Loading...
BCC Minutes 02/25/1997 RREGULAR HEETING OF FEBRUARY 25, 1997 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 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRMAN: VICE-CHAIRMAN: Timothy L. Hancock Barbara B. Berry John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine Pamela S. Hac'Kie Hichael A. HcNees, Interim County Hanager David C. Weigel, County Attorney Sue Filson, Administrative Assistant Item #3 AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good morning. I'd like to call to order the Tuesday, February 25, 1997, meeting of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners -- Commissioners. Excuse me. It's a pleasure this morning for the purpose of our invocation to have Rabbi James Perlman from the Temple Shalom of Naples here. Rabbi Perlman, if I could ask you to give our invocation this morning. RABBI PERLHAN: We turn to you oh, God, as we assemble in this chamber. We are grateful that you have brought us together in health and safety and in well-being. We have come here to listen to consider to exercise our civic responsibilities. Help us recognize that today and every day is a new opportunity for service to our neighbors. Help us to be patient when our neighbors differ on opinions and insights, and help us to pursue the common good that flows from common sense. Before we find fault in others, let us examine ourselves. We take pride in our achievements. We bemoan our failures, yet in the great passage of time, you have granted each of us but a few years, and you have placed before us unlimited opportunity for doing good. Let us be grateful that we are among the givers and not the takers. Teach us higher and better ways to be generous with ourselves and our substance even as you have been generous to us. Help us cultivate the ability to listen. Let us hear what others say and not only what we would hear. Help us see the needs of others as they see them and not as we would have them, and let us draw on our highest and best instincts the values of our country and our national heritage and the demands of our conscience. Let us listen to the still small voice of our conscience, and help us see the potential in this place, for you have given us the unique gift and responsibility of making those choices that will affect others far into the future. Help us see beyond the needs of the moment and tomorrow and next year. We ask your blessings on this commission and all those that serve the needs of our community. Bless our homes and our schools and our offices today. Bless those who speak and those who listen, and bless each of us with the gifts of insight and understanding, so do we in this spirit give thanks to you for this opportunity for service. Amen. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. HcNees, would you lead us in the pledge, please. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Rabbi Perlman, thank you very much this morning for being with us and offering an invocation. We'd also like to thank Temple Shalom for allowing him to be here. Next on our agenda this morning we have approval of minutes which would require a motion. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Accept the agenda first. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I am sorry. Let me -- Okay. I'm in a little bit of a hurry. How about Item 3 before Item 47 Approval of agenda and consent agenda. Do we have any changes to the agenda, Commissioner Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have none. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No. Nothing further. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry? COHMISSIONER BERRY: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A couple of items under discussion but nothing that requires us to add to the agenda. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. HcNees, we'd like to go through your list of changes. MR. HCNEES: Yes, sir. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. We have two withdrawals today. We would like to withdraw Item 8(B)(1) to clean up the financial information a little bit and get you some more specifics regarding dollar approvals. We would like to withdraw Item 16(A)(1), a code enforcement case, at the request of the attorney's office. And we have one change for the record on Consent Agenda Item 16(B)(4). There's an incorrect number in the title. The title should reflect $127,180 which is what's in the body of that executive summary instead of the $196,000 number that is reflected in the title, and that would be the only other change. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: No changes. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. And I have nothing further. Do we have a motion on the agenda and consent agenda? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hove to approve the agenda and consent agenda as amended. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, now on -- Item #4 MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 3, 1997 WORKSHOP AND REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 4, 1997 COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion we approve the minutes of the February 3, 1997, workshop and the February 4, 1997, regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, those minutes are approved. Item #5A1 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 23 - MARCH 1, 1997 AS EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COHMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW AWARENESS WEEK - ADOPTED Proclamations and service awards. This morning it's my pleasure to read a proclamation designating the week of February 23 to March 1, 1997, as Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Awareness Week and -- Mr. Pineau, there we are. I'd ask Mr. Pineau to come up and face the music. For those of you who don't know Ken, he's our emergency management director and then some. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: He's the man. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Whereas, the proper use of hazardous materials is essential to local businesses and industry in maintaining economic stability in our community; and Whereas, it is essential to plan and prepare for the accidental release of hazardous materials and to protect the well-being of all citizens and guests of Collier County; and Whereas, response teams, such as fire, law enforcement, emergency medical services, and public works, have an inherent responsibility to know the types and characteristics of hazardous materials that are being used and stored in our community in the event of an accidental release to respond safely; and Whereas, all citizens and guests of Collier County have a right to know the types, location, and quantity of certain hazardous materials in our community and a right to know the proper procedures to take in the event of an accidental release. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of February 23 through March 1, 1997, be designated as Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Awareness Week. Done and ordered this 25th day of February, 1997; signed Timothy L. Hancock, Chairman. My colleagues, I would like to move approval of this proclamation. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. ANy discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, Mr. Pineau, thank you. MR. PINEAU: Thank you, Commissioners. I accept this proclamation on behalf of the literally hundreds of facilities, from agriculture chemical facilities up to wastewater treatment plants who maintain these chemicals in our community in a safe and competent manner and also for the first responders, fire, police, and EMS from the City of Naples and Collier County as well as our public-work folks that have to deal with the very occasional accidental release of these chemicals. So I thank you very much, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Ken. Item #SA1 CARNIVAL PERMIT 97-2 FOR OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE CATHOLIC CHURCH CARNIVAL TO BE HELD FROM MARCH 5 THROUGH MARCH 9, 1997 ON THEIR CHURCH GROUNDS LOACTED AT 219 SOUTH 9TH STREET IN IHMOKALEE - ADOPTED Next item on our agenda is Item 8(A)(1), PetitionC-97-2, our Lady of Guadalupe Catholic Church. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, motion to approve the item. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. McNees, is there anyone here that would like to talk us out of this one? MR. MCNEES: I don't believe so. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Mulhere, anything to add that is unusual or extraordinary? MR. MULHERE: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Then I will call the question. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none -- and good luck with the -- This is March 5 through March 9. Everyone put it on your calendar. Item #8A2 RESOLUTION 97-134, AFFECTING ORDINANCE 88-50 ALSO KNOWN AS THE GADALETA PUD, REQUIRING THE SUBMITTAL OF A PUD AMENDMENT PRIOR TO JULY 18, 1997 - ADOPTED Item 8(A)(2), staff review and recommendations relative to Ordinance 88-50 which is known as the Gadaleta PUD, and I probably mispronounced that. MR. HULHERE: No. You -- You got that right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All right! MR. HULHERE: Mr. Chairman, Bob Hulhere, current planning manager. Mr. Nino, who prepared this report, is on his way up. Here he is right here. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Tie over his shoulder, jacket in one MR. HULHERE: He'll be right up. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: At least you remembered your jacket, Ron. Good morning, Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Good morning. I apologize for being tardy. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That will be one -- one demerit. MR. NINO: I can't afford any of those. The Gadaleta PUD is a PUD which you've recently had a considerable amount of exposure to. As a matter of fact, only recently you agreed to restore a piece of commercial property to that PUD. Staff in reviewing the PUD, as indicated in our executive summary, advises you that the commercial zoning is inconsistent with the future land use element, and for that reason alone we would recommend that the petitioner return in six months with an amendment to the -- to that petition. However, as we indicated, there are a number of other matters that are -- that are inconsistent with today's requirements. The PUD is -- is dated by our standards, and we -- we think this opportunity ought to be taken to bring this PUD into -- into -- up to today's standards. However, in the process we -- we think it is advisable to give the petitioner some direction as to what they might expect in the way of favorable consideration from this board, and staff has -- has recommended that -- that the revised PUD include a provision for eliminating the C-2 commercial and, in lieu thereof, granting them the -- the density that is authorized by the future land use element for conversion of commercial zoning that is inconsistent with the PUD. And -- and with that, that is our recommendation, that the petitioner be advised to return in six months with an amended PUD and that you indicate that it is appropriate for that document to include a provision for converting the C-2 commercial to residential at 16 units per acre. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Nino, did this parcel receive any exemptions or exceptions to the zoning teevaluation process? MR. NINO: It -- the -- The PUD was reevaluated and found to be -- on the basis of compatibility with surrounding properties, found to be appropriate for the 88 dwelling units. The C-2 was a mistake -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. NINO: -- on our part. So the C-2 in all -- quite frankly, never -- was never the subject of the zoning teevaluation arm. determination. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And this is the C-2 that by scrivener's error some error was -- MR. NINO: Exactly. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- left out and just put back in previously this year -- MR. NINO: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- and now we're telling them to come back -- MR. NINO: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- and remove it. MR. NINO: Exactly. Exactly. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Did we tell them that when they came in earlier this year, that that was in all -- MR. NINO: No, we didn't. No, we didn't. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It seems we could have avoided that middle step, but I guess that's -- MR. NINO: Well -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- water under the bridge. MR. NINO: -- they wanted to be made whole. And, quite frankly, Mr. Ferguson is here. I -- I -- I think at this point in time the petitioner actually prefers that the C-2 be converted to 16 units per acre -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, let me ask -- MR. NINO: -- but I'll leave that for -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- questions for -- MR. NINO: -- Mr. Ferguson to address. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are there any questions for staff from board members? Seeing none, Mr. Ferguson, I believe, is the petitioner. MR. FERGUSON: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Tim Ferguson for the record on behalf of Dominic Gadaleta, the Gadaleta PUD. The -- The C-2 was, I suppose, inadvertently not even considered when the zoning teevaluation ordinance was -- was being considered -- when the property was being considered for exemption from the zoning teevaluation, and that's kind of problematic. The C-2 was taken out of the PUD by a scrivener's error as well because what had happened was the person who was representing the petitioner at the time gave a new property description that inadvertently cut the C-2 out. We certainly believe that the PUD as a whole is poorly written and certainly needs to be addressed so we will be coming back. We would like to see some density, and we think we may have some alternatives for the C-2 when we come back, but certainly we would hope that the -- the board would be able to give us the 16-units-per-acre density and the 88 units as it exists now. There also is some consideration of a LCF that we may want to bring back before the board if -- if that's appropriate, and we're just looking for any -- any guidance that the board has at this time. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The -- It was always clear to your client that there was C-2 zoning on the property; is that correct? MR. FERGUSON: It's always been clear to my client. The client's been running the golf range that exists there for some time. I would suggest to the board that the C-2 is -- is probably -- could probably be maintained on that property. We have industrial -- I'll note for the record that right across the street is -- is industrial, you know. To -- To the west, we have seven units an acre. Straight across the street, we have industrial. So C-2 is -- is the next step down from industrial. It's a nice buffer. But, you know, we believe that C-2 probably isn't the highest and best use for the property, so we're looking to change that use and we're just looking that the board would keep our -- our densities there. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, I guess if you're -- if you're looking for a -- a feel, obviously the specific discussions regarding density modification to the PUD would occur when this item comes back before us, but my preference in that area, 16 units per acre versus C-2, is for C-2. I -- I'm not looking to maximize residential densities on Old U.S. 41. I'm -- I'm sensing some agreement here. So, you know, as this comes back, you may want to consider compatible residential densities, or if it's an A -- if it's a -- what's now called an ALF by the State of Florida, you may want to look at some past petitions that have come through and how those decisions have been made by this board for framing what you think is the highest and best use, but I -- I, for one, am not -- not interested in 16 units an acre in that area. I just don't think it -- it fits. I -- the C-2 -- I've used that driving range. I think it -- it works pretty well but -- MR. FERGUSON: Well, just for purposes of clarification, that would be 16 units averaged over the whole. We would be talking about 115 units for the entire parcel which is well within -- You've got the Arbour Lake Club, or whatever that is, PUD just to the west which is seven units per acre, and it would end up being something very similar to that so -- but -- but if you're going on the record saying you'd rather see C-2, we'll take that into consideration. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think I'd rather see something less than 16 units an acre as a conversion because you had the opportunity for -- MR. FERGUSON: That's only for 2 acres. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I understand that, but you had the opportunity under ZRO to go for that voluntary conversion and request that from the board. The property owner did not do that at that time. So, you know, I -- I think you've committed to a path there, and -- and I -- I don't want to go back and -- and undo that, personally, but that's the closest thing that I can give you to direction myself. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any further comments from the board? MR. FERGUSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Ferguson. Are there any speakers, Mr. McNees? MR. MCNEES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Might as well entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve staff's recommendation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, we'll see this item back. Thank you. Item #8A3 RESOLUTION 97-135, CERTIFYING THAT THE IHMOKALEE MAIN STREET PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH COLLIER COUNTY'S LOCAL PLANS AND REGULATIONS INCLUDING THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN - ADOPTED Item 8(A)(3), recommendation the BCC approve a resolution certifying the Immokalee Hain Street project as consistent with the Collier County -- I see local plan. I assume that means comp plan. MS. CACCHIONE: Yes, it does. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Good morning, Miss Cacchione. MS. CACCHIONE: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record my name is Barbara Cacchione of your comprehensive planning staff. What we'd like to do is submit a proposal through the Immokalee Chamber of Commerce who is the sponsor of this project through the Main Street board of directors to the office of tourism to use the enterprise zone for that area. This would enable people who donate materials, building supplies to receive up to a 50 percent tax credit for these items, and we think it would be a big incentive that would be helpful to the redevelopment project in Immokalee. The resolution before you is to certify that that Main Street project is in compliance with our local plans, and it is. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Are there any questions for Miss Cacchione? COHMISSIONER BERRY: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, are there any speakers, Mr. HcNees? MR. HCNEES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Do we have a motion? COHMISSIONER BERRY: I move approval of the -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. COHMISSIONER BERRY: -- resolution. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, thank you, Miss Cacchione. Item #8A4 RESOLUTION 97-136, ACCEPTING AND IMPLEMENTING THE ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION PROGRAM, PHASE II, PRESENTED BY THE COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISORS AND PREPARED BY THE FLORIDA PLANNING GROUP, INC. - ADOPTED; RESOLUTION 97-137, APPROVING ALLEN SYSTEMS GROUP, INC. AS A QUALIFIED APPLICANT PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTES; AND PROVIDING AN APPROPRIATION OF $30,500.00 AS LOCAL PARTICIPATION IN THE QUALIFIED TARGET INDUSTRY TAX REFUND PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR(S) 1998 THROUGH 2002 - ADOPTED Item 8(A)(4), resolution the BCC accept and implement the economic diversification program, Phase II. Good morning, Mr. Hihalic. MR. HIHALIC: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Greg Hihalic, housing and urban improvement. We have before you today a resolution codifying the discussions that have occurred on two previous occasions from this board on the economic -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Excuse me, Mr. Hihalic. MR. HIHALIC: Yes? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to make a motion we approve this item. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is there any questions of staff? MR. MIHALIC: Yes. Yes, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have -- MR. MIHALIC: We really need some direction on -- on the funding source that you would like to use to approve this. And -- and if you look at the fiscal impact section of your executive summary, you'll see that you really have two -- two options. One which the plan recommends is using existing occupational licensing fees to fund this program, and this would require either reducing other programs currently funded by occupational licensing fees in MSTD General Fund 111 or increasing ad valorem taxes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But Mr. Mihalic -- I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me, Commissioner Mac'Kie. Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to make my motion include the second option which is increasing occupational licenses' fees, and I need to know -- I need you to define for me what that increase would be. But we have used occupational license fees toward general funds, and I'm not prepared to increase the ad valorem tax right now without some substitute, and I don't think we have at this point a substitute for where that money will come from so -- MR. MIHALIC: I think the attorney's office is going to have to provide some comment on how much we are able to raise the fee statutorily versus what is required under the -- under this program, and I'm not sure whether that's been done. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. There's always a -- a limitation or a connection that must be between the fees and the -- to what the fees are to be used, and there must be a -- a relationship established. County attorney office addressed the board last fall in that regard. I've had, knowing this agenda item was coming forward and with the assistance of Mr. Smykowski, a discussion. We've talked with the tax collector from an operational standpoint. An amendment to the occupational license fee ordinance would have to be completed and the information tendered to Mr. Carlton for the notices that he sends out to the businesses by -- 1st of May he has recommended. So there is a time frame within which this could be done. Again, the amount of increase has to have a legally defensible relationship to the elements that are being funded, and I believe that relationship is to be -- it has been shown, and we need to demonstrably show and -- and translate it to numbers from the development services staff, and we can -- we can help them translate that into the ordinance form if the board gives that direction today. