's established, bound to follow that process. And I'm afraid that's the only one available to you. MS. SHIRGHIO: So what is the situation that I'm left with at this point? I either -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: You need to apply for your variance. MS. SHIRGHIO: I have to do -- I can't -- okay. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: And we'll -- we'll ask the staff to help you to do that as expeditiously as possible. MS. SHIRGHIO: Okay. All right. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you. Item #7C SIDNEY H. SHOWALTER REGARDING LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS - STAFF TO PREPARE AGENDA ITEM Mr. Showalter. Okay, Mr. Showalter, ten minutes. MS. SHOWALTER: Okay. I have here with me Bob Cook who is a world famous plant doctor on WNOG. He's also prass -- past president of the local chapter of the FNGA, Florida Nursery Growers' Association. Also he is the president -- new president of the Landscape Maintenance Association. Also with us here today is Dave Capewell from Capewell Landscaping who is a past secretary for the LHA and Rod Torp (phonetic) who is Roswell Services, a past president of Landscape Maintenance Association. Basically we're here today to ask you to help us improve the professionalism of our industry. As you know, the landscape maintenance people, all they have to do is pay $25, and they can go out and cut people's grass and trim their hedges. We have a lot of good companies in the -- in the county here. But we have a lot of other companies that just go out and don't take care of people's yards properly. Now, the problem is -- here is when somebody gets a county license, the general public, John Q. Public, assumes when this fella comes to propose to trim their grass or their hedges that he knows what he's doing. There's no competency requirement or anything else. Now, we're not really opposed to that, and we're not up to creating more administrative requirements. What we would like to do is to have you help us require everybody to come and take four hours of continuing education a year to renew their license. This could be done, if it's legal, through the tax collector's office and they re -- when the people renew their license, all they have to do is give the receipts of the hours they've attended. Now, you want to know whether there's -- whether we have education. Through the vocational tech -- or not vocational tech, the county agent's office, the Landscape Maintenance Advisory Committee offers 80 hours of cont -- of education. LHA has meetings, and they also have it. Also there's various suppliers around like Naples Fertilizer and others which have education courses. These are all very important to the people that take care of it. We require certain landscape requirements. People do beautiful things in their yards, but if it's not taken care of, it's a waste of time because they end up with nothing. So what we would like for -- for you to do is to set up a committee of a couple people from the staff, maybe somebody from the tax collector's office, and some of the people from our industry so this is a we thing and not a you and us. We can sit down, and through this we can implement all the education. It's just a matter of the county tax collector when the requirements come in each year to renew the license, they go ahead and renew it. Or if they haven't -- don't have that, let them pay a hundred dollars. That ought to get their attention. Do you have any other questions, any questions? CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, do you see any legal obstacles here? MR. WEIGEL: Well, what we're talking about is affecting the occupational license ordinance and arrangement with the tax collector as it currently exists. So I would suggest that the tax collector would need to be consulted as to some of the administrative pros and cons that he may find if this idea were to go forward. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You know, there's a couple -- couple of problems I have with it. And since we met, the more I think about the idea, the less I'm inclined to support it and for a couple reasons. I think of kids who are fairly industrious who go out and line themselves up a couple of lawns to mow to make themselves a few bucks. And -- and do we get into a situation where we make that impossible? And I think of -- when I was in junior high and high school, there was a kid named Ricky Sands who was very industrious and went out and got himself about 12 or 15 lawns and actually paid his way to college. His mom was a widow. He had no money. And he paid his way to college by mowing lawns. And I suspect somewhere in Collier County there's a Ricky Sands who would like to go out as a 15-year-old kid and mow a dozen lawns and -- and make some money. And I don't want to put a further burden on that situation. Secondarily, though, what I do in real life is marketing and PR. And there are at least two associations that deal specifically with PR. And what they do is have a licensing or have a certification procedure themselves. It's not the government doing it, but they have a certification procedure and then make sure that the public is aware that one of the things you should inquire when you're looking for a PR professional is do they have those credentials. Have they gone and done that? It's not a government requirement. It's something they've created themselves. And I think if you go to most of your developers or most of your hotels or most of those folks as they look for someone to do their marketing, they look at their credentials and their background. And I think that might be a better avenue to do the same thing is your organization can get together its professionals and put together an accreditation process and get that word out to the public without having the government require that to happen. So if someone -- as you say, if someone opts not to rather than just having to pay an extra 75 bucks, they carry that with them all year. If they opt not to be certified, then that's one strike against them as they solicit business. And me as a homeowner or me as a condo unit owner or me as a commercial business owner, as I look for someone to do my landscaping, that's one of the questions I would ask. Are you accredited by the association? MS. SHOWALTER: Okay. I have a suggestion for the first situation there. Make the age limit 21. If they're running a business, they're -- you know, that would take care of your high school and college kids. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually, Sid, Ricky never got an occupational license in the first place. MR. SHOWALTER: You ought to -- you ought to -- you ought to cite him. MR. COOK: Right. So -- so this would not -- this would not apply to -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This probably would not apply because of the occupation -- MR. COOK: This would not apply to the -- to the high school, and I think -- I'm sorry. My name's Bob Cook, Naples Fertilizer and Garden Center, also with Landscape Maintenance Association. So this would not apply to the -- the unlicensed person, and there are a lot of them out there. And thank goodness, they -- they -- they sharpen the competition. But this is designed so that the landscape maintenance company doesn't need to join our organization. Also these classes would be offered free to them, but it elevates the standards of the industry. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And -- but why does government need to be involved in that? You could still not require them to join your organization and still have the accreditation classes available to them without having government be a part of that. It just seems like more regulation and more government to me which is not something I -- MR. COOK: It would be a stipulation of running a landscape maintenance business in this county that not only you are licensed but you're also educated. It merely, again, raises the level of service to Mr. and Mrs. Homeowner in our county. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Bob, Bob, I think he -- he's not objecting to that. I think his objection was more to why don't private industry do it instead of the government getting involved into it. Mr. Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I had a lot of the same objections. As Sid may recall, we met and discussed this item extensively, and I had a lot of the same objections. But what I've -- I've really come to on this -- and there's a -- a lady on my street who's about 84 years old. And some guy showed up in a truck and -- and the price was right and started cutting her lawn and stuff. And six months later half the stuff in her yard's dead. The guy didn't know what he was doing. And sometimes, you know, overregulation is not what we're seeking. But what I see is a request to assist this industry in policing itself. MS. SHOWALTER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't hear that any tax dollars are required. I don't hear that there's really any additional expense to the businesses. They just invest time in classes that are free. And what we're asking is whether the tax collector is -- believes it would be able to check a receipt of -- of someone attending a class before issuing a -- a -- a renewal on a license. And I think when we talk about, you know, bureaucracy that this really doesn't embody that for me. I think there are some bugs that might need to be worked out of it. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's no pun; right? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No pun intended. Might -- might need to trim the -- no, but I would like to see -- Sid has -- has done a lot of work in trying to make this so that it's not government requiring something. You know, it's -- it's -- it's industry driven. And I think if there's a way the tax collector finds that it's not a burden upon them to assist the industry in providing that, I'd like to see us at least investigate it and maybe in doing so either answer or confirm what you've said. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I guess I -- my concern -- and Guy can answer this for us down there -- but that it is more bureaucracy. If you've got a couple of different levels and if you haven't taken a class, you gotta pay a different price. And how the government's going to keep track of that does require more effort. There is additional effort there to know whether or not there's been accreditation. Okay. You're going to have to pay a different level if you haven't been accredited. And sounds like a very simple procedure. I can ask you to present that or not. But it's one more thing that the person working in any of those satellite offices or the person working down here at building C has to try to track down. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Sounds like we may have a divergence of opinion on this issue, so I might suggest that we bring this back at some point on a regularly scheduled agenda and discuss it and take action. COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: More thoroughly. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, looks like you may have three people that agree with that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's go ahead and schedule it as a discussion to give staff direction if -- if that's acceptable to -- to the rest of you, and we'll go from there. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I will say as -- as a -- a professional who is a participant in a regulated, continuing education program from the -- from the state, we're required to gain 40 hours a year of -- of CPEs in specific areas. And I have to admit at times it's a hassle. But I also have to say that it makes me stay current with all the regulations that continue to change from whatever level. I mean, it's forced the CPA industry to stay current, and -- and I think that's all he's asking too is that there be a minimum level required to maintain a license. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two words, more government. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And maybe between now and then the -- the basis for this request can be made a little more clear rather than someone thinking it's just an industry who's trying to shut the doors on the little guy which if you scan through this, you may have that perception. We need to have the problem more clearly identified. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. HcNees, who would be the appropriate staff person for them to confer with on this? MR. HCNEES: I believe it would be the community development staff, Mr. Cautero. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Then, Mr. Showalter, you will confer with him, and community development will bring this item back to us at a future meeting. MS. SHOWALTER: What's the name? Who do we talk to there? CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: You're done. Your ten minutes are done. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Bob Hulhere. MR. HULHERE: I'll raise my hand. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: More government. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. We'll move now to add-on 8(A)(1). MR. HULHERE: I just wanted to add one item. I -- I didn't hear it specifically discussed. But there was a proposal B which was a Land Development Code re -- landscape code review. And I just wanted to let the board know that your staff has set up a task force to review the Land Development Code landscape section consisting of our landscape architect, Joe Delate; two -- George Botner who is, I think, executive director of Naplescape; the landscape inspector; a code enforcement inspector; and -- I'm missing somebody -- Brian Nelson from Barton Collier Corporation who is also a landscape architect. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What about opening that up -- that up to adding some private landscape architects and contractors, landscape contractors, because they're the people who have to install and maintain the stuff? And if it's not working, I think their perspective would be valued. MR. HULHERE: And that's absolutely -- that's fine. As a matter of fact, we have two on there right now. But we would welcome any comments from Mr. Showalter or anybody else out there. I hope to go out to the community and get their input. So I just want to let you know that. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I think what I like about this is that right now I believe only the owner of the business has to get a license, and then he can go out and hire Joe Smith who's never cut a blade of grass in his life, much less dealt with Florida landscaping so -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: More government. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- I think I'd like to look further at it. Item #SA1 RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF KENSINGTON PARK PHASE 3-A - APPROVED WITH STIPULATIONS, LETTER OF CREDIT AND CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Item 8(A)(1) is an add-on to a plat approval. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the plat. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: More government. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Opposed? There are none. Item #SB1 LANDSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION PROJECTS ON DAVIS BOULEVARD BETWEEN U.S. 41 AND COUNTY BARN ROAD - APPROVED Next item is 8(B)(1), landscape beautification projects on Davis Boulevard -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: -- between U.S. 41 and County Barn Road. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- is this the same project we've been talking about now for about a year and a half? CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: This is two of the projects actually. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Two of them. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Yes, uh-huh. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Do -- do we have to go very far with this if it's the same thing we've been talking about? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have one question before we have unanimous and very excited approval of the item. From a fiscal standpoint, Mr. Conrecode, this is broken down into two different things. What is -- what exactly are we approving fiscally today? The 27,000 for design or -- and/or the additional -- MR. CONRECODE: For the record, Tom Conrecode from public works. There are -- the project runs from U.S. 41 all the way along Davis to County Barn Road. We split it in two at Airport Road. The westernmost segment of that has already been completed, the phase 1 design. We need to complete phase 2 design as a part of our grant application process with the state. At the same time, since the balance of that segment is under construction by the state DOT, we're recommending that you do phase 1 and phase 2 design -- or I'm sorry, the initial and final design of the phase 2 portions from Airport to County Barn Road. That's what the $27,000 number is. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's the entire amount as far as money that we're approving today. MR. CONRECODE: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's a logical assumption that we'll go on and with FDOT's assistance build -- actually -- actually do the construction later, but that item will come back to us at another time. MR. CONRECODE: Yes, sir. And we've attempted to identify what those construction costs are going to be as well as what your annual maintenance costs will be so that you're aware of that for future budgets. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a question of Mr. Botner. I -- and Neil's not here today. I'm sorry he's not. I've watched some of our landscape -- median landscape projects go from mulch to grass to mulch to plants to mulch. It's like we can't make up our mind what's -- you know, what can be maintained and so forth. So I'm all in favor. I just want to ask that let's take a look at what hasn't worked and not repeat it. There are some medians on county roads that really were not designed properly or not planted properly or there's some problems there. So this is -- is a much-needed project in the area, so I -- I would like to talk to you later about the design and what maintenance basis we have for the -- the dollars and so forth but -- MR. BOTNER: Absolutely. And for the record, Commissioner, my name is George Botner, president, executive director of Collier Naplescape for the last three years. And I just wanted to let you know that we have a group of five speakers that would like to talk to you briefly about their concern for this project and what it means to our community. If you are willing to go through that exercise, we would love to be able to do it for you. But also to come back to your point, Commissioner, you will find no greater advocate than Collier Naplescape for doing these landscape improvements correctly. And as all of you know, we have been about the task for the last two years of putting together a community-based and supported master plan for streetscape throughout our community. And we are still working on that as another project. This is -- and that's the global perspective. But this is a project that we bring to you as a way to link up yourselves with the state of Florida and with our group to get a very badly needed corridor improved. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I have obviously no objection to hearing from five members of the public. However, I'm prepared to make a motion to approve the item. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: It looks like we have support for the item that's before us today, Mr. Botner. Do you still feel the need to go ahead and -- MR. BOTNER: Does anybody want to talk anyway? CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: You wouldn't want to try to talk us out of it now. MR. BOTNER: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We have a wise audience. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. That -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: There -- there is a motion and a second; right? Good. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: There is a motion and a second. And I guess was there any other public speakers, Mr. McNees, except that group? MR. MCNEES: Just those five. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. In that case all those in favor signify by saying aye. And opposed? There are none. That's a unanimous support. Thank you very much, people, for bringing that one forward. Item #883 THREE YEAR EXTENSION AGREEMENT TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WITH HALSTATT PARTNERSHIP - APPROVED Next item is 8(B)(3), another add-on concerning the Hallstatt property. MR. CONRECODE: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Again, Tom Conrecode from public works. We have an agreement that is -- has an expiration date of today. Staff recommends a three-year approval. And the reason it's an add-on, we were trying to work out some of the details of the agreement and weren't able to meet the normal agenda submittal deadline. It's a rather routine item, and staff recommends approval of a three-year extension. The -- their attorney and our county attorney's office have worked out the details of that agreement. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move the item. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Public speakers? None? MR. MCNEES: No, sir. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #9A UPDATE REPORT REGARDING PACIFIC LAND CO./CHICKEE ISSUES - PRESENTED Being none, our next item is, Mr. Weigel, your update concerning Pacific Land Company. What I'd like to ask you to -- to relate to us is -- before you start into your presentation if you have one mapped out, I would like to know first before you start what your results were of surveying around the country this issue as it has been brought forward in other jurisdictions. MR. WEIGEL: Yes. Thank you. The county attorney office has used various resources within our office, significant attorney resource as well as extensive collaboration with development services as we go forward here. And -- and not to belabor it, but I'd point out immediately that Ramiro Manalich and Shirley Jean McEachern of our office had personally followed the directive to make the nationwide search as well as interact with the underlying landowner, Pacific Land Company, and communications on behalf of federal government, a private law firm on behalf of the Indian affairs issues that are concerned here. And I'll turn it over to Ramiro to respond more specifically to your quest -- and Shirley Jean to respond specifically to the question concerning the nationwide search and what our polling and -- and query found with similar and related situations not only within Florida but throughout the United States. So I'll turn it over to Shirley Jean. MS. MCEACHERN: Good morning. I'm Shirley Jean McEachern for the record. I personally conducted the nationwide search which included western states, the state of Hawaii with regard to their native Hawaiians. I spoke with Amish communities and the state of Wyoming with regard to Indians and all the across the nation with regard to Indians. I never found one situation that was identical to the one that we're facing here today which involved a group or a tribe of families, of Indian families. But in each instance that I did find involved like an individual Indian with a native structure. And in each instance the government's reaction was either to regulate them and treat them like anyone else or to ignore them. And that was the result. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just hit some highlights here on your memorandum and see if this makes sense. The second paragraph -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: There's nothing in between. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second paragraph, it says the results of this nationwide search showed no other state or local government that had established a special zoning district exemption for off-reservation Native American Indians or their native structures. MS. MCEACHERN: Correct. But again, it's important to remember that in each instance it never involved -- the situation that that particular state or local government was dealing with did not involve a tribe in remote agricultural areas. It involved one Indian, one structure. And so there would not have been a -- a need or the historical background to even consider a special district, the establishment of a special district. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine. Let me get through some other points. Second page here, you spoke with the folks in Santa Fe County, Santa Fe, New Mexico. MS. MCEACHERN: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They had faced a total of three cases. MS. MCEACHERN: Yes, and each one involved one individual Indian. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand that point. You've made that point very clear. Let me just go through these and make sure I understand them clearly. MS. MCEACHERN: Sure. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The final conclusion in each of the three cases was government enforcement. And the gentleman from Santa Fe, New Mexico, stated that off-reservation Indians should be treated like everyone else. MS. MCEACHERN: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This one I found particularly enlightening. Craig Alexander who is an attorney with the Office of Tribal Justice -- MS. MCEACHERN: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would it be fair to say he's pretty well versed on Indian affairs? MS. MCEACHERN: I would say so. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And you inquired if Mr. Alexander had had any knowledge of any state or local government that might have set up a special district exemption for off-reservation Native American structures. To the best of his knowledge, he was aware of none. MS. MCEACHERN: Correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is a gentleman who deals with Indian issues day in, day out, every day of his life. MS. MCEACHERN: I would say so, yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And he's not aware of any. Dade County position's (sic) office is to treat off-reservation Indians like anyone else. MS. MCEACHERN: Correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Monroe County acknowledged -- they're the ones -- you said some -- some of the governments had taken no action. Some, there -- there had either been enforcement, or they'd just chosen to ignore it. MS. MCEACHERN: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But no one had created special exemptions. I thought this was kind of interesting. Monroe County acknowledged -- they're one of the ones that have not chosen to do anything. They've ignored it. They acknowledged it's not a politically popular government action. MS. MCEACHERN: That is a direct quote from the attorney I spoke with. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So if it's not politically popular, they've decided not to -- MS. MCEACHERN: Deal with it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- enforce it. However, they -- they do -- according to the final sentence here, does feel that off-reservation structures do not enjoy immunity from state or local reservation. MS. MCEACHERN: Correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They just choose not to enforce it because it's not politically popular. MS. MCEACHERN: Correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Broward County, Indian structure, off-reservation lands that must be permitted like any other structure. Cheyenne, Wyoming, city attorney indicated she was well versed on Indian affairs. MS. MCEACHERN: She did, but she also said there were no Indians in Cheyenne. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: She -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Why does that strike me as funny? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: She also said under the fact pattern that you presented her that the Indians should be treated like anyone else when they are off reservation lands. MS. MCEACHERN: Correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And she was a self-proclaimed expert on Indian affairs. MS. MCEACHERN: Correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Pierre, South Dakota, assistant attorney general was of the legal opinion that off-reservation Native Americans were to be treated under the law just like everyone else. And the only exception to that was in the state of Hawaii, and they have a clause, of course, in their state constitution anyway dealing with aborigines and supremacy clause? MS. MCEACHERN: Well -- well, even with them they haven't really faced the particular issue that we're facing here, and they aren't facing native structures of the aboriginal Hawaiians. But I think it's also interesting that I've spoken with -- I spoke personally with Tim Colter who is also representing the independent Seminole nation today in this issue before us, and I personally asked him if in his profession that he had ever faced or es -- helped to establish a -- a -- like a state or local reservation similar to what the federal government has established. And his answer was yes, although he couldn't re -- recall the exact details. But he said that at one time his group helped to establish a reservation in the state of New York for whatever Indian group they were dealing with there. And I asked him how he dealt with the building code issue, and his answer was they chose to ignore it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Above the law. So while obviously we haven't had anyone with the exact same circumstances, again, just to reiterate, you have found no other state or local government that established a special zoning district or exemption or created immunity in any way. MS. MCEACHERN: Correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's quite clear that the federal government has established a course of action that allows for reservations to exist. And what we have here and in these other areas are groups of individuals who believe they can circumvent that -- that particular piece of legislation by claiming a heritage or history whether that heritage or history is true or not. This -- you know, you hit the -- the correct words, the politically unpopular, and I think we all can vouch for that as we read letters from eighth graders in Tallahassee and Jacksonville that have been told we are out there stealing land and polluting the water from the Native Americans which has nothing to do with this issue. So I have offered what I believe is a solution in this case that allows them to continue their traditional ways of life, allows them to exist in their chickee huts without electricity, mind you, God forbid, by simply building a single principal dwelling structure on the property that's permitted by Collier County. The chickees then become accessory structures. They cannot have electricity in them or they're subject to state building codes. But as far as I can tell, electricity is not a way of these people hundreds of years ago. I haven't found any generators back in the 1800s that provide electricity to chickees. So it seems to me from our position what we're being told is leave us alone. You know, we don't -- we're not going to comply with your laws, period. And when a solution has been offered, I have been told that the idea of them even building a single permittable structure that -- when that idea was presented, it was rejected so -- MR. MANALICH: Commissioner Hancock, perhaps I could follow up on that. You are correct. We have analyzed what you had advanced with development services staff as well as county attorney. Leading in that effort were Marjorie Student and Bob Mulhere. We think that there is a potentially legally viable way within the codes that the group of people could continue to live there under the scenario that you brought forward. Essentially, as I understand it, when -- the technical experts are here, and you can hear from them. But as I understand it, it would require a combination of this central structure, a conditional use, and also a historical designation. And that could be viable. Now, obviously that will depend on the direction of this board. With -- all of that I think would -- we're not asking today from the county attorney office that you reach any final decisions. And I'll explain that. Basically the representatives of the Seminoles who were notified that this was going to be brought onto the agenda are aware of this discussion here today. They have requested previously for an opportunity to meet with us directly in person to go over their position and any potential resolution of this matter. Obviously we're prepared to do that with them. And that is -- supposedly they have requested that occur in the next two weeks. What we basically want to do is to update you today on the efforts that we've made with regard to your proposal and any others that might be viable. I would also point out that I just would like to clarify that I think that the position -- obviously, the Seminole representatives have to speak for themselves, so I don't want to be misquoted or speak for them. But as I understand it, when they presented their legal argument to us, they have brought a two-prong argument to the table. The first one is that this group of people is living in what is under federal law considered to be Indian country. Essentially we were aware of that federal statute and have discussed it with them in brief. The reaction of county attorney to that is that that is going to require a determination in a judicial forum that is historically and fact intensive. And, frankly, I don't think this board or a code enforcement board could make that determination. Now, that concept does exist. But like I said, it would require significant proof. Their position is that they are a dependent Indian community which is one way which you can have Indian country. But, you know, we are not prepared to agree to that without a judicial forum. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Dependent on whom? MR. MANALICH: Excuse me? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Dependent on whom? MR. MANALICH: Well, basically -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I just -- I just need help with that. MR. MANALICH: Yeah. The concept is under this federal statute that there is what is known as Indian country. It can exist in one of three ways: Basically if you have a reservation which is not the case here. It can exist if you have what is known as an allotment which, as I understand it, is the federal government having doled out individual parcels to groups or individuals. I'm not aware -- and I'm not pretending to be an expert on the facts out there, but I'm not aware that's the case. What has been presented is that this is the third aspect of that Indian country which is a dependent Indian community. When you look at the case law, what that involves basically is a very intensive historical analysis of the history of the land, the history of the people on the land, and the governmental agencies and how they interacted with those peoples and whether they recognized them as such and whether this land was set aside for that purpose. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Under that definition, though, wouldn't five million acres on the southern end of Florida all fall under that category? MR. MANALICH: Well, that has been mentioned in the memorandum of law. Obviously, you know, the county attorney's office is not prepared to agree to that. You know, that was -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I wouldn't agree with it either, but that's what appears to be suggested in that memorandum. MR. MANALICH: That has been mentioned, that's correct. Now, the other aspect of the memorandum was to have cooperation between this governmental entity and their representatives to see if there could be some type of exemption created. Now, we have talked in the past briefly about exemptions. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Uh-huh. MR. MANALICH: I'm not totally ruling something like that out. However, I would mention, as the board has recognized previously, that any time you create an exemption based on some type of racial or national origin category that the courts, if challenged, would review that with what is known as strict scrutiny. And that is, you know, a high level of scrutiny to see if you have a -- a compelling basis for setting up that classification. So that may be problematic. What you have mentioned, Commissioner Hancock, and what staff has analyzed is a potentially legally viable alternative to a resolution of this within our existing code structure. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Sounds like we have one of two courses. And from the correspondence I've received copies of from the representatives of -- of, I guess, the Billie family is that it appears they want to pursue the legal matter first. They want it -- they want it designated that we have absolutely no ability to enforce any codes out there whatsoever. And no matter what we do, they're going to pursue that. So we may have to end up going the legal battle as far as can they be designated under that third scenario legally. If they can or cannot, that tells us where we stand. If they cannot be designated under that third aspect you mentioned legally, you know, the point -- the reason I brought up what I did today is to make the point that has not been made that this board I don't think in any way has tried to quash a traditional lifestyle. I have found a way in our existing codes to allow for it to happen, to encourage it. We would have to actually make approvals to allow for it to happen. So I think the support of this board could become evident in that process. What we're asking is that a simple step be taken to make the compliance and allow us to take those additional steps to -- to make the compliance and allow us to take those additional steps to -- to preserve the way of life they say they want. The point I'm making is that process is available to us if the other side is willing to sit down and work on it together. If they're not, then we have nothing left but the legal remedy. We're not forcing that issue as much as I believe the other side is. MR. MANALICH: At this point it's my understanding that they do want, as I said, within the next week or two to sit down and discuss potential resolution of this. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Good. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I do want to -- I need to ask a question here. When both Mr. Manalich and Commissioner Hancock have said within our current code and how -- is it through the conditional use process that you anticipate getting beyond the one unit per five acres in an ag. district? MR. MANALICH: I'll have Miss Student assist me with that. I believe that's correct. MS. STUDENT: As I outlined in my memo, that we may need further interpretation from planning. And, in fact, I've talked to planning about this issue because a cultural facility is a conditional use in the ag. district. And I think there's two ways to look at it. It might be that it could be looked at as a self-contained facility, a cultural village, if you will, where the density requirements may not be tripped. Under Commissioner Hancock's scenario, if the chickee were viewed as an accessory structure, then -- and the centralized facility as the primary, that definitely would not trip the density requirements. And absent that, then we might be looking at a plan amendment. The plan in the ag. district speaks in general terms about the permitted uses and states includes -- in matter of statutory construction includes is not an exhaustive list. And we have this cultural facility as one of the conditional uses. So it's possible to, yeah, make that interpretation that it would not -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The suggestion then is there would be -- MS. STUDENT: -- trip the density. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The suggestion then is there would be a, quote, cultural facility. MS. STUDENT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And accessory uses to that cultural facility would be the chickee huts themselves. And my question -- MS. STUDENT: That fits in with Commissioner Hancock's recommendation. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My question then is what would be -- what would we be defining as the cultural facility? Would it be the electric building with the fax machines and everything else or -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let -- let me -- let me clarify because we're mixing -- MS. STUDENT: It would be the entire site the way I view it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're mixing two things. The simplest path I saw was that if I own a home, I can go get a building permit and build a chickee in my backyard. And if I want to go sleep under it every night, I can. There's nothing to prohibit that. I have a home. I have a chickee hut in my backyard. It's an accessory structure permitted by the county with a building permit which after-the-fact building permits could be issued in this case. And if I want to build three chickees in my backyard, I can. If I want to build ten, I can. They're all accessory structures. And if I choose to sleep under them, so be it. Who cares? So the point I'm making is that on this property, if a single permitted dwelling structure were built to serve as a principal structure, the chickee huts that currently sit there would qualify as accessory structures because there's a principal dwelling structure. If there's only one principal dwelling structure, the density's been met, and the chickees become accessory to the principal structure. Now, because of the electricity in them, they would fall under the -- the building code that the state requires us to -- we have no control over that. And if the -- the true interest of the Billie family is to practice the traditional ways, then I don't see the electricity as being such a sticking point. They can provide electricity in the principal structure if need be. So the point is that I think under current code from my reading with the simple construction of a principal structure, these chickees become accessory. We've met the density. We've met the intent of the code. And they can practice the traditional ways they -- they tell me are so important. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'm trying to get over the legal hurdles here. The density, as far as classifying that as a single-family home and then you have 28 or 35 people living in it, we may have a problem with it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We may. MS. STUDENT: That's why I think it might be important to have an interpretation made as to this cultural facility. And we're not looking at a traditional situation of a subdivision or a multi-family unit. And this is, again, a -- a conditional use that is permitted upon the board's approval in the ag. district. So we may need an interpretation, you know, as to exactly what that is and how it would not even trip the density because I see it as something apart. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So it would require an application for a conditional use. MS. STUDENT: Yes. And then the historic designation I -- which I further discuss -- and there's precedent for this because I believe Chief Billie acquired a conditional use and a historic designation for Weaver Station, so there is some precedent for this -- would allow some relaxation of some of the zoning requirements. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand you have a summary here, but how do we -- just in a nutshell, how do we define some historical significance? MS. STUDENT: Okay. I list about five -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. I know and I read that. MS. STUDENT: -- five criteria. And under the code as I read it, it would only have to meet one of those criteria. And I think it could be looked at as a replication. The Seminoles have been here I don't know how many hundreds of years, maybe a hundred and fifty. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On this particular site? MS. STUDENT: Not on the particular site. But it's a replication of their culture, and that would be, I would think, a way of interpreting it. They are doing things on that site. They're making artifacts and so forth that are -- replicate their culture and promote their culture and -- and are evidence of -- of their history. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't even see why we have to go down the historical road. MS. STUDENT: Yeah, that's -- I said that may be. That gives you some flexibility on -- you wouldn't necessarily have to do that I don't think. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually extended families in ag. areas are not -- are not uncommon. If you have 28 people and you build a principal dwelling structure with a dorm-type facility in it that -- that -- that allows that many people to sleep there, then you just got a big family. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But it's not considered usually as one unit if you have a dorm-type facility. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just -- I understand where you're going. I just want to make sure -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not saying I've worked out all the bugs. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I think it's important to note that the board is trying to work towards a solution for the problem as long as we can do it within the law. Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman and commissioners, in fact, we have more presentation. Certainly the -- the information that's been passed back and forth has been important. But there are some other elements that -- beyond questions that we'd like to bring forward to you. And it may, in fact, initiate more questions. But -- and if -- if I will, I'll -- I'll continue for a moment here. One thing to keep in mind was -- in our legal review was the fact that when you get to interpretation and when you get to interpretation of the Land Development Code in areas that have not been implemented in the past and there's -- and there's not really a track record if you get into the cultural, ethnic, historical, and other qualities that fall under this particular area of the code, that we have to be reasonable in our interpretation and in our opinion of interpretation and not force whatever reviewing agency, in this case today, for instance, the board, to have to make an unreasonable stretch of the law that applies to everyone. And, therefore, we need to take into account that, in fact, contrary to some of the federal authorities in past opinion which talks about the independent Seminole tribe and dependent Indian country and Indian territory generally that we have a situation here where the land is owned not by the Indian residents, but it's owned by Pacific Land Company. It would be incumbent upon the landowner itself to make application for or see through the proper agency relationship that an application were made for any conditional use or other permitted dependent or approval-related matters on this property. I will add that if a conditional use aspect were to be pursued here that a conditional use could be tailored to specifically address the fact of the structures that exist on the premises currently. And we also I think need to be realistic and take into account that the word dwelling or dwelling unit appears not only in our Land Development Code, but it appears in our Collier County housing code. And if you give the reasonable meaning to the words as they are used throughout these codes, there may be a potential for fictionalizing what actually occurs on the premises. In regard to the stated opinion from the Indian Law Resource Center and the law firm of Holland and Knight, they initially state that although the village is not a reservation, the longstanding law of the United States recognizes that distinctly Indian communities such as this village have the same legal status as reservations and like reservations are shielded from state and local regulatory jurisdiction. As Mr. Manalich indicated, we are not in agreement with the opinion stated in the broad statement that it is to the facts at hand. But further, they did extend the second branch of we believe it would be desirable to seek a resolution of this matter by creating an appropriate and limited exemption for this and similar situations. I think we must be careful and certainly we are endeavoring to bring the authorities and representation of the Indian population on this -- on this property to understand that the word exemption is a rather particular and explicit legal term in operation. And we may not and this board may not direct the staff to develop an exemption from the codes and ordinances that exist. Furthermore, in regard to the plan that's been provided by Mr. Hancock for a potential resolution, it would appear that what it is -- is trying to address are the health, safety, and welfare aspects which were the nature of the complaint and the response to the complaint by the county through its code enforcement department. The county staff, county attorney office are desirous, in fact, anxious to know from the property owner and the residents of this property if, in fact, there have been any types of alterations, safety changes that have been made in a positive sense since the -- since the fire and the complaint that occurred this past August 1995. Those kinds of facts might assist the county in its deliberation of where reasonable interpretation may apply to, again, the -- the structures that are out there on privately owned property. With that I don't know if Ramiro and -- MR. MANALICH: Just one quick note -- MR. WEIGEL: -- Shirley have something further to add. MR. MANALICH: Just a matter of logistics here for your update. Obviously you've been dealing with the legislative aspects of this this morning. Obviously you do not need to get involved in the actual code enforcement case. But just for your information, the status of that matter is it was prepared by staff to go to hearing in April. At the last regular meeting of the Code Enforcement Board, the members of the Code Enforcement Board expressed the desire to have this matter continued at least till the Hay meeting and also to have the chairman of the Code Enforcement Board communicate with this board in regard to a request for funding specialized legal counsel that they'd like to have to address this matter. Obviously we can take that up on another occasion. But at this point the case would not be going in April per the Code Enforcement Board's direction but could conceivably go in Hay. In the mean time, as you know, as I've mentioned, the representatives of the Seminoles which are the Indian Law Resource Center and Holland and Knight wish to meet with representatives of staff and the county attorney's office to discuss potential resolution of this short of the litigation which is the other alternative. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, I think that would be the -- the best course of action if we could get that done. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Obviously if everybody's sitting down and we head towards some resolution, that's fine. But it was only a couple of months ago we were getting criticized for the fact that Lely Barefoot Beach had been continued and continued and continued. And we said nobody ever -- nobody else has ever gotten that kind of special consideration with code enforcement cases. So I hope -- and I'm sure that you'll tell us, but I hope that we don't just get into a stalling thing here where this goes on and on and on the way Lely Barefoot Beach did and that if you don't feel we're making some sort of progress, it will actually make it to code enforcement at some point because the criticism we took I think was accurate, and -- and we shouldn't repeat that. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Public speakers? MR. HCNEES: No, sir. You have none. MR. WEIGEL: What I might mention is what Mr. Hanalich has alluded to in regard to the Code Enforcement Board may, in fact, bring the Code Enforcement Board before you for further direction because there seems to be an issue as to the scope of their review of code enforcement matters that come before them and whether it should merely be the application of the local county ordinances based upon a complaint that's been filed or the further perview of the federal issues which I think jurisdictional questions certainly brought forward just beyond -- potentially beyond the scope of the Code Enforcement Board. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Isn't that a question for the county attorney's office, not for us, though? I mean, the -- the ordinance that creates the Code Enforcement Board and outlines what their jurisdiction is and what they should and can do is very clear. And it's up to the county attorney's office to interpret that for them. I don't think we should get into a political arena and start deciding, well, in this particular case, maybe we should do certain things. MR. WEIGEL: Absolutely not. No. We -- we have advised the Code Enforcement Board. Now, the Code Enforcement Board will do what it feels it must do. But we bring this to your attention because that in part is why the nature of the hearing is not going forward on April 28. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Code Enforcement Board was established in 1989. Has the Code Enforcement Board ever come to the Board of County Commissioners for direction on a specific case since 19897 MR. WEIGEL: Well, not to my recollection. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I can tell you no because I served on the Code Enforcement Board until I was on this board. And so when I was on the Code Enforcement Board, it never did. And when I've been on the board of commissioners, it never did. And I -- I don't know that that's appropriate. I think -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Were you out a day? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- we need a -- yeah, I -- I might have missed a day in 1991. You -- I think you need to give legal advice based on the existing code enforcement ordinance. But let's not let politics get in the middle of this. Let's deal with the law and strictly the law. MR. WEIGEL: You on behalf of the board are -- are restating exactly what we have told this Code Enforcement Board, and we will continue to do so. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Good. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Thank you very much then. Item #10A EXTRA GAIN TIME FOR INMATE NO. 89613 - DENIED Our next item is 10(A), extra gain time. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Have we yet to discuss or have we discussed yet with the sheriff a policy on this because there's always a split vote? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to deny. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We did a couple years ago. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What does VOCP mean? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Violation of -- THE BAILIFF: County probation. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- county parole. So in other words, while this guy's on parole, he decided to -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And that's -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- do a little forgery. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And that's why he's in jail right now because he violated patrol? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to deny. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All -- to deny. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? None. Item #10B TDC FUNDING FOR GOLF PACKAGE PROMOTION - CHAIRMAN AUTHORIZED TO MEET WITH TDC CHAIRMAN TO RECTIFY THE PROBLEM AND ITEM TO BE PLACED ON NEXT WEEK'S AGENDA Next issue is the one that I brought forward, item 10(B) concerning some TDC. I gave each one of you a little hand-out here. Start with the second sheet, please. And let me tell you where this came from. I had a friend in Chicago call me and -- a month or so ago, and he was thinking about coming down here. And I told him to call and get one of these great golf packages and gave him the number to do so, and this is the golf package that was in conjunction with the -- the golf tournament that we had. And so he did. And he called me back a couple of days later and said, you must have given me the wrong number. I can't find anybody that knows anything about the golf packages. And so I -- I called several other friends and had them do the same thing and write down their experiences with me. But first I want to relate to you we were told several times that -- that according to Sprint that no calls were ever missed. We were told that, I'm sure you remember, on several occasions. And this -- I'm sorry for the quality of this fax, but it is a Sprint report, and it's -- it's a little difficult to read. And once again, apologize for the quality. But it shows very clearly that calls were missed when we -- when we were told that not one single call was missed. And if you'll look at the bottom section of columns there, you'll notice that these were specific dates that were actually before the tournament when the -- the packages -- when the advertising and promotion had -- had started but before the tournament. And if you'll look at January 30, for example, there were 101 calls, and only 3 were answered. And if you'll look at all the other columns, you'll see very clearly that a lot of attempts were made. And at times a lot of them were answered, but -- but at other times no, they weren't answered. So the column over here that shows abandoned, those are calls that are left on hold and then subsequently hang up before they get serviced. Those show zeroes in all dates, but that's pretty much a statistical impossibility. It just almost can't happen. So I -- I think there's gotta be something wrong with the reporting and -- for one thing. And for -- I just wanted to show you these numbers just -- just to show that -- that we are not being given correct information when people say that -- that they have not missed a single call. Now, we authorized the expenditure of up to -- I believe it was sixty-three or ninety-three thousand dollars for fulfillment of the calls on the -- the advertising that -- that is yet to come. And by the way, it's -- it's -- it's to be concentrated in the next six weeks is my understanding, and that's the -- the -- where the sense of urgency comes in here and why I asked to put it on as an add-on. We were led to believe that they were going to set up a special fulfillment operation to service these particular calls. The fact is that that is not what is happening at all, that the -- they're being answered in conjunction with all other Chamber of Commerce calls. The -- the -- their little answering company called Phase Five is down at the visitors' center at Fifth Avenue and 41. And they answer all the calls that come in irrespective of -- of the source of those calls. And that's not, I think, what we intended for our money. And another problem with that is that they only operate eight -- eight to five or nine to five, probably eight to five, on the weekdays -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask you a question? CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: -- and not at night or on the weekends. Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If it's an existing service that was already answering all the phone lines anyway, what was the additional money for? I was under the impression it was a dedicated service. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: That's my point exactly. You're getting a little bit ahead of me. That's my point exactly. But I had some of my friends, as I mentioned, call in. And the -- the second sheet that I gave you is the synopsis of what they -- what -- the treatment that they received when they called in. The first one from Peoria, Illinois, answering machine picked up call. No mention of golf, no mention of discover paradise, and to date no information received. And that was on March the 18th. March 19 from Denver, call was answered Naples, just simple Naples. The caller inquired about off-season packages. Response was how many in your party and will you fly or drive from Denver. And caller indicated they are not sure about how many in the party, exact dates. Response, okay. We'll send you something. And the information there was received ten days later. Call number 3 was on the 19th as well from Baltimore. Caller inquired about information on golf packages he had seen on TV. Response, I'm not sure about that, but we have a lot of golf courses. The caller was never asked when they wanted to travel but were asked if they were flying or driving. Information as yet not received. March 20 from Joplin, Missouri, caller indicated he had seen Naples advertised on a golf tournament and wondered about vacation information. Response, we've been getting a lot of calls about the golf tournament. We have a lot of golf courses here. Information yet not yet received. The 21st from Santa Barbara, California, I've been watching TV and saw an ad about golf vacations on the Intellinet. Operator interrupted with, the Intelli what? Caller, the Intellinet. Operator, mildly annoyed, do you have a reference number? What kind of information do you want? Caller, the golf vacations mentioned on television. All of the calls are answered -- with the exception of that one number 2 with just simply Naples, all of them are answered Naples Area Chamber of Commerce. And one of the problems here is this is a joint Naples and Marco Island package, and Marco Island should be upset about this because they have gotten no publicity about this. Their -- their flyer is inserted in the mail-out when the information is mailed to these people. Bottom line is that this is not what I expected when I authorized -- when I agreed to authorize extra money for fulfillment. I think we have several choices here. We -- we spent a lot of money to get these advertisements on TV promoting our area and these golf packages. I don't think it's being done properly. If -- if you're -- if you're not handling evening and weekend calls, that alone is -- is really ridiculous on a nationwide advertising campaign like this. And then to have the people that are answering the phone not even -- not even be able to converse about what the packages are much less the fact that they're answering all these other phones, I think it's just not what we should be doing with our money. So I think our choices are -- are -- are fairly simple. We can stay with it as it is and not have the funding and just let them do whatever they want to do with the calls which I don't think is a good way to -- to fulfill our 500,000 that we spent on the golf tournament initially. The second thing we can do is -- is to -- to continue to give them the funding and let them handle it. And the third thing we can do is what we probably should have done in the first place, and that is get a -- a -- a true fulfillment nationwide company whose business it is to handle these nationwide promotions on a 24-hour basis with trained salespeople answering the phone. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, when Mr. Ayers got up here in front of us and -- and wanted additional funds to handle the calls, I thought we were told, gosh, there's such a volume, we can't possibly handle it with our regular staff. We need to do -- and perhaps I was mistaken. I was under the impression they were going to get someone who does this for a business to answer these calls. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, that was my impression. That was my impression. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And if they're failing to do that, then they're failing to meet the intent of I think -- and again, tell me if all of you heard this too but what I thought we approved the money for. And -- and I'm wondering what's the money for if they're just using the exact same service they've always employed anyway. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a -- a couple of concerns above what is listed here, and I think in making -- if we're going to make this decision, we need to make it with Mr. Ayers or a representative present to explain why we're seeing what we're seeing. But -- and I agree that we need to look at what our avenues are before all these, what, 12,000 spots begin airing because the main tracking mechanism we had for those TD funds -- TDC funds being expended was phone calls received, fulfillment of those phone calls, and people that -- you know, that we could try and track and see how many people actually came in, you know, what do we get for the dollar. And my biggest concern is with -- if these five are any example of a -- even a middle portion of the number of phone calls and how they're being handled, that fulfillment end is going to be skewed dramatically to the point that we're not going to be able to see what we're getting for our TDC dollar. And if that's the case, it just puts everything else in limbo. So this needs to be shored up more specifically. And if you're requesting to put this on as an agenda item to -- you know, to either obtain direction or put, you know, RFPs out or direct our staff to do that, I'm in support of that. I'm sure that the folks at the chamber and Mr. Ayers are gonna wanna have some level of input. And if they can explain all five of these away, more power to them. But this is fairly substantial information that things are not being handled in a dedicated manner. And that -- that's a concern for me. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Chairman Norris, you indicated the bulk of these are coming due right away. That's my concern. I don't know that we're going to be able to get into an RFP or anything else. It takes us 60 days to do that. By then the bulk of the calls will be over. I don't know what our timeline is here when they -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Maybe I can explain it for you a little bit or help you on that a little bit. I -- I spoke to a fulfillment company. And it would take two weeks to set up a new 800 telephone line on the advertisements and get this fulfillment company in operation on a new line that would go only to them. They could do it. What -- what we will get that we're not getting now is -- is a daily of -- computer download of all the calls that came in, all the -- the -- the responses that were transmitted, you know, a very detailed accounting of how these calls are exactly handled. And we get the benefit of professionally trained people answering the phones which is what we need because people have questions about these packages. They don't just call up and say, send me the information. They have questions. Where -- where do I stay? How do I get there? What -- what's going on? And -- and they need to be able to talk to someone who knows what the program is. But the point is it would take two weeks to get that on line. If we do that -- if we -- if we delay till next week to hold another meeting, then that's three weeks before we could get it on line. And that means that, you know, we would only have then three weeks of advertising left to go. You know, the question before the board is is this important enough for us to go ahead and make the change as soon as possible, or do we just feel that we've -- we've lost it for this year and let it go. And that's a decision really that we need to make today. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have -- I've called the number. This isn't a complete surprise. I've called the number both during daytime hours and during after hours. After hours you get a machine that doesn't indicate anything to do with this. These -- these responses are not the exception of the rule was my experience from calling the number. And you may want to pick it up and dial the 800 number right now. But they're not well informed. And to tell you the truth, I've called a couple times. One of the times they were politely ill informed. The other time they weren't even that courteous. And it just seems if we're going to push 12,000 advertisements, you know, we got a lot of great attention for the tournament itself. Obviously we're gonna get -- we have and will get good response from these advertisements. But if you can't deliver on the other end, they're useless. I mean, you can get all the attention in the world. But if you can't deliver when they ask, they don't do much good. So I think we'll generate a lot of attention and we'll have a lot of inquiries, but we have to be able to deliver. And my confidence level that it's going to occur to the best of its ability or to the -- as well as it should under the current scenario isn't high. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If I could interject a thought, it's my understanding when this was presented to us a year ago when we first funded the Intellinet that special 800 numbers would be put up, fulfillment companies would be engaged to send the materials out and so forth. In fact, even several weeks ago when we were asked to extend $90,000 for fulfillment, I was still under the impression that a separate private fulfillment company had been engaged to do this, and the need for the $90,000 was that the demand for information was so large that the fulfillment company had to be engaged for, number one, a longer period of time and, number two, additional printing had to be done to meet the fulfillment requirements. I'm a little bit stymied that what we have here is a -- is a 9-to-6 or 9-to-5 operation when I thought we had a 24-hour operation of -- of fairly knowledgeable people handling the information. So I -- I agree with you. There's quite a problem here. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Let me relate another story to you too that -- that I was directly involved in. A few weeks back the -- the first actual reservations for packages started coming into the travel agent. By the way, there's only one travel agent involved in this. I'm not sure if everyone was aware of that. There's one travel agent involved. The travel agent involved called one of the hotels and booked the first package, and the hotel said, package, what package at this late date? I mean, the whole thing has been handled not to the best let's say. And it's disappointing that public funds are involved in an operation that has not really been put together as well as it could be. And my concern is that we try to do our best to salvage what we can out of the -- the benefit of our public funds that we still have the ability to do. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: To clarify -- and sorry. But to clarify, I understand the package, what package scenario has been corrected now. All the hotels have -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- all their ducks in a row. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We had a big emergency meeting. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, but this is eight weeks later -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. That -- that was -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I mean, it's -- really. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. The initial reaction was that. That was corrected shortly thereafter, but the point being there have been steps along the way that have stumbled throughout. MR. HCNEES: Mr. Chairman, you do have one registered speaker on this item whenever you -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would like to ask what -- when we're talking about a separate fulfillment company, what do we know about cost? What do we know about quality of that company? What -- I just -- I don't really have -- if this is an apple, where is the other one? You know, I'm -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- looking for somebody to compare. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I understand. I understand the concern. We -- we can get a price fairly quickly. The -- I -- I forgot. Is it -- was it sixty-three or ninety-three thousand? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ninety-three. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Ninety-three. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Ninety-three thousand. This was -- this is offered on piece basis actually by time spent on the telephone by some -- some com -- some companies go by piece basis. They charge you per call. Some -- some of them charge you per minute spent per call and -- or a formula thereof. So I -- I think if we can get a commitment that we spend up to the 93,000 on fulfillment and if a company's willing to take it on a short-notice basis and take it under those conditions, I think I'd be prepared to go forward. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would just -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd just -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would just like to know, you know, how much is that going to cover if, you know -- there has to be CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, it will cover it all. What I'm saying is if they cover all of the calls that come in on -- on a emergency-type basis -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It should be less than a buck a piece. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Plus -- plus the mail-out costs. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. Yeah, as far as the answering service. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've forgotten what I was going to say. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's also the printing of materials to be sent out. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: That's -- that's true. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I'm just -- again, I know that no one wants this to continue. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay? But the -- the -- the -- Phase Five or whatever you want to call it, the -- the group that's down with the chamber, I'm sure they were able to do it at a lesser cost because of the lack of overhead, obviously integrate into an existing operation. My question is are we even going to be able to answer and record all of the phone calls we get from these 12,000 spots. If not, there may come a point where we have to stop the spots because to not fulfill is worse, in my opinion, than not running the ads. So again, I -- I don't have a financial decision in front of me. And I am a little, you know, uncomfortable not hearing from, you know, the -- the Phase Five people or whomever or being able to talk to them. But I can't disagree that this is problematic. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me throw out a suggestion. What if the board gives Commissioner Norris as chairman the authority to sit down with the chamber, with the fulfillment company, with our TDC folks, with whomever is appropriate in the next seven days, put a plan, and we'll ratify it on Tuesday unless it's some radical thing that you've come up with but go ahead and give you -- I think -- I think we all understand the goal here, and I think -- I don't think we're so far off target that it's not salvageable. And I -- that's what -- as you said, the package, what package thing, I thought, gosh, this is -- the perception is going to be that, you know, it's the bumbling clowns answering the phones and not -- not having any idea. And I think many of those problems cropped up along the way. Many of those problems have been solved along the way. This is another problem that's cropped up, and we need to solve it. And I think your suggestion is probably the best way to do that. But I'd suggest -- it's going to take some effort, some real effort, to do that between now -- in the next seven days. And so perhaps we can give John a little latitude to go ahead and -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: You'll be pleased to know that I've already made preliminary contacts, and I think we can be on line in 13 days, and -- and I'm hopeful that -- I understand your point of wanting to have this at another public meeting. I understand your point of -- of sitting down with the hoteliers. I'm hopeful that we'll be able to proceed with the fulfillment company as if we -- under the assumption that we're going to approve this. And, therefore, we won't lose another full week of time because then we would have three weeks of time instead of four. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm comfortable giving our chairman the latitude to sit down with all the appropriate parties involved and to have that assumption that we'll move forward and have the best fulfillment procedure that we can possibly have within the confines of the already allocated budget. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm in agreement with that. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Let's go to the public speaker. MR. MCNEES: Mr. Steve Wheeler. MR. WHEELER: Good morning. My name is Steve Wheeler. I'm the director of tourism for the Naples Area Chamber of Commerce. I don't know where to start. It's embarrassing to be here on such short notice not knowing what the issue at hand was going to be as I'm sure it's embarrassing for you to hear and read those comments that you're -- you're reading about how these calls have been handled. There's a lot of misinformation being circulated about this entire situation. And it's unfortunate, I think, for many of us that are involved in -- in getting caught in the crossfire that there isn't -- time is flying by, and we need to get a handle on -- on what is the truth and what's not the truth. Unfortunately, I will accept responsibility for the Sprint report that's in front of you. You should wad it up and throw it away. If you look at the 800 numbers on that report, they don't even belong to the Chamber of Commerce. They've got nothing to do with this issue. The -- the Sprint report should be back at my office. The appropriate one as far as the number of calls that have come in, the number of calls that have been missed, I faxed Mr. Rasmussen the wrong report. So I wish that the criticism that's based from that report would be retracted until the -- the accurate report is distributed. The Chamber of Commerce calls as far as what number has been called, we -- we do have several scenarios in our -- our operation through which calls are answered. Our company, Phase Five, that you've referred to is a company that's been in business for 11 years, owned by a good, solid family, mother and father and sons in Fort Myers. They've handled fulfillment for the Lee County CVB for 11 years, the Naples Philharmonic Center. They do all the mailing for them, WSFP TV. They've got good references and win awards nationwide for their ability in fulfillment. I -- I strongly encourage you either to visit our center and talk to Marge Welsh who is one of the owners or visit their operation in Lee County which is right at the entrance to the international airport. Before we, the Chamber of Commerce, contracted with -- with Phase Five, we -- we were looking at a number of calls on behalf of NATB. We handle the fulfillment for the calls that come in for Naples Area Tourism Bureau. Those are the calls that are answered by Phase Five. Any call that comes in to Naples Area Chamber of Commerce number, 262-6141, those calls are handled by volunteers. And we have 70 volunteers. And the average age of our volunteers is 70 years old. They work four hours a week. And I admit we have some difficulty in training some of those people on answering the phones with proper techniques. They -- they were not answering calls that came in on the 800 number that was assigned to the Intellinet Challenge. Again, there's a lot of history that -- that needs to be laid out on the table about the Intellinet Challenge and -- and the handling of fulfillment. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: May I ask a question? MR. WHEELER: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're indicating then there was a dedicated line for the Intellinet Challenge -- MR. WHEELER: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- separate from the others. MR. WHEELER: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why then was -- were those answered still Naples Area Chamber of Commerce? MR. WHEELER: That's where -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand that's where they are, but if it's -- MR. WHEELER: That's who's answering the telephones. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- a dedicated line specifically for the golf packages, one would assume perhaps there's a different answer than all the other lines. MR. WHEELER: There have been a lot of assumptions made that are giving me -- that are embarrassing me that perhaps in the future we can learn from this lesson on fulfillment procedures, that we can put together packages. Mr. Norris and I had a conversation, and it was -- when he mentioned it to me, it -- it seemed obvious. I'm sorry that hindsight is much more accurate than foresight. We are the Naples Area Chamber of Commerce. We are answering the telephones. I didn't think that we should answer them any other way. As far as the Marco Island mix of it, we saw the commercials I think it was Tuesday before the commercials started airing. And I quick picked up the phone and -- and asked Judy Nadu at Marco Island to get me some brochures. We needed some Marco Island brochures to go out in the package. Otherwise the only thing that was going out in the package would have been the -- the travel agent's brochure about the golf packages. So we -- Tuesday was the day that I found out that the ads were going to start running on Thursday. We had someone in the Chamber of Commerce building that sat by the phones all day Thursday, and -- and the phone didn't ring. That dedicated 800 line didn't ring at all on Thursday. On -- on Friday I wasn't in the office, and that's when I'm told that there were a lot of calls coming in. When Mr. Rasmussen called me about the date on this Sprint report that you have in front of you, that's when the error was discovered that -- that I had given him the wrong Sprint report as far as the 800 numbers. I -- I would love to sit down with you, Commissioner Norris, or anyone that you assign. I'm -- I'm no more comfortable in the middle of this situation than you are. And I think that for us to criticize some -- some of the mishandlings of this without having all the information, again, we're -- we're here to help. The Chamber of Commerce wants this to be handled appropriately. We have a respectful image that we've earned for Naples. And -- and I work very hard at maintaining that image. And I -- I want to continue that into the future. So whatever we can do to -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Well, let me suggest this, Mr. Wheeler. I -- you know, obviously what we want as a board is to get the most bang for our buck, frankly. MR. WHEELER: Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: No matter what else anyone says, those phones are not being manned except, what is it, eight to five or nine to five? MR. WHEELER: Nine to five. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Nine to five. No matter what else, that's not what we thought we were getting for our -- when we authorized that extra expenditure of money. And we -- we assumed also -- and perhaps that's -- that's our fault -- that we were going to have professional, trained, prepared salespeople answering the phone. We don't have that either. So, you know, we -- we can talk about who said this and who said that. But we can look at what's actually happening, and there's no question about that. So I would like to ask you to -- if you wouldn't mind to go ahead and set up the meeting that -- that Commissioner Constantine suggested at your convenience sometime perhaps in the next couple of days. And I'll be glad to sit down with you, and we can discuss this. But I -- I think what you need to understand and what everyone else in the tourism industry needs to understand is what we're trying to do is to try to improve the service and the results for you. MR. WHEELER: I agree. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Wheeler, one thing I think needs to be said is you didn't stand before us and make a presentation of what was going to go on inside your building. So as far as I'm concerned, I'm not shouldering blame with the Chamber of Commerce here. You folks have continued your op -- when someone calls and says, I want to know about Naples, I am sure they are handled with the utmost professional level. What we have here is a perception that was created from other folks that made the presentation. We felt we were getting a certain level of expertise with the monies that we were allocating. This is not that level of expertise we thought we were getting. And the problem is in the implementation. The problem does not rest that the Chamber has misrepresented itself. You were not standing here telling us what your operators were going to do. So please understand this is not an attack on the Naples Area Chamber of Commerce -- MR. WHEELER: Appreciate that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- in any way. We have a fulfillment we're concerned about. We want to get the best fulfillment possible for our dollars. And we're gonna ask Commissioner Norris to do just that for us. And then next week we'll make that decision. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Just what I need's another crusade. MR. WHEELER: Should I call your office for -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Please do. MR. WHEELER: -- available time on your calendar? Thank you. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, if I could ask a question, when we voted that $93,000 a few weeks ago, we voted it to come from category B funds. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Uh-huh. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is it your intention to continue that money coming from category B? CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I -- I don't see any reason to alter that portion of that original -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: -- request. That -- that will conclude that. I thank -- thank Mr. Wheeler for -- for coming and, once again, apologize for the short notice. I was developing data as early as this morning, so apologize for having this on as an add-on, but we will get together and have our meeting and -- and discuss this once again next week then. Mr. HcNees, you'll see it's on the -- the agenda for us? MR. HCNEES: For next week, yes, sir. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Right. That concludes our regular agenda assuming there's no public comment. Item #15(1) CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING A CAFRAWORKSHOP - OPTIONAL WORKSHOP TO BE HELD AT A FUTURE DATE IN THE AFTERNOON IN THE BOARDROOM MR. HCNEES: We have one discussion item, one staff discussion item. We have -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. MR. HCNEES: Ms. Leamet from the clerk's office wants to talk to you about a workshop. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. MS. LEAMER: My name's Jo-Anne Leamet. I'm with the clerk's finance department. On next week's agenda, April 9, we will be presenting to you the comprehensive annual financial report for the fiscal year ended 1995. Included will be the audited financial statements for the Board of County Commissioners and the constitutional officers along with the auditor's reports, the management letter, and the county's responses to the auditor's comments. As you know, we have new auditors this year, Arthur Andersen. And they have requested to do a workshop with the board members at a future date. They think the workshop will take about two hours at the most. And if you're interested, we'd like your permission to schedule that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I personally -- and I know this -- there's a current adversity to workshops. But I personally would be benefitted from a workshop on the CAFR. Last year it was given to us. We adopted it. I began to read through it and immediately fell asleep. So I could use some assistance. And if it's limited to two hours, if it's specifically limited, then I'm supportive of doing it. Do I sense a minority opinion? CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Could we have that at midnight? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, probably not a minority but maybe a split opinion. MS. LEAMER: What we'd like to do is go through the contents of the CAFR, help you to understand how to read it, and then answer any of the questions you have that are related to the financial __ CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Very nice of you. Mr. HcNees, have we ever had a -- a workshop on the -- the CAFR before? MR. HCNEES: You've had presentations before from the clerk, I believe, in -- in other years as part of your regular meeting on the CAFR. I can't say whether you've actually had a specific workshop. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I just had an idea. If -- I'm -- I'm going to need it anyway, so why don't we set up a -- a time period in the clerk's office that if board members wish to come over and get that information they can because I personally would like to do that. For those of you that may be comfortable with the CAFR beyond my level, you don't have to. Rather than scheduling a board workshop and making sure everyone's here, you know, that would provide those of us who want to know with the opportunity to sit down for a couple hours and learn it. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, you know, I -- I think I'd like to -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's a great idea. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think I'd like to, though, carry that a little bit further and perhaps board members who -- I -- I kind of favor this workshop being in this room on a Tuesday afternoon so that our citizens at home who want to know what we did right and what we did wrong in 1994, '95 would be able to equally pick up a copy of the CAFR and go through it with us. So I wouldn't object to it being on a Tuesday afternoon for the viewing public to be aware of what it contains. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: What's the consensus of the board then? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think we should follow both Commissioner Hancock and Commissioner MAtthews' suggestion. And if they want -- clerk wants to sponsor an optional workshop for board members who would like to become more familiar with the document, I think it's a great idea. And if we want to do it in this room so as to make it most available to the public via television, that's a great idea too. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. McNees, then if you could -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You're agreeable. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: -- if you could schedule in with the clerk's office and pick a light agenda day for us sometime in the future -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Perhaps you can set an afternoon time for that so that everybody who wants to tune in will know it will begin exactly at two o'clock or whatever rather than just saying at the adjournment of our meeting because goodness knows when that might be. We'll set a time certain of two or four or seven -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- nine o'clock. Item #14(1) RESOLUTION 96-188 ENCOURAGING AND URGING DELEGATION TO SUPPORT AN AMENDMENT TO CONGRESS BILL RE THE IMHOKALEE ENTERPRISE ZONE - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, anything? MR. WEIGEL: No thank you. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner MAtthews? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, I have one thing in the -- in the work on the -- on the agenda this morning. I failed to mention that I wanted to add to the agenda, and I think we can probably still give staff direction if we were to develop this. But I -- I sent to each of you a memo dated the 29th regarding the Immokalee enterprise zone and the creation of it. We heard a presentation on that at the delegation meeting in January, and the -- the bill has been introduced to the House. It's House bill 1177. It's been remanded, though, to the commerce committee and the ways and means committee. And there's not a lot of concern about this bill getting through the House at this point, but they don't have a Senate sponsor yet. And I -- I think I would like to -- this board to adopt a resolution urging not only our House to pass it but the Senate to get off its duff and get an amendment done so that we can reinstitute an enterprise zone in Immokalee. And that will go a long way toward helping the airport. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The get-off-its-duff part can be amended a little bit? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, with the exception of the duff part, I would be happy to -- to support that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Have you had a chance to talk with Senator Dudley or anyone? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Senator Dudley, Senator Jenny are all waiting for an appropriate moment to tack on an amendment to -- to the commerce bill. They're -- they're supportive of it, but it has not yet occurred. And we're now halfway through the legislative session. And -- and, frankly, I'd -- I'd like to urge our Senate delegation and any other senator that sees a need for this to get that amendment tacked on. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner MAtthews, are you requesting a resolution be approved -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm requesting a resolution be approved. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- next -- next Tuesday or just to approve it now pending authoring what exactly? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, we're -- we're beyond our agenda'ed meeting. I don't know whether we can approve that now. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It would have to occur next week. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We can give staff direction to do that. MR. WEIGEL: To -- to do which? CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: To -- to send a resolution. And you'll need to get with Commissioner MAtthews. MR. WEIGEL: Well, the board would have to adopt a resolution. You'd actually have to reopen the meeting as an agenda item to take the official action of creating a resolution now even though we would draft it subsequent to the meeting. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Is that -- is that what you're asking? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, if the board would mind reopening the meeting. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. I'll reopen -- I'll reopen the meeting then, and we'll need a motion on adopting a resolution. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask a question, and I don't care which way we go. But does it make any difference whether we do a resolution or a letter of some substance? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I think -- I think both of those would be in order. The resolution could go to the commerce committee chairman and the ways and means committee chairman. And -- and hopefully they would then become cognizant of what the needs are as well as get letters individually if we choose to all of the delegation. So if we can do all of the above, I -- I think it's great. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Is that a motion then? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes, that's a motion. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What -- what's the motion? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The motion is that we direct staff to prepare a resolution to encourage and urge our delegation in -- in Tallahassee -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Our Senatorial delegation. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- Senatorial delegation to get this amendment on the commerce bill. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All right. I'll second the motion. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: And that we write letters to all of our delegation. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? There are none. I'll again close the meeting. Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not a chance. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I have nothing today. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Miss Filson. MS. FILSON: Nothing. ***** Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner Hancock and carried 4/0, (Commissioner Mac'Kie absent), that the following items under the Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted with the exception of Item #16B2 which was 3/1 (Commissioner Matthews opposed): ***** Item #16A1 SEWER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR CLUB MARCO - WITH STIPULATIONS See Pages Item #16A2 DUMPING FEES WAIVED IN ORDER TO FACILITATE VOLUNTARY CLEANUP OF LITTER ON CREWS ROAD Item #16A3 WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR STONEBRIDGE, UNIT THREE - WITH STIPULATIONS See Pages Item #16A4a RESOLUTION 96-161A PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 50329-039, OWNER OF RECORD RICHARD F. FIDALGO See Pages Item #16A4b RESOLUTION 96-162 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 50329-040, OWNER OF RECORD RICHARD F. FIDALGO See Pages Item #16A4c RESOLUTION 96-163 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 50619-017, OWNER OF RECORD ORHON FRIAS DAVILA See Pages Item #16a4d RESOLUTION 96-164 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 50731-013, OWNER OF RECORD JAMES G. MCCLORY AND KATHLEEN M. MCCLORY See Pages Item #16A4e RESOLUTION 96-165 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 50829-033, OWNER OF RECORD HOMERE HYPPOLITE See Pages Item #16A4f RESOLUTION 96-166 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 50829-063, OWNER OF RECORD HIMON BARON See Pages Item #16A4g RESOLUTION 96-167 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 50908-074, OWNER OF RECORD CLAUDE E. SCHOLLAERT See Pages Item #16A4h RESOLUTION 96-168 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 50920-035, OWNER OF RECORD ALFREDO L. RAMIREZ, AND ANNE C. RAMIREZ See Pages Item #16A4i RESOLUTION 96-169 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 50921-095, OWNER OF RECORD NANCY E. MILLS See Pages Item #16A4j RESOLUTION 96-170 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 51004-042, OWNER OF RECORD C & S NATIONAL BANK OF FL A/K/A NATIONS BANK See Pages Item #16A4k RESOLUTION 96-171 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 51009-055, OWNER OF RECORD DAVID REDMOND AND KIHBERLY MOREIRA See Pages Item #16A41 RESOLUTION 96-172 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 51013-003, OWNER OF RECORD JOSEF HEINZ OBERT See Pages Item #16A4m RESOLUTION 96-173 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 51024-106, OWNER OF RECORD HAURICE R. SKIFFEY AND KAREN C. SKIFFEY See Pages Item #16A4n RESOLUTION 96-174 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 51101-008, OWNER OF RECORD CHARLES D. WALTON AND VIRGINAl E. WALTON See Pages Item #16A4o RESOLUTION 96-175 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 51102-002, OWNER OF RECORD ANDI PEARSON AND CAROL IRVING See Pages Item #16A4p RESOLUTION 96-176 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 51102-124, OWNER OF RECORD HIMON BARON See Pages Item #16A4q RESOLUTION 96-177 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 51103-005, OWNER OF RECORD RUSSELL S. MORRISON AND PATRICK K. MORRISON See Pages Item #16A4r RESOLUTION 96-178 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 51106-077, OWNER OF RECORD DAGHAR BARTOLEIT See Pages Item #16A4s RESOLUTION 96-179 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 51113-022, OWNER OF RECORD THOMAS SANZALONE, ET UX See Pages Item #16A4t RESOLUTION 96-180 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 51113-035, OWNER OF RECORD KELLY ANN HOHN AND JAMES O. HOHN, II See Pages Item #16A4u RESOLUTION 96-181 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 51113-037, OWNER OF RECORD MARIO PINO See Pages Item #16A4v RESOLUTION 96-182 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 51114-033, OWNER OF RECORD MARIO PINO AND CIRA PINO See Pages Item #16A4w RESOLUTION 96-183 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 51114-092, OWNER OF RECORD BONNIE H. CHRISTIAN See Pages Item #16A4x RESOLUTION 96-184 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 51129-015, OWNER OF RECORD LEONARD J. BUBRI AND NICKOLAS KARALIS See Pages Item #16A4y RESOLUTION 96-185 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 51201-032, OWNER OF RECORD DELIO G. CONDOHINAAND JOSE H. CONDOHINA See Pages Item #16A4z RESOLUTION 96-186 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEHENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, CODE ENFORCEHENT CASE NO. 51211-011, OWNER OF RECORD C & S NATIONAL BANK OF FLORIDA A/K/A NATIONS BANK See Pages Item #16A5 ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND LIFT STATION FACILITIES FOR CLERHONT AT PELICAN HARSH - SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS, LETTER OF CREDIT AND MAINTENANCE AND ESCROW AGREEMENT See Pages Item #16A6 AMENDMENT #2 TO CONTRACT #92-1844 FOR THE COLLECTION OF HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE BETWEEN CITY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. OF FLORIDA (FORMERLY KNOWN AS "UNIVERSAL WASTE & TRANSIT, INC.") AND COLLIER COUNTY See Pages Item #16A7 AUTHORIZATION FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF JOHNNYCAKE COVE - SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT See Pages Item #16A8 AUTHORIZATION FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF PELICAN HARSH UNIT TWELVE - SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND LETTER OF CREDIT See Pages Item #16B1 RESOLUTION 96-187, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A HIGHWAY LANDSCAPING AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO IMPROVE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AREA OF STATE ROAD 29 (MAIN STREET) IN DOWNTOWN IHMOKALEE, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA See Pages Item #1682 AMENDMENT TO THE ROAD IMPACT FEE CREDIT AGREEMENT WITH THE DEVELOPERS OF QUAIL WEST See Pages Item #1683 - Deleted Item #1684 AUTHORIZATION FOR VILLAGE PRODUCTIONS OF GOODLAND TO HOLD AN EARTH DAY CEREMONY ON APRIL 20, 1996 AT THE GOODLAND PUMP STATION Item #1685 INFORMATION ON THE PROPOSED WATER-SEWER UTILITY RATE REVIEW STUDY Item #16D1 BID # 96-2473, ADDITION TO THE CLERK OF COURTS GENERAL SERVICES BUILDING - AWARDED TO WALLACE-WILKES INCORPORATED - IN THE A_MOUNT OF $375,109.00 Item #16D2 RURAL COHMUNITY FIRE PROTECTION GRANT REQUEST FOR THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT - IN AN A_MOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $5,740.80 See Pages Item #16D3 CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 AND 1995 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL See Pages Item #16D4 MODIFICATION OF AGREEMENT NO. 96CP-05-09-21-01-011, FOR MONIES FROM THE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PREPAREDNESS AND ASSISTANCE TRUST FUND BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COHMUNITY AFFAIRS - IN THE A_MOUNT OF $4,554.00 See Pages Item #16D5 SATISFACTION OF LIEN DOCUMENTS FILED AGAINST REAL PROPERTY FOR THE ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE, RE LOTS 17 AND 18, BLOCK 18 PLAT OF COLLIER CITY See Pages Item #16El BUDGET AMENDMENT 96-311 Item #16G1 CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE PROPERTY APPRAISER 1995 TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY No's. Dated 59-63 3/07 -3/08/96 Item #16G2 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the various departments as indicated: Item #16H1 RECOGNITION OF ADDITIONAL CARRYFORWARD AND ADDITIONAL INTEREST REVENUE IN FUND 192 WITH A CORRESPONDING INCREASE IN THE APPROPRIATION FOR REMITTANCES TO OTHER GOVERNMENT IN ORDER TO FACILITATE THE TRANSFER OF PUBLIC GUARDIANSHIP MONEY TO THE 20TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 11:10 a.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL JOHN C. NORRIS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Shelly Semmler