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Commissioner MacwKie, you had a comment? COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Yes. I -- I had seconded the motion on the assumption that it included the full implementation which -- which was the recommendation of the committee that we not increase the impact -- Iim sorry, the -- the fees. So based on that, Iill withdraw my second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The -- We, as a board, under a workshop with Lyle Sumek dedicated or -- or identified economic development and diversification as a goal of this board. Commissioner Berry, you werenlt a part of that discussion. I donlt know if youlye seen that document. I like the -- the direction Commissioner Constantine has taken for one reason: It ensures that it gets done. We donlt know at this point whether welre going to have the funds available through the budget cycle without raising taxes to take it out of the general fund. What I would like to do is take action today that ensures that it moves forward but leave ourselves the option that we donlt have to raise those fees if we can find the funding sources in such a way that that doesnlt become a -- a -- a reality. We have made economic diversification a goal. Well, letls prioritize it in the budget process and find the funds if we have to take from other areas. I -- I think thatls reasonable. But if we make that commitment that thatls the one and only way to do it today, I donlt want to paint ourselves in a corner. I also donlt want to, you know, completely chicken out here so -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. I agree with you. If that option exists as we get through the budget process, we should certainly exercise it, but I donlt want that to be our first step because particularly I -- Iim concerned that the public will see this as corporate welfare. Welre taking away from some other program or taxing them more in order to help business in the community, which perhaps is the preference of the board, but I donlt want it to appear as -- as our first choice if there are other options available. CHAIRNLAN HANCOCK: I think we all understand, and itls tough to convey sometimes that by diversifying the commercial or industrial base, we are diversifying the tax base and taking the pressure off of the residential taxpayer. Thatls tough to convey sometimes. So the perception youlre talking about may exist although itls not necessarily true. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: May -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner MacIKie. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Just a couple of things. The problem with the way -- with what I hear you saying is that we wouldnlt be able to -- Welre going to either have to by May 1 have a new ordinance increasing the occupational license fees or not. So we canlt wait for the budget process this year to see if we can find money. I would like to make the commitment that -- I -- I think our community does understand, Commissioner Hancock, that -- that economic diversification reduces property taxes as a net net, and based on that, I think that it is appropriate for us to go forward with this phase of the plan. As the plan goes forward, it may be that -- that additional fees are necessary and that we can justify that as -- as Mr. Weigel describes and -- and support an occupational fee increase, but at this point we don't have the option of -- that you described. We either have to by May 1 pass an ordinance to increase the fees so that the notices go out or not. Because of that, I don't want to increase the fees. I think that we should bite the bullet, recognize that this economic diversification is a positive for property taxes eventually and -- and not increase occupational license fees at this point. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Smykowski, you had a point? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. It's -- Excuse me. For the record, Michael Smykowski, budget director. I've got some relevant -- relevant information. As Ms. Mac'Kie indicated, the May 1 date obviously precedes your workshop date which does not begin until June 18 at this point, and prior to the May 1 deadline, you would be going through an advertising process and going through, I'm assuming, some sort of public hearing to address the fee increase. So you're actually working back -- at some point in April, you would be advertising a public hearing for a fee increase. In terms of the magnitude of the fee increase, I think it's -- it's relevant to your discussion -- the magnitude that would be required to fund the program if you opted to increase occupational licenses to fund said program. Last year you funded an expansion of the economic development program with two components. We ended up taking money out of MSTD general funds reserves to the tune of $68,200 because it was too late to increase fees based on discussion with the tax collector of the budget workshops last year. In addition, there was a one-time revenue from a CDBG grant of $54,000 available. If you -- Just to fund the existing program as -- as currently programmed in Mr. Mihalic's budget, you're looking at a 28.3 percent increase in the occupational licenses to fund what is on the books today. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And 28 percent equals how many dollars? MR. SMYKOWSKI: 128,600. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, no, no, no, no. Per fee how many dollars? MR. SMYKOWSKI: I don't know. There -- there is -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I mean, per -- what -- What's an occupational license cost right now? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Depends on the -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: They're all over the board by category. I -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's your average occupational license cost right now? I mean, 28 percent sounds huge, but if that's 7 bucks a business or if that's 1,000 bucks a business, that makes a difference. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It depends -- it -- it's just -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know, but there aren't any that that's going to be 1,000 bucks is my point, and -- and we're looking at an average -- it may be -- how -- how much? Greg, you've got to have a clue what our average occupational license is. MR. MIHALIC: Again, off the top of my head, I would say you're probably looking at $45 as an -- as an average. That's just a guess. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So 28 percent of that'll be 11 bucks, 12 bucks. MR. HIHALIC: Yes, Commissioner. MR. SHYKOWSKI: The -- The program, though, proposed in your executive summary includes an additional $170,000 expansion of the economic development program. So there you're looking at a total magnitude of $307,600 or 67.8 percent if you opted to fund the full economic development program from a fee increase. Before you make that decision, you need to be aware of that. The full programmatic effect would be about a 68 percent increase in the existing occupational licenses. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And as a -- as a part of that, we would need to factor in Mr. Weigel's advice to us about being able to justify the fee increase based on a delivery of a new service in -- in conjunction with the fee increase. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which I think is what this plan would probably be, is we'd have a specific plan laid out. I would assume that's a new service to the business community, Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. If I could respond -- and it doesn't necessarily have to be a new service, but it could be a service that's not previously captured but is legitimate to fall within the parameters of the fee. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Hihalic, my question centers around the collection of occupational fees currently. We did have an increase last year; is that correct? MR. HIHALIC: No, Commissioner. We haven't had an -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's right. It was the CDBG -- MR. HIHALIC: -- increase in ma -- in many years. Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry. We collect occupational license fees for what purpose? MR. HIHALIC: Pre -- Presently the money is put into the HSTD General Fund 111 to fund general programs. It is not itemized for any particular business services. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But -- but we do have services within the county that are business-specific that we don't charge them solely for. I mean, there are things -- you know, hazardous material, response preparation and those types of things that are more business-oriented. Again, what I'm trying to quantify is if we are collecting more in occupational license fees and we're spending in services to the businesses then -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- then I need to know that because if that's the case, then -- then using the balance of that for economic development to diversify the tax base makes sense to me. I just don't have a firm handle on that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me make a suggestion and that is -- I mean, Commissioner Hac'Kie pointed out we've got till at least Hay 1. Each of us are fairly bright people, I think, and that's a couple of months away. There -- There's no reason why in the next eight or ten weeks we can't do a little homework and -- and red-tag some items looking at prior-year budgets that will likely come up again in this year's budget. While we won't have our formal budgeting workshops until June, there's no reason we can't get a consensus from the board on some items that we don't think are as high a priority as this. So we may not have the formal workshop, but in the next ten weeks surely we can find some items, and that way I -- I'll have a higher comfort level. I -- I think we're all talking the same thing here. I just don't want to make a commitment to this before we ever look at the budget process. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just -- May I respond? -- that I understand that that is one way of going about this, but that's not the only way. The fact is that the path that Commissioner Hancock was on is also a valid one, and that is that historically -- I mean, as a payer of an occupational license fee, I can't identify a service that I get in return for that. I'm happy to pay it. I -- I will continue to, and I'm not objecting to paying it. But I want you to recognize that -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You get on a lot of mailing lists. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. Thanks a lot. But -- but we should recognize that businesses in Collier County have for years paid a fee for which they have not received a return commensurate with the amount of the fee, and that coupled with the fact that we all recognize based on the study that we had presented to us that this is a net positive for general taxes. I'm prepared to go forward, and I'd like for us to stick to our commitment that this is one of the top five goals of Collier County and -- and let's -- we -- We don't need to postpone it. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I -- Mr. Chairman, I have a question. You talk about existing programs. Do -- I'm not familiar. What are the existing programs that are already funded out of this particular fund? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Mihalic. MR. MIHALIC: Out -- out of the fees -- Out of the fees, there -- there's nothing, Commissioner. We set aside $180,000 to start an economic diversification program, but we really have not expended much of it because we wanted to wait until our economic development plan is done. So we were planning -- plan -- I was still planning to hire an economic development manager to handle this area. There will be collateral materials that EDC will use to promote and expand business. We will have money available, again, for staffing within the county as well as support services, and that was what the money was supposed to go for that was in the budget last year. Very little of that has been spent -- COHHISSIONER BERRY: Oh. Well, okay -- MR. HIHALIC: -- waiting for this program to come forward. COHMISSIONER BERRY: -- because I was just reading where it says we're already funding other existing programs in the HSTD, and I just wanted to know what those other existing programs were. MR. HIHALIC: Oh, no. I -- I misunderstood the question. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Perhaps I could clarify that. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Again, for the record, Michael Smykowski. The principal departmental operations in the unincorporated area general fund are parks and recreation, code enforcement, and the sheriff. Anything beyond that is -- is small in terms of dollar scope. But the principal three, again, are parks and recreation, code enforcement, and the sheriff. COMMISSIONER BERRY: And that all comes out of occupational license fees? MR. SMYKOWSKI: No, ma'am. That's just part -- Those are the principal programs funded in the unincorporated area general fund, of which the occupational licenses are part of the funding mix and I think -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me do this. Do we have registered speakers, Mr. McNees? MR. MCNEES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I wonder if there's going to be a second for the motion on the floor, if I could make another -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- motion. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me ask -- Commissioner Constantine has made a motion to approve staff recommendation with the second of the two funding options, which is increasing occupational licensing fees to fund this program. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And let -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And let me just clarify that to -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- to read that certainly we can and should in the next week -- next ten weeks exercise the opportunity to look for some alternative funding mechanisms, but I think to -- not to do that would be shortsighted and -- and just -- there's nothing to prohibit us doing that and say, "Well, we will, so we'll pass it anyway," I just don't think is good practice -- good business practice. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is there a second on the motion? Motion fails for lack of a second. Is there a motion on the floor? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I move that we approve and implement the economic diversification program as proposed to us which includes for the present year no increase in the occupational license fees. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie, may I ask if you would also include in that motion that -- Let's see. What are we in? We're in February? -- that by April 15 members of this board attempt to identify areas in which those revenues can be found? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Certainly. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And -- and bring that back for a discussion item so that we provide ourselves a time table? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: May I ask what's the importance of April 15 instead of just in the budget workshop process? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Tax time. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Because we -- because we have to have a decision by May 1 if this is not a viable option. I'm trying to -- to cross the motions, if I -- if I may, to connect the two. If you -- If you don't agree with that, that's fine. I'm just -- What I'm saying is, do your homework early, not late. Let's not wait until the budget process to find these funds. Let's go out now and do it. Is the -- the purpose of that -- if you're uncomfortable with it, then don't add it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. My -- My only reason for hesitating is I don't want on April 15 for this to have to come back. I want this action today to be final. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I would think the only way it would come back is if we didn't find anything, and I'm pretty comfortable -- I mean, this was, I think, number one priority of our five so -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- I don't have any question that we will find it. That was really my only concern. I want to make sure we actually do that homework, and -- and by pinning ourselves to a date, at least we come back and know what it is we're looking to cut. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How will we -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And a question for Mr. Smykowski along those lines: How many dollars are we looking for here? This -- This will take how many dollars out of the general fund? MR. SHYKOWSKI: With funding the entire program including expanded scope, you're looking at 307,000. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Considering each year I've come up with a -- a cut list between four and $11.9 million, I don't think I'll have a lot of trouble finding 350,000 but -- MR. HCNEES: Mr. Chairman. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- I'd just like to pin us to a date. MR. HCNEES: Excuse me. The one thing we need to clarify is we're talking about the unincorporated area general fund area here which is a $9 million fund versus your countywide general fund which is a $70 million fund, I believe. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Hundred. MR. HCNEES: Hundred. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Hundred and ten. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You're talking about a 3 percent -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: There's another thing -- another issue. In speaking with Mr. Weigel, in terms of the Hay 1 is you would have to have had your public hearing authorizing the fee increase already and hand the tax collector a resolution with the new fee schedule. Mr. Weigel indicates based on advertising requirements, you are actually looking for an answer on or about the beginning of April just to meet the advertising deadline to hand him a resolution with -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- the proposed fee -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It doesn't sound like we're going that way anyway but -- but -- but thank you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. I'm going to pass in including that in my motion. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. There's a motion on the floor. Do we have a second? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just clarify. So we don't have -- Other than the budget season, we don't have any intention of how we're going to fund this. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I -- I am prepared to -- to recognize this as the top priority of county government. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And increase taxes for it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Excuse me. If you wouldn't mind if I finish. I'm prepared to recognize this as our top priority, and to know that, I'm going to try to be cutting taxes in the budget process, and this is one of many avenues that we'll have to be examining during the budget process. I don't want to isolate this one. It's our top priority. I'm ready to -- to put my money where my mouth is and to be tough in the budget process. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that a dedication to ad valorem-neutral I heard down there? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You got it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All right. Is there a second on the motion? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. Any discussion? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I want to vote yes only because I don't want to go on the record not supporting economic development, but I just think it's bad business and bad government not to have some idea how we're going to pay for this and say, "Well, we'll get to it in a few months." That's just poor planning. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Well, it -- it's fine for you to say that and disparage the rest of the board as -- as not being concerned with those -- those items, but that's not the case. I'm very concerned about having good government at all times, but I think that we can certainly overcome the -- the -- the funding of $300,000 to fund our number one priority. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion state aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, motion carries 5-0. Mr. Hihalic, Mr. Smykowski, thank you. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Thank you. MR. HIHALIC: Commissioners -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Hihalic, you had something else? MR. HIHALIC: -- may I bring up a related issue to this? In our past discussions, we have the economic incentive to Allen Systems Group which has come up in the other previous two discussions. We need some staff direction on that. The city has passed a resolution authorizing the $30,500 incentive spread over the next five years for Allen Systems Group, a high-wage employer that's moving into the county with 60 additional high-wage jobs. Could you give me some direction as to how you would like me to bring this back? The original discussions were for doing a tax abatement procedure on that. That requires a public referendum, is a very long-term process. Hay I -- Hay I get some direction from the board on how you'd like me to bring this back? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In order to get that direction, Mr. Hihalic, can you offer us what you feel are some options? Some had been presented to me individually, but I wanted to make sure the board had the benefit of those. MR. HIHALIC: Yes, Commissioner. No money will be required during this fiscal year for this payment. In the Fiscal Year 1998, our contribution would be approximately $3,750 during that year, going up over the next four years, to a total contribution of $30,500. I recommend that we pay that out of the economic development money that you've allocated so far to my department and we use that as the funding source and set aside the $3,750 out of that money. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So your recommendation is to use existing funded EDC dollars -- economic development, excuse me, dollars -- MR. MIHALIC: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- and not to add it as a line item in the upcoming budget? MR. MIHALIC: Yes, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. MIHALIC: I -- I think that that would be the appropriate way to use these unexpected dollars this year for this commitment. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I certainly support that and -- and, frankly, would have -- would have expected that that was within the discretion of -- of staff. Appreciate your bringing it back to us, but that is exactly what these funds have been identified to be used for, not this particular case. So it is good that we get the opportunity to review this particular case. MR. MIHALIC: May we reserve a resolution number codifying this -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In order to -- MR. HIHALIC: -- Mr. Weigel? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In order to do that, I believe the board needs to take specific action through the vehicle of a motion; is that correct? MR. WEIGEL: That is correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I '- MR. WEIGEL: If you make the motion, they'll amend. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- move approval of Mr. Mihalic's recommendation. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Is there any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none -- MR. MIHALIC: Thank you very much, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Mihalic -- and we will reserve a resolution number on the record. Thank you. Item #8C1 TERMINATION OF THE DONATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE NAPLES ROLLER HOCKEY LEAGUE AND AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MODIFIED ROLLER HOCKEY RINK AT VETERAN'S COHMUNITY PARK OR THE ORIGINALLY APPROVED COVERED BASKETBALL FACILITY - APPROVED Item 8 has been withdrawn. 8(C)(1) is next. Recommendation the BCC terminate the donation agreement between Collier County and the Naples Roller Hockey League, and we need to have some direction on this one. What -- What fell apart here, Mr. Olliff? MR. OLLIFF: Good morning. For the record, Tom Olliff. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: How's that as an intro to your presentation? MR. OLLIFF: As the board is familiar, the -- the county entered into an agreement with the Naples Roller Hockey League to do a joint project at Veterans' Community Park. The project entailed construction of two roller hockey rinks, one to be covered, the other uncovered. The roller hockey league was, as part of the agreement, to go out and fund raise, and aggressively they -- they felt they could raise funds in excess of $250,000 which was their share of the project cost. To be honest, I think their -- their primary fund raiser who -- who had local strong financial connections was relocated in his business to San Francisco, and -- and that left them without a very good arm of their organization to be able to go out and fund raise and left them more in the bake sale-type fund raiser which doesn't generate $250,000. It leaves us at the point where we have to make a decision in terms of that project in order to have something constructed at the park in time for summer when school is out. And what's -- what's before you today is -- is two recommendations: One, that we terminate that agreement, simply recognizing that they're not going to be able to fulfill their end of the -- the fund-raising portion; and, second, to have the board make a decision about whether to go back to the originally budgeted project which was a small covered basketball facility or to recognize the demand that is out there for roller hockey and -- and try with our funds to go ahead and build a roller hockey rink at -- at the North Naples park. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If I may, Mr. Olliff, you know, what -- I don't know if the balance of the commission receives the phone calls but -- since a lot of them live in the North Naples area. The demand for roller hockey is tremendous. The facilities we have are overwhelmed, and I think a covered basketball facility, although a nice element, diversifying the -- the -- the abilities out there -- is that the word of the day, diversification? -- is something I would like to see done. So my -- my personal vote is to find out what funds are necessary to create an in-line roller hockey facility out there, and can we do it with the funds that were budgeted for the covered basketball court. MR. OLLIFF: In -- In answer to the question, I think staff recommends that as well. Your parks and rec advisory board has recommended the construction of roller hockey as well, and -- and certainly Naples Roller Hockey League would like to see that constructed. The project can be built. It is a scaled-down version. It would be very, very similar to the project that is at the East Naples Community Park. It simply would not have the cover. It would be built in such a way with the foundation and footers and stub-out so that we could come back at a later date and actually put the cover on it. That project can be built with an additional amount of funding of about $29,000. Now, we found $29,000 that is available from a project which actually was constructed at Caxambas on Marco under budget, leaving some funds available. So the board can actually transfer those funds without impacting the current budget, without adding any additional funds to the project that would affect reserves. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are there questions of staff? Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Olliff, are -- are there no plans to use that 29,000 down at Caxambas at all or -- MR. OLLIFF: The -- the twenty-nine -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So it's just free -- MR. OLLIFF: The recommendation actually was sitting on my desk at the same time when I was drafting the executive summary to transfer that money back into reserves where it would sit un -- undedicated. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So it won't affect -- You're not robbing Peter to pay Paul and -- MR. OLLIFF: No, sir. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm Paul, so I'm really not that concerned. No, I'm just kidding. Commissioner Berry. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'd like to make a motion that we accept staff recommendation to terminate the current agreement and go ahead and construct this roller hockey facility and -- at Veterans' Park. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that includes the transfer of $29,000 -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- to accomplish that? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Third. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. McNees, are there any registered speakers on this? MR. MCNEES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, and we'll look forward to summer in-line roller hockey. Great. Thank you. Item #SD1 RECOHHENDATION TO SELECT THE NEWSPAPER FOR THE ADVERTISING OF DELINQUENT REAL ESTATE AND PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES - OPTION B SELECTING NAPLES DAILY NEWS APPROVED Item 8(D)(1) -- yeah, I'm sure there'll be a -- You want to challenge the city council to a match, folks? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Wear your pads. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Item 8(D)(1), recommendation to select the newspaper for -- I'm sorry. Did a second paper come to town? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I hope so. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Actually, I think we did have bids from more than one paper on this. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, actually, don't we get the -- we do this in the regional areas of the county also with the Golden Gate Gazette and the Marco Island Eagle and -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I suspect Mr. Camell will fill us in. COHMISSIONER BERRY: And we'll read about this in the editorial tomorrow. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good morning, Mr. Camell. MR. CARNELL: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board. Steve Camell, purchasing director. You have before you an action to award a bid for the advertising of delinquent personal and real estate property taxes. This is a statutorily required action that is executed and carried out by the county tax collector. And what I've provided to you in a brief handout this morning is just a summary of some of the statutory requirements and then a -- just a very brief summation of the two bids that we received. The state law does not require us to bid this. Our county purchasing policy does, and that's obviously the reason for the bidding process. Under Florida law one item that's not mentioned in your handout is that the Board of County Commissioners is charged with selecting the newspaper for this task by the end of February. So this is our last window of opportunity today. And in the event that the board fails to do so, the selection is made by the county tax collector. Briefly, we did put this item out for bid -- in fact, twice -- in an effort to try to generate competition. In our most recent solicitation, we did receive two bids, one from Tuff Publications, publisher of the Everglades Echo, and from the Naples Daily News. The bid from Tuff is an offer to publish both lists of delinquent properties, the one for real estate and the one for personal property. The real estate must be published three times in three consecutive weeks. The personal property is required to be published once. They would be doing so with a circulation -- a paid circulation of 1,000. They also are offering, in addition to utilizing their circulation, providing 5,000 copies -- hard copies to the tax collector's office for distribution through whatever means Mr. Carlton's office would choose to do so. So if you take 1,000 copies per issue of the Everglades Echo, you multiply by 3, 3,000, you add the 5,000, we're basically buying 8,000 papers from Tuff if we award to Tuff Publications. The Naples Daily News is offering to insert both lists of real estate and personal property into three consecutive issues of the Daily News with an estimated circulation -- this would occur in April of 1997. Estimated circulation would be about 56,000 per issue. Multiply that by 3. A hundred sixty-eight thousand iss -- copies would be circulated. The Daily News has also thrown in a new wrinkle this year. They are offering to put all of this information onto their Internet site, complete with hypertext links to the front page of the paper so that it would be prominently displayed to anybody surfing the net when they come to the front page of the paper and then also the ability to search by name or parcel number electronically in the net throughout the document at any time, and that would remain live and up through the sale of the tax deeds which by law takes place at the beginning of -- no later than the beginning of June. Now, to -- If you'll look at your second page -- Let me first say that we opened the bids on Friday, the 14th, which was my deadline for -- to the county manager to submit this recommendation to you and that -- henceforth the reason why the executive summary did not articulate a recommendation at that time. And what I want to do is -- is present to you three options this morning and give you a little overview briefly of each of the three and considerations and then give you a staff recommendation. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If I'm correct, you've already given us an overview of the first two with the -- with only the -- MR. CARNELL: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- addition of cost. The one that we don't have is the third one. MR. CARNELL: Yeah. Yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've got a quick question, and we don't have a copy of the bids, so I don't -- I don't know specifically, but it says Tuff Publications is looking at printing this in the Everglades Echo. Their response does not include the Golden Gate Gazette or the Naples Shopper or any of those? Because I know combined they have fifteen or 18,000 or something, but those were not included as part of this? MR. CARNELL: That's correct. And I believe the rationale for that -- and at the risk of speaking for Mr. Tuff, the -- the other publications do not meet the statutory test for being newspapers of general circulation and they're not -- and many -- a couple of those papers are free. This has to be a for-pay -- for-fee newspaper to meet the test and has to be published weekly. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I had to start paying for a subscription fee for the Gazette last year, so that's why I asked that. I know the Shopper just appears in people's driveway but -- MR. CARNELL: Yeah. So, no, he did not offer any other publications. If I could give you some staff comment here regarding what we received in the way of bids, we put this thing on the street with the hopes of letting the marketplace work and give us some viable competition. And in looking at the bids received and the circulation, this is a -- we're put in a choice, and this is probably true any time you buy media. You have to choose between the cost to buy the media versus how many people you're going to reach and the demographics and so forth and so on. And to keep this kind of simple, kind of a cost-versus-circulation consideration, you can see on your second page that to -- the -- the bid from Tuff is, of course, very affordable in dollars and cents, less than $40,000 if you extend out the number of copies times the unit price they offered. The circulation, however, is very low, much, much smaller than the Naples Daily News, and it produced an overall cost per household of $4.69. For the Naples Daily News, the cost is roughly one-quarter of that, $1.17. You're paying a whole lot more, but you're getting a whole lot more in terms of circulation. Now, a couple of things to keep in mind: The cost of the advertising is ultimately borne by the delinquent property owner or the buyer of the tax deed at the sale. So this is a cost-neutral thing to the general taxpayer of Collier County. Now, the third option here requires a little bit of explanation. This was not contemplated in the bid. It's something that's kind of, frankly, put together on the fly since the bid opened in talking to both newspapers, and that is to award the statutorily required work under Section 197 to Tuff Publications with the hope of meeting that minimum statutory requirement and then contracting with the Naples Daily News or -- I'm sorry, contracting out the printing of the listed parcels and then having them inserted into the Daily News. Now, let me explain this. The way this happens now and has happened for years and years and years is that the tax collector's office furnishes to the Daily News -- that's been the paper that's done it every year in the past -- a diskette with all the parcels listed in an ASCII format, and then the Daily News takes that from there and creates the page, overlays a map of the county, and puts the publication together, and then it physically inserts it in three consecutive weeks during the month of Hay and the -- here it's -- in other words, it's a -- it's a turnkey kind of thing for the tax collector. He gives them a diskette, and he's basically done with it other than reviewing the proofs and -- and blessing the issuance of the document. And in this case we would be backing up a step. We would be hiring a printer to print the inserts first and then coordinating the delivery of the printed material and we're talking -- If we're talking about the Naples Daily News, we're talking about 168,000 mini-newspapers, if you will, or inserts would be delivered to the Daily News. And then the Daily News, rather than doing that preparation, would just physically insert them the way they would a Shopper or some kind of promotional item. And so the -- on the face of -- it's very tempting to consider this because you can see the -- the -- the circulation cost is considerably less or the cost per household is considerably less than either -- than the -- using the Daily News to do all of it for us. Your staff, though, has some concerns with these approaches, with really all three. None of them are totally desirable from our point of view. The first -- Let me just say a couple of things about each one of them. With regard to Alternative A, it's the opinion of your -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Camell, let me -- MR. CARNELL: -- staff that your -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Before she may forget or -- or go off -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- to another issue -- Commissioner Mac'Kie, you had a question? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, my question was, do we have any input from the tax collector? MR. CARNELL: The tax collector -- I've spoken to him, and his position is he will abide by the wishes of the board and the direction of the board in this matter. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Our tax collector? MR. CARNELL: Our tax collector. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just kidding. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But his -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Those aren't his verbatim words, are they? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But -- MR. CARNELL: Those are his verbatim words. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On this one. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. Part of his verbatim words. But -- but did he have -- he voiced no opinion? I mean, I -- I would solicit his opinion since this is a process that -- you know, we -- we print it, and he runs it. MR. CARNELL: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I might be able to help you with that, actually, because I had inquired with Guy toward the end of last year. This -- I think, if I'm not mistaken, the costs -- these bids are considerably lower than what we've paid the last couple of years per -- per inch and -- and Guy's concern is (inaudible) -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He's saying no. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- but -- MR. CARNELL: Now, they're say -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Guy's con -- Guy's concern in the fall when I had talked to him was we don't -- we'd never done any bidding. We'd only had one paper, and until this year nobody else was qualified, and -- and he thought it was worth the exercise, but then he was going to leave that up to -- well, he was comfortable with whatever we decided, but he thought it was a good idea for us to go through the exercise, and if we could save a few dollars in the process, obviously everybody wins. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Camell, I'm going to kind of request a cut-to-the-chase from you. You've obviously gone through the detailed elements of this and prepared all this information for us. Why don't you give us your -- your best-case scenario on this. MR. CARNELL: Okay. Well, my recommendation to you is Option B at this point in time, and I say that with a little bit of disappointment because I believe that what is being paid here, $197,000, is -- is -- is expensive and I -- I, frankly, am disappointed we're not doing a little better than that but I'll -- The reasons why are I don't believe Alternative A is acceptable at this point. Even if you meet the legal test, you're circulating to one little pocket of the county, and I don't believe that's what any of us are trying to accomplish here. I do appreciate Mr. Tuff bidding, but I just don't believe it does what we need it to do for us. Option C is very attempting, but as I said to you, it was not contemplated in the bid. We -- we -- we -- We bid this as a straight-up, "You do the whole thing for us, Mr. Newspaper." And, frankly, the numbers I'm working off there are estimates to do all those other intermediate steps. There is a logistical dance there involved that's going to involve more effort on the part of Mr. Carlton's office to monitor and coordinate and put this all together. And the bottom line -- punch line is that, again, you -- you go through all these hoops, and the general taxpayer doesn't benefit either way. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I make a motion? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just a second. Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just -- I guess -- While it may not be the general taxpayer, it's still money saved, and -- and I'm looking for -- I appreciate and I -- I very much respect your opinion, but I'm looking for a reason -- while it is an estimate at 55,000, I assume you're not 300 percent off, and I'm just thinking if -- if we can get the same or greater circulation at one-fourth the cost, what's -- what's the down side to C? And there may be one that I'm not seeing. MR. CARNELL: Well, as I say to you, I think you have the potential of what looks great on paper blowing up on you when you go to do it in terms of implementation. It's untested for us a little bit. I haven't had a chance to go out and really price the market. I'm taking estimates from both papers, actually, talking to them verbally as to -- trying to arrive at those numbers and haven't put it out in the marketplace. And, again, there is the time and effort to have the tax collector staff work with the printer and do all the coordination and then -- and -- and I really thought about this because you -- the -- when you get back to the point of what have we really saved and the -- again, the general taxpayer doesn't necessarily benefit. I mean, I even toyed with the idea of, well, if you lower the advertising cost, does that maybe raise the bidding level at the -- at the tax deed sale because they don't have to pay as much advertising freight, so to speak, and frees enough more dollars to bid the actual purchase of the property, but you're talking $6.84 a parcel versus $1.33. So in a one- or two-parcel situation, it's a 5 or $10 impact and -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I think I see where Commissioner Hac'Kie is going. I'll probably second that, but just a suggestion that I assume we'll look at doing bid -- bids for next year as well. Perhaps we can explore as part of that bid an alternative like this so we have some real numbers to look at. MR. CARNELL: Yes. I -- I would wholeheartedly agree with that and be prepared to do that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I have a question. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hot -- I'm sorry. Commissioner Berry had something. COHMISSIONER BERRY: No. The only question -- Do we know how much -- every year with these tax sales, how much do people use -- I mean, we have to meet the -- statutorily we have to meet this; okay? That's fine. How much do people actually use this paper or are those the -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: A lot. COHMISSIONER BERRY: -- people who just pay attention and know that this kind of thing comes out every year and this is their thing, to come down and -- and exercise their right to bid on these properties and so on? MR. CARNELL: Commissioner Berry, that's an excellent question of which I do not have an answer to, and that is one of the problems with this whole thing. It's a whole lot of money, and we don't really know the effectiveness when you get right down to it. Now, there may be ways to try to investigate that further in the future, but we don't know. The -- I will tell you the parties that rely on it hopefully, of course, are the property owners themselves and then the bidders. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My personal experience from attending the sales is that they do pretty heavy, because they will come literally with that in hand. COMMISSIONER BERRY: But those people know -- I mean, they're there to do what they're to do in terms of this property, and so they have made it their business to go ahead and get this paper and -- and know what exactly they're looking for. I mean, I -- I just think everybody needs to know you're looking at $200,000 here, and that's going to the Naples Daily News. I have a real problem with that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As much as that pains me. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Oooo! Pains you? I mean, it's just like stabbing me in the heart. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Get that point, Gina. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I don't care. I -- I'm sorry. This -- This is just a -- a real itch with me, and -- and I've dealt with -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry, I'd like to welcome you to this board. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I -- No. I've dealt with this before because -- When I was on the school board, we had to publish the school bus schedules every year, and that dollar amount just about made you want to get sick. And then this is, you know, benefitting children and this kind of thing and -- and it's certainly a service to the community. But this just drives me absolutely crazy, and that's the reason I want to know how much -- I know the statutes. I understand all that. But I just want to know how much these papers are actually used by people, and would they normally come down and solicit this information anyway to go ahead and -- and do their bidding on this project. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We -- We may be able to get that information with Mr. Carlton having just a simple questionnaire available to those individuals who show up at the ta -- the upcoming tax sale -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good idea. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- as to, you know, were they notified by -- via mail list or did they -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- hear about this in the paper and show up on that as a source. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Because I -- I -- in the future, granted, I don't think we can do anything and probably change the situation this year, but, boy, in the future I'd really like to know that. And I'm all for meeting the letter of the law and doing what we have to, but I'm also not interested in spending $200,000 to do this. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Understood. Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What I was going to ask is -- and -- and I think that -- that your questionnaire idea is a great one, and I would ask if -- if someone -- perhaps, Steve, you could communicate to -- to Mr. Carlton our request that he have such a questionnaire. And -- and what my thought was that we ask him to include on a questionnaire the possibility of using the Internet exclusively. Then we would have some data to go to our state legislature to ask them to amend the process so that -- just putting it on the Internet, which we can do on the -- on the Free Net if that might -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In fairness if we -- and we had this discussion once before. If we're trying to reach the general public, while that number is increasing, there's an awful big chunk of the population that is not on computer, is not -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- on the Internet. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. And we know, Commissioner Norris. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have some cyber-free commissioners also. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Cyber-free. But -- but -- But depending on the answer to Commissioner Berry's question and the fact that the people who show up at these sales are the ones who already know what's going on, they look for this information. They would get it if we made them pay five bucks for it. That's what I expect the answer to be. I'd just soon be interested in that being included as a question and this -- will move Option B for this year and commend Mr. Camell for the work he did. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion on the floor. We do have one speaker. Why don't we hear from -- Is it Mr. Erlichman? MR. MCNEES: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- hear from Gil. Good morning, Gil. MR. ERLICHMAN: Good morning. Gil Erlichman. I reside in East Naples, taxpayer and voter in Collier County. Approximately a year ago under public comments, I addressed the situation of the single newspaper -- so-called newspaper in Collier County, the Naples Daily News -- I call it the Mullet Wrapper -- in the case that we are paying to publish the agenda every Sunday in the -- in the paper and we distribute the executive summary free of charge to the newspaper. Now, I, as a member of the Taxpayer Action Group -- we pay the county $440 a year to get the executive summary because without the executive summary, we -- we're at a loss as to what -- what is going to be taking place at the commissioners' meeting. So, you know, just that five- -- five- or six-page agenda that we can read, we don't get any information. So we have to buy that executive summary. I have no -- I have no objection to that. I'm speaking for myself. I'm not speaking for TAG. But the idea of paying -- of distributing that executive summary for the measly cost of $440 to the newspaper free of charge as a -- as -- because it's, you might say, public information is not fair. To me there should be a quid pro quo. If we're going to give that free to the newspaper, well, the newspaper should give us some -- some -- something free in return. And, of course, this $190,000, whatever we're going to pay the newspaper for the advertising -- the tax -- the tax delinquents to me is -- is kind of rubbing our face into it. And I have to agree with Commissioner Berry. You weren't here last year when I addressed this situation with the $440. It sticks in my throat. So I would like the commissioners to consider charging the newspaper for the executive summary. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Erlichman. And I remember us asking staff to look into that -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I do too. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- but I don't remember the response. I may have gotten it and forgot about it but -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And -- and the question, what do they charge us to -- to print the advertising for the agenda, the advertising of the agenda. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If I may, before we go down that road, let's resolve the issue in front of us. There is a motion on the floor to -- for Alternative B, which is to award all work to the Naples Daily News. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Aye. COMHISSIONER BERRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Opposed? Aye. Motion carries 4-1. Is there a second on that motion? Is there any I was for C. I think we ought to try something new this year. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Your -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- discussion on that wasn't persuasive enough. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I know. That's because there wasn't any. Let's go to the second item. Mr. McNees, I -- I do remember Mr. Erlichman's point, and it was that the right of information to the media is -- is very, very clear; however, the mailing cost and dollars associated with providing a -- information to them is something that I don't think is a first amendment issue or -- or covered by any other area. So why do we not charge them? There's a memo somewhere that has discussed this, but I don't recall it. MR. MCNEES: I'm sure there is, and I don't recall it either, but I can sure get that information for you. I know we also provided packages to the other media outlets, the radio stations and -- and such, but who we charge for what I can't tell you specifically. We can provide that information to you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If you would. I think it's been done, and -- and if you would be so kind, copy Mr. Erlichman on it. We have his address around here. MR. ERLICHMAN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just related to that, when we -- I'd like a copy of that too, and I'd like to know at the same time, are we statutorily required to publish the agenda in the Naples Daily News? I think the answer is yes. And what's the cost of that? Thanks. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Is there any further discussion? None? Thank you. Item #BE1 RECOHMENDATION TO UPDATE THE DISASTER RECOVERY ADVERTISING PROGRAM, INCLUDING THE PROCEDURES FOR ACTIVATING COHMUNICATION LINES, ANNUAL DESIGN WORK REQUIRED AND PROCEDURES FOR AUTHORIZATING LEVEL OF ADVERTISING AND PAYMENT FOR ADVERTISING - STAFF RECOHMENDATION APPROVED Item 8(E)(1), update the disaster recovery advertising program. This was continued when we had some questions regarding expenditure of -- of funds for an updating, and also I think the second item was -- MS. GANSEL: The telephones. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- was -- well, telephones -- MS. GANSEL: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- but the second item was that work that was directed previously was being asked to be paid when it was the first that we had -- we had heard of it. So there's kind of a gamut of issues here. Miss Gansel -- MS. GANSEL: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- good morning. MS. GANSEL: Jean Gansel from the budget office. Commissioners, Mr. Ayres is here, and I think that he would be better able to address the questions that you had. And you're absolutely correct; it was the design work -- update preparation design work that was done for 1996 and that it would be an ongoing cost in future years, and we were asking for your approval of both of those last -- two weeks ago, and you had some other questions. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is it the board's pleasure to hear from Mr. Ayres? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. John. MR. AYRES: Good morning. I'm John Ayres, the president of Visit Naples, Inc. I'm not sure how to -- how to start. Maybe -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. What -- MR. AYRES: I -- I wasn't here the last meeting, so I apologize that I'm -- I'm not fully up to speed on the question. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, John, why don't I hit you with the first question that struck me, which is paying someone up to $7,000 to annually update, in essence, media contracts. That seemed excessive to me. I don't have a background in that field. One of my colleagues does, and it seemed excessive to him also. So I -- I fail to see how updating media contracts is a $7,000 line item. MR. AYRES: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That was the first question. MR. AYRES: All right. In answer to that question, I think $7,000 is excessive as well. By way of a little previous history and -- and maybe an answer to some of your other questions, when the -- when -- when we -- it was agreed by the county commission to go ahead with this disaster recovery fund, and perhaps I should have been aware of it. Jean and I talked about it, but -- but I wasn't, and I don't believe anyone on our committee was, aware of exactly how the -- the contracts worked. And I think we've all had a lot of conversations on the contracts involving anything to do with the -- the tax dollars for the resort tax, and so this is another one where I think there were some -- some issues that just weren't clear. The -- The issue primarily that wasn't clear was that we would, of course, have to update our entire media campaign every year. What I wasn't aware of was the fact that -- that the contract as it was written wouldn't allow for us to do that. Again, I can't tell you why I didn't know that, but I don't -- I don't think any of us knew that or were aware of that, and so at the time that -- that all -- that the county commission agreed on the funding for the project, I think we all were of the opinion that -- that those updates were just a part of it and it wasn't an issue. The amount that -- that the ad agency charged this year to prepare and update the entire program for almost a million-dollar advertising campaign is $3,600. So the reason -- and -- and -- and it may not be the best one but the seven -- not exceed $7,000 came as a result of a conversation with Jean and I which was: So that we don't have to go back to the well again, let's put a number in there that -- that we know no matter what we do -- because we may find ourselves even having to redo some of this stuff. So we put a number of $7,000 in there and that's -- I mean, that's -- that's how it got there. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. AYRES: It -- It's also worthy to mention, I believe, that -- that the advertising agency that did the update last June still hasn't been paid so -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Was the advertising agency selected done through a competitive bid process? MR. AYRES: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. AYRES: It was not. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I think that's a secondary concern, that if we're going to authorize annual updates, there should be some level of bidding to ensure that we're getting them updated for the most efficient -- and that bidding would provide us with a line item dollar amount -- MR. AYRES: Correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- that says this is what you can do it for, and I would like to see that resolved before deciding on who does it and at what cost. MR. AYRES: Before that decision is made this year, we will competitively shop that and make sure that we're getting our -- the best -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: On that particular item, are there -- MR. AYRES: -- best cost on it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- are there questions? MR. AYRES: There's -- There's specific issues not directly related to the creative process. So there are multi -- you know, thousands of firms that we could talk to, of course, that -- that could, you know, get the schedules redone and -- and what have you. So, yes, I think that's a prudent and good idea. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Realizing sometimes there's a need for continuity from year to year with the -- what the international airport does for their marketing and P.R. is -- I think it's every third year they actually go through a complete process on that. It's something that just may be worthwhile on this, is -- MR. AYRES: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know. On some of our parks, it may be worth every year, but on particularly some of the creative parts, we need some continuity there and -- but every third year or so we need to -- MR. AYRES: Yeah. The creative -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sure you do but -- MR. AYRES: -- as -- as you know, was designed to be pretty much timeless. So I -- I don't see us expending any funds at all on -- on revamping the campaign, at least not -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Good answer. Good answer. MR. AYRES: -- not anytime soon. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So what -- on that line item what you're asking for is an authorization for the $3,600 that was billed in 1996. And then as far as an additional amount for 1997, we would await a bid process and receive a specific line item back before providing authorization for that. MR. AYRES: Correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that acceptable? MR. AYRES: That's just fine. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. The second item, if you will indulge me, was the -- the phone question, $4,500 to purchase telephones and the -- the additional charges. Mr. Ayres, are you quite up to speed on that one with us? MR. AYRES: Well, I -- I -- I'm -- I'm as up to speed, I guess, as I can be. Our recommendation originally was to lease this system. We talked to Buddy Brunker at United Telephone. Buddy was on our committee from the beginning, and so we felt that -- that United was in a position to be of help to us and to -- to get the job done correctly, and I think that the original lease amount -- you know, when -- the big picture of what we need to have set up at our command center probably was not unreasonable but -- and -- and considering you never really -- you know, as we all know the telephone industry today, you know, there's probably 100 firms you could talk to out there, but you don't know who's going to provide the service, whether they'll still be in business next week to provide the service, etc., etc. So we felt that it was -- it made good sense to -- to stick with United if we could, and we didn't think on a monthly basis that it was excessive. Somewhere in county government it was decided that -- that the lease arrangement was not a particularly good idea, and -- and the recommendation was made to purchase it. I -- I -- I will add that -- that the conversations on how these things function left us in a position where last summer we had all -- we'd gone to the extent of creating this entire media campaign making sure we spent $3,600 to update it, and the bottom line was that -- that -- and is that as of today we still don't have a telephone system so -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think the question more was the number. What -- What are we getting for 4,500 bucks? I mean, I think our -- our package says eight phones, which -- which Commissioner Berry just said to me is 562 bucks a phone. So are they gold-plated phones? Are they -- MR. AYRES: I think it's the -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- platinum phones? MR. AYRES: -- technology that allows these phones to multi-comm -- you know, communicate and to -- I mean, I'm -- I'm not a telephone expert at all. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I -- it's -- it's a form -- MR. AYRES: I -- It's tough for me to answer the question. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is in the form of a switchboard system with multi-capabilities and all the programming. I mean, the phones we have in our offices, there are functions on there that I have no interest in learning how to use because I'll never -- I'll never use them. But I think what you're getting is you're getting a Cadillac phone system, but the -- the -- the purpose here seems more specific than maybe the -- the supermulti-media package requires. You're really looking at responding to incoming inquiries, if I'm not mistaken, and conference-calling and things that are available currently through hard system or mainframe options now. Commissioner Berry, I know this was something you had some discussion on. Do you have specific questions on it? COMHISSIONER BERRY: No. I just wanted to know what we were getting for that -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. COMHISSIONER BERRY: -- amount of money and what kind of phones these were and -- and just exactly, you know, what -- what it is that -- that -- that is so special about this. I -- I -- and, you know, the phone activation -- you're going to maintain one line. Is this -- you're -- You're going to start this maintenance of one line now? Is that my understanding of this? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Miss Gansel. MS. GANSEL: Yeah. If I could ask Mr. Camell to address that. He -- The purchasing department has worked with the committee and with the telephone people and would be better able to address that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Camell, welcome back. MR. CARNELL: It's been a long time. The -- just two things. Number one, if I could, on the -- on the functionality question -- and this was six, seven months ago when I looked at this proposition, and I don't remember all the details, to be honest with you, of the system, but I think, Commission, Mr. Chairman, you hit the salient point. We're not buying eight stand-alone phones here. We're buying a switch system to go with the eight phones. And the idea here is that we are -- this is a system that can go off to the side -- in the can, if you will -- and when it needs to be mobilized, it's put into gear very rapidly and quickly with all the bells and whistles and all the connection points and all the technology there. So there is a switch that drives the whole system that is installed as part of that $4,500, and then there are a number of functionalities that go with it as well that enable it to process calls on an automated basis for voice and fax and data. The other thing that's important to just briefly cover with regard to the decision to outright purchase that did come from my office, the recommendation to outright purchase, and that was based on follow-up conversations with the UTS representative and a committee member, Allison Blankenship, and the -- when you -- when you sat down and you run the cost of a lease, the lease acquisition would be in excess of $6,000, and I believe it's over a three-year period. And in -- in a -- in a private-sector business arrangement where there may be tax depreciation concerns and other advantages to leasing, that's one thing. Here we're talking about spending $1,600 more with no apparent reason. We have the funds available. It's not like we have to schedule this thing out to collect the taxes later. We have the money. Why not save $1,5007 The only down side I could -- you could argue against purchasing from my point of view was that if you buy something, you're kind of stuck with the technology; however, in a lease arrangement talking to UTS, they didn't say, oh, we'll come in and give you a new one that -- that beams you all over the planet when technology is available if it comes out six months from now. They're basically just financing your acquisition over a three-year period and you're -- guess what? -- stuck with it under a lease arrangement so -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. Just for what it's worth, I have a law firm with five people in it, and my phone system, which isn't the fanciest thing in the world, was about $3,300, a little over 3,000 bucks. I went back and looked in conjunction with this. And it doesn't walk and talk, but it does fax and data and modem and that stuff so -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- I think that's just what they cost. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think that's a good point of reference. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hooks you up to the Internet. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hooks you to the Net, my God. MR. AYRES: And if I may, the holding capacity -- the storage capacity of incoming calls was very important to us so that we weren't in a position where we weren't answering the telephone -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. MR. AYRES: -- which is -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A busy signal. MR. AYRES: -- an appropriate issue. People are going to be concerned and interested and want to know, so we needed to know that we -- we have the right system. I would also add that it was -- it's actually almost three years ago that we started the conversation on what type of phone system we were going to have. So -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You're already outdated. MR. AYRES: -- it's not quite as fresh in my mind as it might have been. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Any further questions on that item? Seeing none, do we have speakers on this, Mr. McNees? MR. MCNEES: None further. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Do we have a motion by a member of the board? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve the item. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Let me clarify that. That is to pay the $3,600 billed for 1996 and to await a specific amount after competitive bidding for 19977 COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And to approve the phone purchases as in the -- listed in the executive summary? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MS. GANSEL: And we will -- We'll bring back a contract that will incorporate not necessarily for the payment of the 3,600 but exactly the procedure to put into place the ads if that should become apparent. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hopefully on a consent agenda. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I'm sure the county attorney's office will assist in making sure that contract reflects the -- the needed elements. Is there any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none -- For the purposes of giving our -- our court reporter a break, why don't we take five minutes -- MR. AYRES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- a little more than five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Ayres. We will reconvene at 10:30. (A short break was held.) Item #8E2 FUNDING TO NETS ASSETS, INC. D/B/A/ NUVEEN MASTERS FOR $390,000.00 FOR ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION OF TENNIS QUALIFYING TOURNAMENT, TOURIST DEVELOPMENT CATEGORY C FUNDS - APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We're going to call to order the February 25 meeting. We are to Item 8(D)(2). [sic] This is a request to approve funding the Nets Assets, the Nuveen Masters advertising and promotion of a tennis-qualifying tournament. This is Category C, tourist development funds. Good morning, Miss Gansel. MS. GANSEL: Good morning, Commissioners. Jean Gansel of the budget office. The Tourist Development Council had received a grant application from Net Assets. The applicant was requested to revise their application to conform with the new Category C requirements. They revised their application. It was for $390,000 for advertising and promotion for a tennis amateur-qualifying tournament to be held in Collier County in October. In Category C currently we have $291 and -- I'm sorry, $291,250. I project that within the next two months we will collect approximately 100,000 so that there will be sufficient funds without dipping into the economic reserve that we have prior to any app1 -- request for funding that we would have. The applicant is here. They're prepared to make a presentation or respond to questions, whatever is the desire of the board. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me -- and the applicant can prepare for a presentation, but let me go ahead and -- and at least offer what the Tourist Development Council felt on this matter. This item was heard twice. The first was, in essence, linked very closely with the Nuveen Masters tennis tournament as -- as far as really not separating the two events, and after that meeting they came back and really refined the proposal. What this is doing is drawing tennis players in -- and we're not talking about your average tennis player. We're talking about a 5-0 or 5-5 rating, which apparently is a very, very low percentage of -- of players. These are your -- what you would almost call a -- a pro-quality player who doesn't play on tour -- drawing them in in the summer months for a tournament that is to last over a three-day weekend and associated events to keep them here. Obviously they have to have somewhere to stay. They're going to eat here. It's a minimum of 500 players. There is an -- a fiscal impact that has been provided. And the TDC unanimously approved this, and I think it's got some -- some very -- very substantive merits, particularly in light that it's the first application since we have revised Category C guidelines and appears to meet those guidelines. So there is a presentation that they -- they have brought today, but I wanted to offer that. Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's interesting. When I did Leadership Florida a couple of years ago, one of the first meetings we had talked about economic development and -- and developing new tourism in particular and -- and off-season stuff, and -- and one of the ways they talked about was sporting events like this. And -- and in the larger cities, they think of baseball, football, and so on, and everyone from smaller communities like ours raised their hands and said, "Well, you know, wait a minute. That doesn't work for us." And there was actually a very good presentation talking -- There's one community in Florida that has the World Archery Foundation or whatever they're called. The same idea: They bring in 300 archers, and they stay for a week or something. And -- and they said, when people think of sports, unfortunately sometimes they think of the three or four primary sports and forget there's an entire world out there. But something like this is exactly what they're talking about, and -- and I think it's a great tool to bring people in and fill the place up and spend some money in the summertime. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And -- I'm sorry. I didn't -- didn't tell you what the hook is. The hook is this is a doubles qualifying tournament, that the winner of this tournament plays in the Nuveen Masters on the same courts against the same teams that you see there every year for a chance at maybe winning a doubles title with the Nuveen Masters. And the Nuveen Masters' final event is the Road to Naples Event that occurs here in March. So they would come in later this summer for this event, and if they win that tournament, it would be like, you know, me going out and ending up playing in a PGA event, which we know will never happen, but the opportunity to do that would-- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Think of the odds. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- would be a significant draw. So it's -- it's a neat idea. It's a way of tying the two together. And the advertising and promotion of the event is where these dollars are going. So with that, I guess we'll -- we'll -- I may have just made a presentation for them. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman, I think -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes? COHMISSIONER BERRY: -- if -- as -- if I read this correctly, this was -- this was slated for October -- year. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: COMMISSIONER BERRY: CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: COMHISSIONER BERRY: CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. -- of '97? Correct. Okay. That's correct. October of this We -- Why don't we go ahead and just kind of open the floor to questions of you first, and if -- if there is -- is substantive -- substantive issues, then we'll -- and you feel the need to go into your presentation, we can do that. Commissioner Norris. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. I would like to ask what sort of advertising and promotion you're going to do, if you could answer that for me, please. MR. BREHM: Okay. Is this on? The advertising and promotion -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Your name for the record, please. MR. BREHM: Henry Brehm, and I'm executive producer of the Nuveen Tour and an officer of Net Assets which is the applicant. The -- Maybe we just want to put up the television. It's extensive. As Commissioner Hancock -- Hancock stated, that the playing level is quite high. We expect that there will be a few people who think they can compete, so we have to track people from not only the -- Naples -- and we actually only expect a very small number coming from the Naples community -- all of Florida and probably extending midwest up -- and up -- up and down the -- the eastern seaboard to secure a number of players. So the number one advertising vehicle is television, both on cable television during senior tennis events and network television during a premiere senior tennis event in August where we would actually put a spot that would share a spot in a vignette which we proposed in our -- in our document. That would be both a vignette about Naples and a promotional spot or an advertising spot to sign up for the -- for the event, of which we would be taking the calls. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. That answers my question. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The -- Tell me if this -- if I remember this correctly. There would be -- You would try and limit the entrance from the Naples area so that we are, in essence, requiring out-of-county or out-of-region people to come in so it will increase our room nights? Is that -- MR. BREHM: Sure. Any -- Anytime you -- you do a promotion, you want to create the demand out there in -- in advertising, but there's limited opportunity. So we're obviously going to go -- I mean, this -- the program is really not about tennis. It's about economic impact and you ta -- you -- you ex -- you told us that. You taught us that. You've drummed it into our brains over and over again. We get it. Quite frankly -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You're welcome. MR. BREHM: -- if we wanted to make it about tennis, we'd have it in New York City in October where -- or Los Angeles where there's the greatest amount of participants that have to travel the least distance. That doesn't answer your question. We're a loyal group. There is a linkage, although the event isn't in -- in March, to the Nuveen Masters which is next week. That's the hook, as you stated. The hook is being able to play in the same court. But let's face it, you know, we all grow up. My kids -- everyone grows up with these heros, and they don't dump them. I mean, there's a lot of 45-year-old men like me still saying, "I wish I could have," or, "I wish I would have," and we need that linkage. That's why it's here in Naples during the off-season because it's good for -- it's obviously good for you. The -- by -- by -- By limiting numbers from -- either by state or by county will direct the hotel stays, will require a deposit so they can't -- so at least we have something that they can't get out of, but that's really the only way to do it. Once we get past a certain minimum, then we'll come back and say, okay, now we're willing to take, you know, so many more from Georgia and so many more from -- from Massachusetts or Atlanta or -- or Naples, for that matter. And that's all done today. That's not something we have to create. There is an organization called the USTA, United States Tennis Association, that already qualifies players, so we can do that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And because they have to come in for the event on that weekend, tracking room nights and so forth is going to be a part of the program? MR. BREHM: Yes. Yeah. We will track it. As I said, we will -- we will take the orders because we want to hook them on the program, and, oh, by the way, they have to stay overnight. We're looking at a variety of -- of -- of events or -- or other activities in order to extend the stay -- stay, bring your family. So hopefully they'll come for Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, come Wednesday night and -- and bring their 2.2 kids or -- or whatever it is -- to watch them -- watch them play. This is not a tournament where the public is going to come out and watch. It's a tournament for the public. And let me -- let me correct you on one thing. It is not -- or what Jean said. It's not an amateur tournament. I mean, we're offering $25,000 in prize money, not from your funding, funding that we're -- we're contributing, and that's a big hook too because that's the -- the largest first -- For a tournament of this size, it doesn't sound like a lot of money compared to the pros, but most of these players have never earned a penny. Now, we think that the future is to raise the prize money which will eventually grow -- you know, the tournament, from -- from year to year. And if we can grow the tournament with participant-paying application fees, then it will become self-sufficient over time. We have budgeted to secure outside sponsors. We think we have a direct link being here on a year-round basis in Naples to do that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are there further questions of the petitioner? Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just a -- a question and -- and, of course, the -- the balance of the board would have to want this, but might we get a -- a follow-up report since you are going to be able to track the room nights and, you know, give us a report after the event on hopefully its success? MR. BREHH: Oh, absolutely, with dollar amounts. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Would the rest of the board like to have that? I mean, we could ask for that within a month or so or -- You tell us when, but let's go ahead and set a date to have that sort of follow-up status report. MR. BREHH: I think we can give you a report because we will funnel the -- the request to the hotels. The one thing that -- that we'd like to work with somebody on, we're not sure how to -- how to -- how to quote what they -- what the ancillary money is that they spend. We've come up with a number in our budget that they're going to spend $100 per room night per room per day, two, three, four people. It's somewhat arbitrary. We checked around and did our research, but we're not sure how to -- how to present that. We can present the hotel stays. We can present what they buy from us and what they buy from hotels. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What I'd be most interested in personally is hotel room nights. I don't care how much they pay for them or -- MR. BREHH: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- you know, I'd like to know how much -- how many beds we sold. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, it would be interesting to see what the economic impact is, and we have our economic guru, Greg Mihalic, here in the room, and perhaps you can help, particularly with some sort of formula plugging in here what the impact may be. October is traditionally one of the slowest times, so that's ideal. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. MR. BREHM: There -- there -- There's another issue that you should know here too in -- in the marketing of Naples and one of the reasons that we selected Naples for the Nuveen Masters. I have extensive research. Aside from the beautiful weather in March is that you have over 300 tennis courts here. I mean, there's extensive tennis facilities. So we saw that there's some base here and -- that this community must have used or the -- the -- the business people in this community must have used tennis as -- as a marketing vehicle. You go to other southwestern communities and you find tennis as an ancillary activity to golf. And I know golf is big here too, but you have a number of facilities here in Naples with tennis only and not golf, and that's quite -- quite unique. And tennis this past year -- it's been flat for many years, but some research was just reported at the super show where all the manufacturers show their -- their wares that actually grew by 8 -- participants grew by 8 percent this year, which is about a million -- a million people, which is good for the sport. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry. COHMISSIONER BERRY: How are you going to deal if we happen to get a week of inclement weather and it happens to be the week of this tournament? What -- What can you do? MR. BREHH: They have to stay over an extra night. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Just -- just so there's, you know -- MR. BREHH: Yeah. That -- that -- We're going to have to look at the schedule and the timing. It's open. We've said October. It may be September. I know we have to stay away from late October, November because of -- of the rains. But basically there's a lot of clay courts. There are soft courts in Naples. They dry very fast -- fast. And this happens all the time because in most tennis -- most adult tennis tournaments, almost all of them are on weekends in the United States. So whether that rolls over to a Monday or that rolls over -- or we have to shorten certain matches from best of three sets to pro sets, it happens. It's going to -- you know, it's going to happen. We have to be ready for it. And it also may mean doubling up on the facilities. So if it's raining, we get rained out on Thursday, and we have to play twice as many matches on Wednesday. We have to have another 30 or 40 courts on hold, and they're here in Naples, and they're quite available -- COHMISSIONER BERRY: So you're prepared -- MR. BREHH: -- in October. COHMISSIONER BERRY: You're prepared to deal with -- MR. BREHH: Sure. COHMISSIONER BERRY: -- that kind of a situation? MR. BREHH: Yeah. You're not talking a tremen -- You're not talking about much incremental expenses. It's just coordination. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have any further questions for the petitioner? Do we have any registered speakers? MR. HCNEES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The one item you have asked on several occasions in this application, that someone be designated as the point of contact in working with the vignettes and the spots. I -- I guess, although they are not a decision-making board, whether it's the TDC or whether we want Visit Naples, Inc., to be the reviewer and committee for that -- is there any feel from members of this board on -- my -- My feeling is that maybe a member of the TDC should be appointed by that body to work -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- with them on the position. Is that acceptable? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I like that. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Do we have a motion on the item? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion to approve the item with the -- the addition that we -- we appoint someone from the TDC to work with them on their production of the TV spots. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would you add to the motion that it includes coming back -- I mean, could we say within a certain amount of time, maybe six weeks of the completion of the event, for a report to the board on its success? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Is six weeks acceptable to you, sir? MR. BREHM: I -- I think so. I don't see why we wouldn't have -- The only thing that we probably wouldn't have at six weeks is all the media clips that come from the aggressive effort around the country. But the hotel rooms, I don't see why we wouldn't have that the day after the event. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Yes, I'll amend my motion. MR. BREHM: Yeah, six weeks I think is fine. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have a motion -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, thank you. MR. BREHM: Thank you. Item #9A RESOLUTION 97-138, AMENDING RESOLUTION 96-590, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF NOT EXCEEDING $16,500,000.00 IN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SPECIAL OBLIGATION REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1997 - ADOPTED WITH AMENDMENT CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Item 9(A), resolution amending Resolution 96-590 authorizing issuance of bonds. This is for the Naples Park storm water system. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do we have speakers or -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have -- MR. MCNEES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I -- I'm not sure there's a necessary presentation here. Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have a resolution before you today. Mr. Art Ziev, the financial advisor, is here in case there are any questions. Art, I don't know if you want to have any particular presentation for the board at this point. But we did want to be able to field any questions that -- that -- that might pertain. Obviously the action before you today is based upon changing more favorable market conditions, and -- and Mr. Ziev is here if you have any questions. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Ziev, in a nutshell, this is a good thing. MR. ZIEV: Yes, this is a good thing. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Good answer. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are there any concerns that you want to raise to this board on this item? MR. ZIEV: No. I just want to inform you that we had originally thought that the market might improve in January to facilitate the issue getting done. The market didn't cooperate; however, it is cooperating now, and so with your passage of this resolution, we may very well be able to sell this issue, which is converting some of the -- the variable-rate commercial paper to fixed rate by the end of this week and perhaps next week at the latest. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: What -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are there -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: What -- What do you expect to get as an interest rate? What is the market showing right now? MR. ZIEV: We think that the final maturity of this issue is 2004, and we think the interest rate will be about 4.45 percent. But most of this debt is actually even shorter than that, and the earlier maturities are in the range of about 3.6 to 4 percent. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Sounds like the -- the bond payers are going to have a pretty good interest rate on that. Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Do we have further questions? Any speakers, Mr. McNees? MR. MCNEES: No speakers. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, do we have a motion? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. MR. MCNEES: I think Mr. Ziev is indicating he's got another comment to make. MR. ZIEV: In -- in -- In the resolution there was one blank, which is on page 3, Section 6, which is -- When the original resolution was passed, the finance committee recommended and you adopted that the financing only proceed if the all-inclusive interest rate which incorporates all the cost of issuance does not exceed 4.6 percent. This number was chosen just as -- We looked at the ten-year variable rate average and the five-year variable rate average and sort of took a number in the middle sort of just to set a target. As I said, the market had not been there, we weren't getting there, and so we did some analysis to say, well, should -- should the county proceed with the financing or not, should that target be adjusted. By raising the target from 4.6 percent to 4.75 percent, that increases the annual payment in the early years by no more than $14,000 and trailing off to $700 in the later years. So we wanted to know whether you would be willing to proceed if we were not able to lock in interest rates that got us to the 4.6 percent but I want to -- the thing is, in the two weeks that we presented this resolution to the -- to staff, interest rates are now to the point where we will hit the 4.6 percent target but I can't -- obviously can't assure you that by Thursday or next week we still would be able to. So if you would like -- if -- if you would deem it appropriate to change that number to 4.7 percent or 4.75, it gives us a little more leeway if the market does start to move away. And in my own opinion, I think that $3 million of debt service versus 2,990,00 is not that significant and still accomplishes the primary goals, which is to eliminate interest rate risk and to eliminate the balloon-financing risk. MR. MCNEES: From staff's point of view, going back to our original discussion, which is probably eight months ago by now, six or eight months ago when we talked about this, those were the two issues we were concerned about, the balloon payment that would be coming due and the -- the interest rate risk. Staff's opinion is that the -- the marginal increase in the debt service payment doesn't substantively change the analysis. Given where we were in the market, we were better off to go ahead, fix these things, and -- and go forward without the balloon risk and the interest-rate risk. Art, I think, is fairly comfortable that we will probably hit the 6 -- 4.6 anyway but would like a little bit of leeway that if we're right on the margin, that we don't -- that we don't cancel the deal just because we barely missed the 4.6. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Does the motionmaker wish to amend the motion to include a maximum 4.7 percent? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll amend. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second amends. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. The resolution shall reflect no more than 4.7 percent per annum. Is there any further discussion? I'll call the question. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, motion carries. Great. Item #10A RESOLUTION 97-139, APPOINTING MAURICE DEVITO TO THE PUBLIC VEHICLE ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED Item 9(A) -- We're on to Item 10(A), appointment of members to the public vehicle advisory board. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, it appears there's one opening and one applicant -- applicant. I'd like to make a motion we approve Maurice DeVito. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none -- Item #10B INTERIH COUNTY MANAGER CONTRACT WITH BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS - APPROVED WITH A SALARY OF $95,000.00 Interim county manager contract with BCC. This is an item that was placed on the agenda by me for two reasons. The first is that we, as a board, are authorized really to give direction to staff through our contract employees of which we have three. The county manager's position is one of those. When Mr. Dotrill left, we no longer had a contract employee in that position, and I felt it was necessary for the proper chain of command to be in place and the contract to be approved. The second item in the contract that I think is -- is important is that the contract has a blank that designates the -- or indicates the salary for the interim position. It has been the history -- the recent history of the county, if people are appointed to interim positions, that they are appointed at the salary the position was paying the previous applicant or previous person. And -- and I'm -- I'm stating that in a gross manner, but that's roughly correct. What I am suggesting is that we approve the contract in front of us, but instead of the salary that was paid Mr. Dotrill at his departure, that we -- we include a salary of $95,000 for the interim county manager. That is my suggestion but open for discussion. Commissioner Constantine. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A couple of questions, and one, if the board wants to do a contract, that's fine. I guess when we decided to install Mr. McNees as interim, one of the reasons given by at least a couple of the member of the boards was that that's how our ordinance reads, is that the assistant county manager will fill that slot, and -- and as long as he is filling that slot and doing so in an acting capacity, I assume -- and maybe Mr. Weigel can help me -- but I assume we are not bound or tied from giving direction despite the fact he is only acting county manager but because it is by ordinance. And, again, I don't have any objection if we want to do a contract. I'm just asking if it's necessary. And then I'll address the second item maybe after Mr. Weigel responds to that. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, the -- the ordinance does provide that the acting county administrator, as they term it in the ordinance, may be designated -- that the assistant county administrator may be designated as the acting county administrator. The purpose of this agreement, my understanding is, is to make clear that being placed in the position of responsibility, there would be a salary that is provided that based on the ordinance could not otherwise be provided, and that is the fact that the county manager has been a contract employee with the Board of County Commissioners, and as an approved acting or interim county manager, Mr. McNees would not be under contract with the board. The board has no technical ability to contractually increase the salary from what it was left prior to Mr. Dorrill's departure. Secondarily, this contract does provide and takes into account that Mr. McNees has been before this board as -- and -- as a selectee for assistant county manager previously, and this would assure by contract, public record, that he would return to that previously approved post of assistant county manager upon either the termination of the -- of the selection process and the -- and -- and the selection of a new county manager should it not be Mr. McNees, or if during the course of the period where the board has accepted and approved Mr. McNees as acting county manager, if the board should determine that they don't want him to be the acting county manager anymore, he has the assurance that he returns to the job previously approved by the board as assist -- as assistant county manager. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine, and I -- I certainly think we owe Mr. McNees that security, if -- if nothing else, and -- and -- so he's comfortable and knows regardless of the outcome in the next couple of months that at the very least, he's where he's at. On the pay issue, I guess I agree that there's an increase in -- certainly an increase in responsibility as acting county manager. The -- The level of the increase, though, from your suggestion just concerns me a little bit, and -- and part of the reason is I know -- Mr. McNees shared with me the other day upon his departure Mr. Dotrill allocated about a 10 percent increase in Mr. McNees's salary, so he's had a -- one big jump there which brings you to -- you told me the other day, but I can't remember. MR. MCNEES: 78,000 and change. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And -- and so he's up seven or 8,000 from where he was a few weeks ago, and -- and while we may need to increase that, I -- I don't know if ninety-five was just an arbitrary starting point but I guess I want to have some discussion on. When that -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe that's an appropriate number, maybe it's not, but I thought it was worth discussing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The -- And as I handed out to you, Mr. Dotrill left the position at $119,556. What message I wanted to send is that Mr. McNees moving into that interim position is more than just fulfilling his responsibilities as an assistant county manager. I think it is a significant step in responsibility because there's not someone coming back from vacation in two weeks to -- to -- to take back the job -- or four weeks, for that -- that matter. This may continue until -- We're looking at getting recommendations in late March, and then if a selection is made by the board as early as April, it may be May or June before someone takes the position, and I felt with that type of longevity, more than a 10 percent adjustment in the assistant county manager pay was -- was necessary. Pay people to do a good job, and pay them what they're worth and I -- although -- You know, I looked at the experience that Mr. Dotrill had at different -- different times, and the $95,000 is roughly equivalent to what he made between the years 1991 and 1992, and I guess it was just a gut feel that was an appropriate amount. I have no specific justification one way or the other for it. We're still going to save some money, but I thought it was an appropriate amount for the time frame that Mr. McNees is being asked to act in that capacity. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Your suggestion is that it would be for the time frame that he's in that capacity but that's not his permanent salary or -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It is not. And, in fact, this is not something that's in the contract, but this would, in my opinion, take the place of the 10 percent bump that occurred, and -- and the base salary that Mr. McNees was at would be the salary he goes back to, plus any cost-of-living adjustments and so forth that occurred dur -- in -- during the interim during the budget process. I don't see any reason to go back to that 10 percent overage amount because that was done for this purpose by -- by Mr. Dotrill, is my understanding. MR. HCNEES: What -- The way the contract reads is I would go back to the salary that I'm at today -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. That includes -- MR. HCNEES: -- if y'all wanted -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- the 10 percent bump. MR. HCNEES: -- to check that. Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I -- I do have a little problem with that in that -- because that bump, I think, was done by Mr. Dotrill because that was all that was within his capacity for you assuming the position. MR. HCNEES: And I'll be perfectly frank why. In fact, that was my suggestion it be written that way, so that the assistant county manager would be paid at least as much as any of the division administrators. That was -- if -- If y'all don't think that's appropriate, then I'll be happy to accept however you want to write it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Since I -- you know, Mr. Dotrill is not here to ask why the 10 percent bump occurred, I'd have to agree, the assistant county manager ought to be paid at least what a division administrator is paid. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I hope so. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm going to make a motion that we approve the contract as it's currently written and fill in the blank $95,000. That would -- That would allow the assistant county administrator to have the increase, and I think that's appropriate. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Could you tell me once again what your present salary is -- I mean, today? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Here it is. MR. HCNEES: Today it's 78,000. Prior to the 10 percent, I was at seventy-one three, I believe. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Is there any further discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, the contract is approved. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Big party at Hike's house this weekend. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I thought more in terms of a loan. Item #10C PRESENTATION OF EPTAB'S REPORT TO THE BCC ON "INVASIVE EXOTIC PLANTS IN COLLIER COUNTY" - REPORT ACCEPTED; DIRECT STAFF TO EXPLORE ITEMS 1, 2, 3, 4C, 9, 3F AND 4B AND REPORT BACK CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Item 10(C), presentation of EEPTA (phonetic) -- EPTAB, excuse me -- EPTAB's report to the BCC on invasive exotic plants in Collier County. I -- MR. CAUTERO: Mr. Chairman -- I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, Mr. Cautero. MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero for the record. The report in front of you is a culmination of several months of work of your Environmental Policy Technical Advisory Board. Mr. Cornell is the chairman of that body, and he is here to present the report, and we're here to answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Cautero, was the preparation of this report something EPTAB took upon themselves, or was it board direction that created the -- MR. CAUTERO: My understanding is that it is a project that EPTAB took upon themselves. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Cornell, can I ask you how long your presentation is planned for? MR. CORNELL: It lasts approximately seven minutes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, well, geez. Don't let me get in the way of efficiency. Please proceed. MR. CORNELL: Good morning, Commissioners. I am Brad Cornell and chair of the Environmental Policy Technical Advisory Board, affectionately known as EPTAB. EPTAB has recently completed an investigation of invasive exotic plants in Collier County. This work was done on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners pursuant to EPTAB's advisory role described both in its enabling ordinance and in the Growth Management Plan conservation and coastal management element. The report was written by Chuck Ray, Nancy Payton, and myself, with research assistance from Kimberly Polen and many other county staff persons. The scope of our work included the following: A literature review, expert staff and outside consultation, review of county exotics regulations, EPTAB and staff inspections of private PUD projects, EPTAB and staff inspections of public county projects, and finally the report and its recommendations. I want to state right now that the recent emphasis given by the local media to Collier County being out of exotics-removal compliance on its own properties is not a complete representation of this report. The county's non-compliance is important but not the main point. However, it is a good -- it is good evidence of the need to greatly improve local awareness of the hazards exotic -- exotics pose for all of our citizens and thus encourage eradication. Certainly there are many issues facing our county which demand attention from landfills to urban sprawl; however, EPTAB considers controlling invasive exotic plants absolutely worthy of our most sincere efforts. These biological invaders threaten the health, safety, and economic welfare of all our citizens in addition to rapidly degrading every one of our wonderfully unique natural areas. Among the worst offenders are melaleuca, Brazilian pepper, Australian pine, and earleaf acacia. And for your benefit I have actually clipped a few examples of these, and I'm going to -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Great. MR. CORNELL: -- pass those around for you to see. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Glad they're in bags. I don't want those peppers. MR. CORNELL: Yeah. Please don't touch them. And the pepper bag is sealed. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That one I know. MR. CORNELL: Helaleuca trees are torches just waiting to be lit, and they surround many homes, especially in the rural and estates areas. Their leaves contain high quantities of extremely volatile oil which burns very hot. Profuse year-round flower production is a constant health hazard to those afflicted with allergies and asthma. I have friends in the northern estates whose house is surrounded by dense stands of melaleuca on neighbors' undeveloped lots. Their three children suffer allergies, and the fire hazard is especially great in dry winters like this one. Unfortunately there is no relief now available to them through the county. Brazilian pepper is an extremely aggressive colonizer of urban and disturbed rural areas. It produces severe skin rashes in many people like poison ivy to which it is related. Like melaleuca, it forms dense monocultures where little else grows, thus ruining the biological diversity of all natural habitats it invades. This directly impacts nature-based tourism in Collier County, including hunting, fishing, bird watching, wildlife viewing, and general sightseeing, not to mention just aesthetics. All exotics have a very negative impact on the real estate industry here and especially victimizes property buyers and sellers from other areas who don't know to be wary of exotics-infested lots or what these exotics look like. Other real estate victims include homeowners' associations who are not adequately informed by the developer or the county of exotics-free maintenance requirements which are actually in perpetuity. In recognition of the above threats to the well-being of Collier County citizens and the wonderful natural setting in which we all take pride and live, I ask that you review the information provided in the exotics report and direct staff to begin implementation of the recommendations. As you will notice, Appendix E in the back of the report groups the specific recommendations according to relative anticipated budget impacts. EPTAB strongly advises immediate adoption and implementation of all nine of those initiatives and policies which have little or no budget impact. In addition, we offer our own general prioritization of the report recommendations as follows: First, all exotics education initiatives as seen in Recommendation No. 4. Second, improve exotics regulations where necessary as in Recommendation 6 and 9. Third, improve enforce -- enforcement and compliance incentives, especially implementing a homeowner's exotics assistance program and stressing flexibility. Fourth, coordinate and cooperate with other public and private entities working on exotics in South Florida, including Exotic Pest Plant Council of Florida; the cooperative extension agent, Bob Peterson; and the South Florida Water Management District, not to mention a whole host of other private and public groups. Fifth, pursue outside and alternative funding, resource sharing, and volunteer utilization. Volunteers would be particularly effective as educational resources and code enforcement assistants as now occurs in other areas of code enforcement. And, sixth, support research efforts on eradication, especially lobbying the federal government for a biological control quarantine facility in South Florida and for dedicated funding of the United States Department of Agriculture research station that is now operating in Australia. EPTAB has made in total 25 specific recommendations whose implementation would initiate a very sincere and we believe ultimately successful effort to control significant health, safety, economic and environmental threats invasive exotic plants have brought to Collier County. I thank you very much for the opportunity to present this report, and I would welcome any questions. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have questions on some of the specific recommendations. Just a comment first on three, engage more personnel, both staff and volunteers, to allow for code enforcement monitoring. I suspect exotics is not the only area where Linda would like a few extra people, and I -- I think we may address that from budget season because I know they're shorthanded on a number of things, but I'm not prepared to make the recommendation on this area only now because I think we'll probably look at staffing up a little at the budget time but -- MR. CORNELL: Sure. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I am for the exotics educational brochure. I understand putting the information down in print, but to whom, and how do you see that being distributed? MR. CORNELL: It would be available in all public places like libraries. It would be sort of managed in the same way that waste management and the solid waste department promote recycling and those sorts of efforts. It's a real problem for people who don't know what these things look like, and here they are required by county ordinances to -- to clear them and keep them off of their properties. That's a real problem. So you need brochures that have line drawings or photographs. And, as a matter of fact, Ken Langland with IFAS and in coordination with the Exotic Pest Plant Council is working on an identification booklet which could be used in the preparation by county staff of a -- of a county brochure that would be economical and easily mailed and put in holders. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The 4(E), exotics control hotline, what do you envision there? MR. CORNELL: Well, people -- Let's say somebody wants to do some remodeling or somebody is thinking about buying a -- a -- a particular piece of property somewhere and they suspect or want to know about exotics or how to get rid of them or what's required. There's not really a good centralized place to -- to -- to get that information quickly and -- and readily. That would be one way to provide that information with just one phone call that's specifically earmarked for exotics information. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess my thought there is a dedicated line might be cost-prohibitive, but perhaps if someone either in code enforcement or on Horseshoe Drive who has better knowledge of this than others, if we did something like a brochure, we may feature who that person is or at least have a contact as opposed to a dedicated line. MR. CORNELL: Or have not a dedicated line but a -- if -- if there was a way to advertise it by name as an exotics information hotline even if it wasn't dedicated. In the phone book, I know sometimes that's a problem because you have to have a specific -- a specific line to get an entry in the phone book but something like that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- Item 6(E) I -- I'm not prepared to do yet. We go through this in our Land Development Code hearings, and usually we'll pick and choose, and the majority of the items that come to us do indeed become prohibited, but I'm not prepared, I guess, yet to give direction on this. I -- I think we need to make that part of our Land Development Code. MR. CORNELL: Sure. If -- if I may -- If I may add here, it would be good if the county and the city were -- were the same in terms of their prohibitive species, and right now there are some discrepancies; most notably, I think carrotwood. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, county and city relations are so good right now that we want to make sure we take advantage of that, try to get them on board. MR. CORNELL: The other reason to look at -- at adding species is to acknowledge the -- the source of the problem which is plants that were initially used for landscaping purposes and -- and other, quote, "good intentions," that escaped, and these plants that are on this EPPC list have already been demonstrated to have escaped and caused problems. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I just want to be careful, and -- and we went through this at our last LDC go-round, but some of those nurseries may have inventories on -- and their different economic impacts, and so that's why I'm more comfortable doing that in a full-blown public hearing rather than just adopting here, but I -- I do think we should investigate it. Specific exotic ordinance, rather than simply having it appear in our Land Development Code, I'm not sure I understand the logic. MR. CORNELL: Well, they're -- they -- the -- one of the -- the major ways to deal with exotics that is not in the Land Development Code that -- there are two -- two main mechanisms that the county now has for dealing with exotics. One is in the development process -- process itself where construction is taking place, and that's reg -- regulated through the Land Development Code. After construction has already been finished and the project has been accepted, certificates of occupancies have been issued, there needs to be follow-up, and code enforcement has the -- the job of making sure properties remain exotics-free. And this is, of course, the responsibility of homeowners' associations as well as private individuals, and that falls under the litter, weed, and exotics ordinance as far as the authoriz -- authorization and authority to do that sort of enforcement. The litter, weed, and exotics ordinance is in flux right know. It's sort of in draft form for a revised version. It's an awkward document because it's not just addressing exotics. There are a number of issues that could perhaps more easily be addressed in a specific exotic ordinance, although certainly it's considerable to just amend the exotics, weed -- litter, weed, and exotics ordinance. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And then finally the last item, if you'd give me a little bit of detail what you're thinking here, re-establishment of the former native plant community. MR. CORNELL: Well, that has to do a lot with what is the ability to monitor and follow up and make sure that the -- the site does not get reinfested, and especially it's important in areas that would be, say, you know, a heavily used public park where aesthetics is an issue, and you want to -- to regain a natural vegetative look and function. And if you just clear the lot and just leave it bare, it may not fulfill all the desires of the public or the county. This certainly is the -- Host of the time you don't do anything. You just hope that the natural vegetation reseeds itself, but as experience proves what comes back first usually is exotics, and you have to really follow up on that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A number of these recommendations, I think, are very good, and we should give some direction on them. A couple that I have concern with from a cost factor, and one is adding 30 more plants to the exotic list, and I think we should go through the full public hearing. And my main objection or concern there is not so much -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The carrotwood. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- is the carrotwood but not so much the development community as is the single-family home builder. Some -- Someone buys a lot and wants to build their own home. Is there an additional burden? And the same with Item 10, cost factor both in public parks and those things, ultimately that's the taxpayer that foots the bill, and what's the economic impact there. And, again, that single-family homeowner who's trying to build their first home or their dream home, we already have six thousand-something in impact fees and other steps along the way. It's easy to spend $10,000 before you even build your -- your first -- before you lay -- lay your foundation. So I want to be very careful before we add more to that because I think we continue to put that single-family home out of reach of a lot of people when we add. So those two areas I'm a little wary of, but particularly coordination and research assistance and -- and improvement of the follow-up, and I think that may just come in the form of adding some people which may be part of the budget process but in code enforcement. The two items I mentioned we can explore in the budget are more personnel and 4(B), doing some sort of brochure. I think informing the public is half the battle, and -- and those two I'd be willing to look at during the budget process. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I -- I appreciate the report and -- and appreciate your going to the trouble to bring it to us and -- and would commend to EPTAB that this is exactly what we would ask you to continue to do. It's exactly what -- the function that I see for EPTAB, and I appreciate that, and there has been always this question of, you know, what exactly do you do. This is exactly what I would hope EPTAB would continue to do. And along those lines, another thing I would ask EPTAB to do in conjunction with this is -- I'm -- I'm trying to discern should I presume that this exotics removal is EPTAB's highest priority budget-wise or -- or should I -- should I ask you -- What I would like to ask you to do is to ask EPTAB to review the environmental budget for the county and -- and make recommendations to us. Give us your advice on how you would prioritize and -- and what you think would be an appropriate budget and -- and how you would prioritize, more importantly, the spending of the limited dollars that we do have available because I would love to say, "Let's implement all of this," and I would certainly like to see us get on par with the City of Naples who has, like, Exotic Removal Day and some of those kinds of promotions, but I would seek your advice in reviewing the budget for prioritizing the dollars that we have available. MR. CORNELL: Okay. If I may -- Thank you for that input. If I may point out, a number of the recommendations in here do not necessarily apply to the natural resources department which is the department which we're most closely involved with when it goes -- kind of cuts across the board, and apparently this is the reasoning for the change in the budget or in the agenda item. But, you know, real property, code enforcement, and other department -- other divisions in the county would also be involved with some of these recommendations, but certainly it would be within our scope to look at the budget especially with the natural resources and -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would appreciate it. MR. CORNELL: -- and those issues. So I thank you for that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Those constraints are where the main problem lies, Mr. Cornell. It -- It's not that -- although there are a -- a few items in here I specifically take issue with, the majority of them are solid recommendations. The question is one of priorities. When we look at -- at setting a tax rate, is the removal of exotics a financial priority over something we would have to remove in order to make that an option, and that's where the decision -- the rubber meets the road, so to speak. It's -- it's -- I -- I say every year hundreds of good ideas will go unfunded. MR. CORNELL: Sure. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So what I'm particularly interested and I appreciate you doing is breaking out those that don't really require funding, that can be done immediately that are procedural implementations that will improve the process. Beyond that I think we have to start looking at weighting, what value do we place on it in the budget process, and -- and I think the time for that discussion is coming in the next few months. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, Commissioner Berry. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have a question. If we're -- If we were to implement this recommendation in Collier County, what about neighboring counties? Because knowing full well, as you drive down 1-75 and you hit the Lee County line and -- and you look on both sides of that roadway, you've got a ton of melaleuca. Let's assume that we take -- make the effort to go ahead and -- and remove melaleuca. I mean, aren't we just, you know, chasing our tail continually, trying to get rid of this because of the proximity un -- unless we can get them to go along, you know, and do the same thing? What -- MR. CORNELL: Well, as -- this is -- This is the heart of the recommendation to coordinate our efforts with all the other entities that are working on this, including Dade County and the eastern part of Collier County and Lee County. There are -- are county, state, and federal agencies as well as private organizations that are devoting a considerable amount of effort to just this, to making sure that it gets addressed on all fronts. And the problem is so big. There's, I think, about 500,000 acres of melaleuca in Florida, and it spreads at a rate of about 50 acres a day. So it's a huge problem that cannot be just accomplished by Collier County alone. I would say that the thrust of this rec -- this report and our recommendations are geared towards what the county can do as a -- as -- in our part of the -- of the strategy. And Lee County is working on the problem from their perspective, as is DEP with the water management district, and the federal government through the national parks and other -- other agencies. So it's -- it's got to be a coordinated effort or you're right; we're wasting our time. COMHISSIONER BERRY: Right. Well, I -- and I'm not disagreeing with what -- Don't misunderstand what I'm saying here. I just see this as such an enormous problem. Unless everybody gets on the same train here, that -- that we've got a problem. Also many times people coming before us or -- will receive letters that -- particularly for new developments that are coming in, and they're removing the exotics, and then we have residents who are complaining that suddenly their wonderful natural buffer has been taken away and that we have ruined their value on their property and -- and certain things like that. What do you see as a responsibility in this area? I mean, what -- how would you deal with this? MR. CORNELL: Well, the -- the first responsibility is for education. People have to understand what the risks and hazards of these species of plants are. A good example would be Sugden Park. There's some real exotics problems down there. People want the buffers, but you have to get rid of them. So I would say that the answer in that case, which goes back to Commissioner Constantine's point about -- that -- that would be where you might want to replant something -- something native that would be very thick and -- and provide the same function. You know, it depends on what your resources are and where you want to put your priorities in terms of planting and mitigating some of the complaints that might stem from that, you know, the loss of vegetative material. But I think that you -- if people understand the problems with, for instance, melaleuca and losing a melaleuca monoculture forest next to their -- their house is actually a good thing, not a bad thing. COMHISSIONER BERRY: I -- I think melaleuca -- I don't -- I haven't found too many people that would probably disagree with the -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The Australian pines. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- removal, Australian pine and even Brazilian pepper because that -- that forms a pretty dense buffer in many cases, and -- and so people are quite concerned when development comes in -- I have a little experience with this -- when -- when these things are removed and suddenly you've exposed their property which before they thought they were very much isolated, and how much can -- can government go in and -- and provide the replacement I -- I think is a real problem. And, frankly, they don't care that it's an exotic. It provided a buffer. And so I -- I -- I really see this as a -- as a monumental problem and certainly a problem when we talk about budgeting. And -- and I'm not disagreeing with you, but I just -- I -- I just really want -- there -- there's -- there's two sides to this story, and I don't have the answer because I agree that it ought to go, but I don't know to what extent that government can come in and replace this. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If I may, in -- in -- in the interest of time -- I know we have some speakers on this item that are registered. If I ask you if there's a response to Commissioner Berry's request, please provide that, and then I'd like to go to the public speakers so we can -- can begin moving on the item. MR. CORNELL: Sure. And my only response was that the other -- the other thing we have to keep in mind is that the exotics don't stay contained on that person's -- you know, in that person's buffer area. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I understand. MR. CORNELL: The birds distribute the seeds, and it becomes a problem for all the neighbors, and all the neighbors don't have an interest necessarily in -- in having those -- those species growing on their lots too. So it is a difficult problem, but it needs to be addressed. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Cornell. MR. CORNELL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. McNees, would you call the speakers, please. MR. MCNEES: Yes. Your first speaker would be Nancy Payton followed by Ty Agoston. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And how many speakers do we have total? MR. MCNEES: You have five. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I'm going to ask you in the interest of time to please not be redundant. If you are a member of one group or another to support it, please -- please state that. Good morning, Miss Payton. MS. PAYTON: Very brief. Nancy Payton, a former member of EPTAB and also one of the three EPTAB members that was involved in development of this report. I also am employed by the Florida Wildlife Federation, and we would like to offer our help in any way to address some of the problems, questions that have been raised today, development of a brochure. I also think a development of a slide show would be very beneficial with photographs and -- and slides that iljustrate because oftentimes a brochure is very good, but color and fairly large is -- is even better. And we'd be very happy to work with the county, and they're not-for-profits that have the same interest in developing a slide show that we all can promote to our various constituencies. I also think that we can inform homeowners and new homeowners of the benefits of not having exotics on their property. And the issue of the buffer, I agree with you, Commissioner Berry, that, yes, we are going to remove exotics and hopefully revegetate, but how do we do that, and can we do that? And I think that's where we all have to sit down together and try our best to come up with a solution that addresses everybody's concerns but moves us towards, I think, the goal that we're all looking forward to. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Miss Payton. MR. MCNEES: Ty Agoston followed by Gil Erlichman. MR. AGOSTON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Ty Agoston. I live in Golden Gate Estates, and I'm speaking for myself. I often question the -- the motivation of the speakers on various advisory boards who happen to be promoting an issue that they actually belong to in the day-to-day business. Let me just make an assurance here that I am not in the environmental business. I'm retired, and I'm an amateur gardener. I spend two, three hours a day just to keep my joints moving. What really bothers me about this issue is -- I'm an expert at marketing, and I recognize one when I see it. We are dealing here with the presentation that focuses on melaleuca, and that's the big focus, and we all know that it's definitely a detriment to the environment. What I take an issue with is that while the focus is melaleuca, I've got to tell you there is an asparagus fern on this list that I happened to be nursing along for a while. There are a carrotwood here that I have three of, and I haven't been able to get them going. I also have a number of Ficus trees that they freeze every time there is a hard freeze in the estates. So I have a problem, not to mention the fact I have a lessening of respect for any law that we enact here and the ones that I'm convinced of that are wrong, and I mean these particular instances I definitely don't want anyone to come onto my property and tell me to remove them while I have $20 pots sitting under them. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ty, if you can't get exotics to grow, maybe that's why you're an amateur gardener. MR. AGOSTON: Well, that's -- that's -- that's well possible. But, you know, I would love to see people speaking here to expose their financial motivation. You know, are we -- are we having a whole row of people here making presentations to you who are essentially making money either perpetuating their contract with you or to their companies or what have you? And the number of issues I have seen on landfill -- I have seen it on a number of issues that the very people who are the participating companies are making the promotions for you. I mean, I don't think they should be selling themselves at taxpayers' expense. Thank you. That's it. MR. HCNEES: Mr. Erlichman followed by Judy Leinweber. MR. ERLICHHAN: Good morning. Gil Erlichman, East Naples and taxpayer and registered voter in Collier County. I'm speaking for myself. I would like to put my 2 cents in here on -- on this so -- on this melaleuca issue. I -- I'm a frequent driver on 1-75 up and down, going North and then coming South between here and Fort Myers, and the most disgusting-looking trees that I see on both sides of the road which -- whichever direction I'm going are these melaleuca trees, and I'm speaking from a personal standpoint so far as the trees themselves when they -- when they are continually blooming. I think they bloom four or five times a year. I'm not a horticulturist. I know -- I know nothing about plants, but all I know is that I am bothered to the extent that I can't even sleep at night sometimes with my postnasal drip and everything else that's caused by the -- my allerg -- my allergenic reaction to the pollen from these melaleuca trees. Anyhow, I would like to see the county clean up its act first. I mean, if you're going to pass an ordinance to have people that own -- owning property get rid -- getting rid of these Brazilian peppers and melaleucas and Australian pines, I think that the county should do -- could clean up the trees that are growing on county property before they even enforce any kind of a law on private property, and I'm talking about the melaleuca trees. I would like to see every one of those darn things cut down and -- and burnt. I learned since I've been down here that the melaleuca trees were brought specifically down into the Everglades to dry up the Everglades. Well, that was about 40 years ago. Now, we have to restore the Everglades. Meanwhile we're -- we're -- we're stuck in saddle with these trees that are -- that are only pests and cause actually damage because they -- what I learned, that they have oily leaves and they -- and the peeling bark on their trunks can become ignited, and that's why we get these frequent fires in the Everglades and also in the areas around 1-75. So I would like the county to do something to get rid of these melaleuca trees. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I would like to thank Gil for a rare environmental viewpoint. MR. MCNEES: Miss Leinweber, and your last speaker is Jim Krakowski. HS. LEINWEBER: I am Judy Leinweber, and we specialize in interior foliage plants at Bay West. I've been involved in horticulture for 31 years, and I am a member of the FNGA. First of all, I think we need to identify exotic foliage plants. That is any foliage plant that is not native to Florida. There is a list out already. It's in the book called "The Identification of the Wetlands." And when we get agencies like the South Florida Water Management that's involved in this and state agencies, the bottom line is xeriscaping. They don't want any foliage plants in the State of Florida except for native plants. I am against the melaleucas and Brazilian peppers. I think Commissioner Berry hit the nail on the head, and Ty Agoston did a very good job, but we really need to worry about the plant cops knocking on our doors and telling us which plants we can grow and can't grow. Before we address the exotics, we need to take care of the worst of the worst first; that is, the melaleucas, Brazilian peppers, whatever, but don't extend a list until we've got the money and manpower and resources to take care of it. In Collier County we only have one plant cop that addresses this problem. That's only one person on the payroll. What's going to be involved in this is going to be tremendous. Do we want to get sucked into this? I think we need to, you know, really look at it. Who's behind it? Who's profiting behind it? The first two people on the list that were speakers are profiting on this. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let -- Let's be fair though. I mean, you just stated you're in the business, so you have -- HS. LEINWEBER: I'm only -- I'm in interior, not exterior. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Whatever comments are made here need to be pertinent to the board action being requested today so -- MS. LEINWEBER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- let's stay on that issue, if we may. MS. LEINWEBER: I realize this. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. MS. LEINWEBER: And if there is going to be a public hearing on this, I wish a notice would be posted in a newspaper so all aspects of agriculture can be involved in this, but please don't get sucked into something the county can't handle because we're looking at big bucks. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Hiss Leinweber. Was that the last speaker? MR. HCNEES: One more, Jim Krakowski. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He's got a badge. MR. KRAKOWSKI: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and County Commissioners. For the record my name is Jim Krakowski. I represent the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I'm the refuge manager for Florida Panther and 10,000 Islands National Wildlife Refuges, and I just have a short comment in regards to this issue that I'll read. Invasive exotic plants are a major threat to the natural systems we have here in Southwest Florida. On February 12 I hosted an invasive exotic plant workshop for state, federal, and non-government land management agencies in Southwest Florida. Fourteen agencies representing approximately one and a quarter million acres participated in that workshop, and the 14 agencies also gave a presentation or gave -- submitted a survey of what exotic plants they had on their areas and what they are doing to control them. These agencies reported 62 species of exo -- invasive exotic plants on their lands. And I should add that those areas closest to urban areas had more -- far more invasive species than those outside, which is understandable. All of these land managers are spending time and money to control these species. We do not collect information on funds expended, but I can assure you that hundreds of thousands of dollars are being spent. These expenditures will only increase in future years if there is not a coordinated effort to control invasive exotic plants. I strongly urge the board to carefully consider EPTAB's recommendations on addressing the invasive exotic plant problem, especially those recommendations concerning the education of Collier County residents on the significance of this issue and identification of problem plants. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Krakowski. Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: First, I want to thank Brad and the committee and echo Commissioner Mac'Kie's sentiments on this. I -- I too think -- We've had the debate from time to time over the last four years of what is EPTAB's role, and I appreciate the work you've done here. I think this certainly is what we're looking for. I want to go ahead and make a motion, and -- and I'd like to suggest that we accept the report first and foremost, and give staff direction to explore some of these, and among those are -- as we look at the final list here: No. 1, coordination; No. 2, research assistance; No. 3(E), which is improvement to follow-up on code enforcement inspection, and I think some of that may come to us in the budget process; 4(C), training sessions for nursery and landscape businesses. Also obviously those people are dealing with this more than anyone else and need to be very well informed. I'd like to see us pursue No. 9, considering all the work that's been done and continue to work on that and particularly 3(F) and 4(B), engage more personnel and -- and the educational pieces I think we need to explore during the budget process. So I'd like to see us do all of those things in addition to accepting the report. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that is in the form of a motion? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It certainly was intended to be. COMHISSIONER BERRY: What do you mean "do all those things"? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Give staff direction to explore those and bring those back in some formal manner to us and -- and -- COMHISSIONER BERRY: Oh, ex -- okay. All right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion on the floor. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Question. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You -- You listed some specific items. Does that mean that we would direct staff not to explore those that you didn't list? For example, re-establishment of former native plant communities, I think that one is particularly interesting, and -- and I'd like to know from staff as a part of the budget process how much would implementation of this entire plan cost. I'd like for them to look at it and tell us what the costs are of all of these goals. So my question on the motion is, in your enumeration of certain of the -- of the options, did you intend for staff not to look at any others? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I had selected the ones I thought were probably the highest priorities for us and -- yeah. I mean, the -- the example you gave, No. 10, re-establishment of former native plant community, I just think it gets into cost-prohibitiveness. It's one more thing for a homeowner to do. It's one more thing for us to do in parks and rec. We have trouble coming up with the dollars to do what we do right now, and -- and we start adding more to that. And as I said before, my primary concern is Joe and Sally Homebuilder trying to build their first home. It's just one more thing that they have to pay for before they can actually build the structure. And so that one in particular I -- I purposely did not include. As we go into the budget season, if staff wants to put price tags on other ones, I don't object to it, but I just picked out the ones I saw that appeared to be obvious priorities for us. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Would -- Would you be willing to -- to amend your motion to say that's -- those are the priorities identified by the board but that we encourage staff to, you know, not limit their recommendations to us? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure. COHMISSIONER BERRY: What about the financial impact on any of it? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I want '- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's what I -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- all of it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. When I say "ask staff to explore," that's item number one as far as I'm concerned: What's the economic impact, and what's the price tag on every item we talk about. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm -- I'm not going to support the motion because I'm not interested in staff chasing their tail on issues that I -- I have no intention of -- of funding. I have no intention of making some of these items priorities when we're talking about an economic development package and now in trying to find a way to fund that this morning, and that is a stated priority of this board. In addition, maybe it's in the report, maybe I missed it, but how many acres of exotics did we have when we decided they had to be removed? How many acres do we have now? What is the propagation rate? What is the removal rate? Are we making any headway? What dollars are being spent to do it? My point is, do we know how effective the existing conditions are. And if we don't know how effective they are, what are we doing adding to them? COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agreed, which is why I did not include adding the 30 lists or adding No. 10 and -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I guess I -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I'll restate my motion. I'm going to go back closer to the original, although I -- what I heard Commissioner Hac'Kie say is that you're not prohibiting them from ever exploring others. I'm not suggesting they explore others, but I don't want to put a prohibition on anything either. But let me restate my motion as -- as originally suggested, and that is, first and foremost, to accept the report; second, give staff direction to explore Items 1, 2, 3(E), 4(C), 9; and during the budget session, specifically bring back 3(F) and 4(B) for us to look at in some detail. I'll leave it at that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Is there a second on the motion? I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I thought that's just exactly what you asked for a moment ago. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. I -- I'm -- I'm just looking down. I needed more of a second to look at the ones that are left out. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman, I -- my concern is that I think we've got a very broad area here that we're trying to -- to look at. To me, if -- if you want to address this, I think you need to pick one or two particular plants here that you want to go after and knowing full well -- you know, providing a brochure perhaps with, you know, the -- the gamut of -- of different things may be one thing, but I -- I think this is a -- a huge problem that we're trying to tackle here. I know you have to start somewhere, but I -- I just see this as such an enormous area, and not knowing the -- the funding situation, I -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- I have some concerns over that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree, which is why I did not include 6(E), which says add 30 more plants, because I think I agree with Miss Leinweber: Let's get a handle on what's already -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- existing before we start adding to it. And what I'm suggesting, I think, is pretty much what you're saying, and all I'm looking for is let's put a price tag and clarify what do we mean by "coordination" and -- and what do we mean by "improved follow-up," and I'm looking for a staff report back on all that -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm ready to second the motion. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and what's the price tag on that. But I think I'm asking you exactly what you're saying. Let's don't add something new. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's clarify what we're doing and -- and put a price tag on it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, I'm with you up till 9, 3(F), and 4(B). I can tell you now, they can come back in the budget process, but I'm not excited about them. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Now, which ones? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Nor am I, and that's all I'm asking, is they come back during the budget process. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman, which ones are you talking about? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just the -- the last three that -- that Commissioner Constantine was asking for more information on, No. 9 and then Items 3(F) and 4(B). The first four, I think, are -- are prudent steps and I'm -- I see no reason to stand in the way of those, and they have little or no budgetary impact. So -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- I think it's a way of identifying without dedicating funds at this point to a problem that we can't really get our arms around so -- There's a motion and a second on the floor. Is there further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor signify by saying aye. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Aye. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Aye. Opposed? COHMISSIONER BERRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry in the opposition. Motion carries 4-1. I'd like to thank EPTAB for their work on this report, and we'll obviously be seeing more of it in the future. PUBLIC COHMENT - DOUG HCGILVRA RE RESOLUTION PASSED BY TAG IN SUPPORT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT IMPACT FEES - DISCUSSED We are on to Item -- or the last item of the morning agenda, public comment on general topics. Mr. HcNees. MR. HCNEES: You have one, Doug HcGilvra. MR. HCGILVRA: If you would pass those down, please. Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Douglas HcGilvra, and I live at North Naples. I'm a member of the Taxpayers' Action Group, and I'm speaking today for the Taxpayers' Action Group. Basically what we're passing out to you is probably already -- you already have it anyway, but I'm going to pass it out again. I want to read to you a resolution the Taxpayers' Action Group made just recently. The Taxpayers' Action Group of Collier County executive committee after extensive discussion supports the following resolution: The Taxpayers' Action Group of Collier County has resolved to support the establishment of a law enforcement impact fee for Collier County to be applied without exception. Signed, Mary Dunavan, Secretary. Less than a minute. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You're welcome anytime, Mr. HcGilvra. Thank you, Doug. Mr. HcNees, no further public speakers? MR. HCNEES: No, sir. Item #12B1 ORDINANCE 97-13, RE PETITION PUD-86-9(4), BRUCE J. SICILIANO, AICP, OF AGNOLI, BARBER & BRUNDAGE, INC., REPRESENTING RONTO DEVELOPMENTS NAPLES, INC., REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE HERITAGE GREENS PUD, REDUCING THE SIDE SETBACK TO 5 FEET FOR ONE STORY GARAGES IN CONJUNCTION WITH COACH HOMES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF IHMOKALEE ROAD (C.R. 846), APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE WEST OF C.R. 951, CONSISTING OF 251.46 ACRES - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Then we'll move on to the afternoon portion of our agenda. Under advertised public hearings, Item 12(B)(1), Petition 86-9(4), Bruce Siciliano of Agnoli, Barber. This is an amendment to Heritage Greens PUD for the purpose of reducing side setbacks for a specific element of the PUD from 10 feet to 5 feet. Mr. Nine. MR. NINO: Yes. Ren Nine for the record, planning services. This petition would -- I understand we need to be sworn in. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Madam Court Reporter -- Could I ask everyone who intends to testify on this item to please stand and raise your right hand. "Testify" means speak in any way, shape, or form. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Please proceed, Mr. Nine. MR. NINO: This petition would have you amend the development -- the table of development standards in the Heritage Greens PUD to provide for reduced setback for -- for the garage portion of any multi-family structure which is one story in height to 5 feet instead of 10 feet, creating a space of 10 feet between building as opposed to 20 feet between buildings. No other change is cent -- No other change is being requested to that PUD document; however, consistent with our policy, one document is being repealed, and another one is being adopted in its place. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Nine. Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: None of these structures have been built or sold, so we're not surprising anyone? MR. NINO: Correct. There is no development in this PUD at the current time. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have any speakers, Mr. McNees? MR. MCNEES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll close the public hearing. Is there a motion? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll move approval. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, motion carries unanimously. Item #12C1 STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COHHUNITY AFFAIRS AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SETTLING DOAH CASE NO. 92-6350GH RE EXISING ROAD, WATER, SEWER, EHS, LIBRARY SYSTEM AND PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE ORDINANCES' CONSISTENCY WITH CERTAIN POLICIES OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN WAS CHALLENGED - APPROVED Item 12(C)(1), recommendation the BCC consider for approval a stipulated settlement agreement between the Florida DCA and Collier County. Good morning, Miss Student. MS. STUDENT: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Marjerie Student, assistant county attorney. This is really quite simple because we are just adding some definitions to the Growth Management Plan and also our Land Development Code as it would relate to the affordable housing bonus density ordinance. And quite some time ago, as referenced in the executive summary, at the behest of Florida Affordable Housing, Inc., the county was sued as to whether certain of those impact fee ordinances were consistent with certain policies of the housing element of the comprehensive plan, and they have since fallen out of the case, but it was taken up with DCA, and DCA took it up with the county, and over a period of years, the settlement agreement is the culmination of negotiations with DCA, and it's really quite simple. And Mr. Mihalic is here to address -- address any substantive questions you might have on the matter. Thank you. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All we're doing here is -- is -- I remember a couple years back we were concerned because the numbers in Collier are skewed so that affordable housing was actually middle-class housing. We said -- MR. MIHALIC: Exactly, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- we did our numbers a little differently. MR. MIHALIC: The comprehensive plan requires us to assist families that have median incomes up to 61,000. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Name for the record, please. MR. MIHALIC: I'm sorry. Greg Mihalic -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. MIHALIC: -- director of housing and urban improvement for the record. Yes, the median income requires us to assist families with median incomes of up to 120 percent of our median, which would be a family of four of $61,500. This settlement will say that in Collier County we will assist families of no higher than 80 percent of median income or a family that makes approximately $40,000 for a family of four. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which still is roughly equivalent to the dollar income in Lee County, for example. MR. MIHALIC: Yes, it is. That's -- Well, it's equivalent to about 100 percent of -- of the median income in Lee County. They choose a higher assistance level -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. MR. MIHALIC: -- for whatever reasons. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Are there questions for staff? Seeing none, do we have speakers? MR. MCNEES: You have no speakers. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none -- Thank you, Mr. Mihalic MR. MIHALIC: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- Miss Student. More of your state and local tax dollars working together for years. Item #12C2 RESOLUTION 97-140 RE PETITION AV-96-034, GEORGE L. VARNADOE, AGENT FOR OWNER, BARRON COLLIER PARTNERSHIP, REQUESTING VACATION OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN A PORTION OF AN EIGHTY FOOT ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY PLATTED AS TRAIL BOULEVARD AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF PINE RIDGE SECOND EXTENSION - ADOPTED AND STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT APPROVED 12(C)(2), Petition AV-96-034; George Varnadoe, agent for Barton Collier Partnership. This is a plat vacation of Trail Boulevard. Mr. Mullet, as you duck around the screen, good morning. MR. HULLER: Good morning. For the record, Russ Mullet of transportation services department. Item 12(C)(2) is a public hearing to consider Petition AV-96-034 for the vacation of a portion of the 80-foot right-of-way known as Trail Boulevard while reserving the westerly 20 feet as a utility and drainage easement. The site location is just south of the new Vanderbilt Beach Road at U.S. 41 in the Pine Ridge area. The reason for the vacation is the -- required to accommodate the Vanderbilt Beach Road construction. Letters of no objection have been received from all user agencies. And the public benefit is a hundred four -- $100,476 worth of property taken for VBR. A resolution was prepared and -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Mullet -- MR. HULLER: Yes? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- would you mind if I streamlined this one? MR. HULLER: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Basically they gave us a bunch of land for VBR. They're asking to vacate a right-of-way that's currently a northerly dead-end that goes nowhere and is probably only used at this point, with the exception of access to a small shopping area, for pedestrian and bicycle use? MR. HULLER: (Nodded head.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have provisions to allow for continued pedestrian and bicycle use in the area? MR. HULLER: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would you just explain to me "with the exception of a small shopping center"? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, there's a -- there's the Naples Cheesecake Company and Tin Cup Cafe and one more business there. This does not affect their access. This is a vacation of nor -- a piece north of that. Okay. Is there anything the petitioner wishes to get on the record on this matter? MR. VARNADOE: I think -- For the record, George Varnadoe representing the petitioner. I want to make sure that when we do this there's also a stipulated judgment that you'll be approving which relates to the condemnation. We ought to probably specifically approve that along with the -- the resolution. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So there will be two motions. The second would be -- and, Mr. Weigel, you'll walk us through that one. That is, in essence, a necessary element of this decision? MR. WEIGEL: It is. Yeah. It's part and parcel of this item. First is the resolution to vacate, and the second is to approve the stipulated final judgment. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. McNees, do we have speakers on this? MR. MCNEES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll close the public hearing. Is there a motion on the first mo -- the first matter of vacation? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion that we approve the vacation. COMHISSIONER BERRY: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none -- Mr. Weigel, what's the phrasing of the second motion to the -- MR. WEIGEL: The second motion would be the approval of the attached stipulated final judgment. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Is there a motion to that effect? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So moved. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, the item is approved. Item #13A1 RESOLUTION 97-141 RE PETITION V-97-1, CRAIG WOODWARD OF WOODWARD, PIRES AND LOHBARDO, P.A., REPRESENTING EVELYN BREWER AND VIVIAN WOLFE, REQUESTING AN AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE OF 3.15 FEET FROM THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 30 FEET TO 26.85 FEET FOR AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY REISDENCE LOCATED AT 467 KENDALL DRIVE ON MARCO ISLAND - ADOPTED Item 13(A), advertised public hearings, Petition V-97-1. I believe we have to have the folks on this petition sworn in, Miss Student? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman -- MS. STUDENT: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why don't we do that first. Then I'll -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I would like to ask all members of the public and petitioners and staff on V-97-1 to stand and raise your -- stand and raise your right hand, please. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, this looks like a fairly no -- somewhat of a no-brainer. The house was built and CO'd in 1980. Now 17 years later they realized in an effort to sell it that they're off by a couple of feet, and so I don't know if petitioner wants to talk us out of this, but it seems like it should be fairly easy for us to approve. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I agree. I'd be ready to second the motion if the public hearing were closed. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Badamtchian, has Commissioner Constantine in any way not synopsized this correctly? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. He was absolutely correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you very much. Do you want to talk us out of it, sir? MR. WOODWARD: No. I'll rest on the council -- commissioners' astute observations. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Do we have public speakers, Mr. HcNees? MR. HCNEES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, motion carries unanimously. Item #13A2 PETITION V-96-31, DANIEL TETLOW, JR., REQUESTING A 7.25 FOOT DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE FROM THE SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT OF 7.5 FEET TO ALOW AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNIT TO REMAIN AT .25 FEET FROM THE WESTERLY SIDE PROPERTY LINE IN AN RSF-4 ZONING DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN NAPLES MANOR SUBDIVISION - TABLED UNTIL THE NEXT LDC CYCLE COMPLETED Item No. 2, Petition V-96-31. Would all members here to speak on that item please stand and raise your right hand. Madam Court Reporter. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Good morning. MS. HURRAY: Good morning. Susan Murray with current planning. The property owner is requesting a 7.25-foot conventional variance to the side-yard setback requirement of 7.5 feet in an RSF-4 zoning district, and this is to allow an existing single-family structure to remain at .25 feet from the westerly side property line. The structure was constructed in 1958 at 2.5 feet from the side property line, and it's located on a legal nonconforming lot. It contains approximately 1,200 square feet of living area. The current property owners just wish to sell the property, and a variance is necessary to obtain clear title. Special conditions do exist in that the structure was constructed in 1958 before the current 7.5-foot side setback requirement. The applicant purchased the structure in 1987 as it is presently constructed, and the fact that the existing structure does not presently conform to current regulations does not result from actions by the present property owner. The structure has existed in its current location for over 30 years with no known detrimental effects to the surrounding neighborhood or public. However, since the .25-foot side setback meets a very small percentage of the required 7.5-foot side-yard requirement, it fails to meet the general intent and purpose of side-yard requirements with regard to separation between structures. Also it could be difficult to perform maintenance to the westerly side of the structure without encroaching into the neighboring property. And it also appears that the existing roof struct -- roof overhang may encroach into the neighboring property to the west. For these reasons staff recommends the BZA approve the requested variance with the following stipulations: And that is, the existing structure may be altered within the scope of routine or required maintenance, provided the alteration does not encroach upon the .25-foot westerly side setback allowed by this variance approval nor any other setback requirement at the time of alteration; however, any enlargement of, or additions to, the structure shall be in conformance with the required setbacks and any other requirements of the LDC at the time of enlargement. I did want to note that at the planning commission meeting, staff recommended to the commission that they consider adding the following stipulation to the resolution: And that would -- that was, should the subject structure be destroyed, moved, or replaced as defined in the land development regulations at the time, a structure may only be reconstructed on the subject property in conformance with the setback requirements and other applicable land use regulations at the time of the replacement. The county attorney's office has reviewed this proposal and has indicated that since a variance is considered to run with the land, their office could not support the above stipulation. And after further consideration the planning commission reviewed this petition on February 7, 1997, and by a vote of 8-0 recommended approval without the aforementioned stipulation but with the others as indicated in the PU -- copy of the resolution in your packets. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Commissioner Constantine, did I note you had a question? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. I'm okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I have a problem with the -- This was purchased in 1987. I'm sorry. Someone obtained title in 1987. I have a problem with the stipulation that says "any additions." As far as I'm concerned, if you -- you know, what we're, in essence, doing is granting the left side of the house, and they can do anything else with the rest of the property they want. We're granting a -- it being 3 inches from the property line in perpetuity, and they can basically tear down the balance of the house, leave that wall standing, and rebuild it maximizing the lot with a 3-inch setback on one side. That's not acceptable to me. You know, when you purchase homes with those kind of conditions, you purchase them as-is, and I have a real problem with allowing that to continue in perpetuity. Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's -- You're getting to one of the points that I've been concerned about for a long time. Mr. Weigel, since the variance runs with the land, do we have the ability -- is that in our Land Development Code, or is that in Florida Statutes, or where does that principle come from, and do we have the ability to modify that or to come up with something different like perhaps a conditional variance? MR. WEIGEL: You have several good questions there. I think Margie will answer the preponderance of them. But we advise the staff and the -- and the planning commission in regard to the status of the law that exists, not only locally with our Land Development Code, but what case law has indicated concerning variances running with the land, and she'll expound upon that briefly. Additionally, our review of this -- knowing that -- that variances do run with the land, our advice to -- in the -- in the staff review process is that until we make a change in our own ordinance, we really technically can't do what is being attempted to be done with the stipulation that's there. Not withstanding that some may agree that it's good, some may say it's bad, but it's as technicians -- legal technicians we don't have the mechanism in our own local code right now to do that. Did I state that correctly? MS. STUDENT: Yes. And I'll just elaborate very briefly. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Name for the record. MS. STUDENT: My name is Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney for the record. The case law which is common law in the State of Florida tells us that variances run with the land. The policy, reason, and our opinion for that is because variances have traditionally been applied in a situation where you have a hardship because of the irregular shape of the land, and if that's not going to change for any reason, it wouldn't make sense to have variances not run with the land. However, I believe that we could look at our amendment to our land code where we have some different classes of variances, if you would, and there are other jurisdictions which do that, and they have criteria for the different classes because some of the things we're called on to look at do not deal really with the land-related hardship, and we can break it out in that way. And then this case tells us that if we have a provision in our land code, a specific provision that would permit that, we could limit those, and that would be applicable to these other classes of variances. So I think that's something we need to look at. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's a -- That's something I would like to have our staff pursue in the next LDC cycle -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You have two for that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- come up with something like that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Make it three. MR. MULHERE: May I just add one piece of information? And I think we can probably get some information in this upcoming cycle related to -- to your request because we've got time to do that. Not to be argumentative, but there is some language in Section 2.7.5.7 under the variance procedures section of the code entitled "Conditions and Safeguards," and I've talked with Margie about it, and she does not feel that this necessarily provides sufficient justification for the board to put a -- for example, a limitation such as if the structure was -- was destroyed, that it would be built to the -- the standards in effect at the time it was destroyed, but I do want to read it because -- It says, In recommending approval of any variance, the planning commission may recommend appropriate conditions and safeguards in conformity with the zoning code, including, but not limited to, reasonable time limits within which the action for which the variances required shall -- shall be begun or completed or both. In violation of such conditions, safeguards would be made a part of the terms under which the variances granted shall be deemed a violation of this zoning code. I would presume that -- of course, it talks about the planning commission -- that that right extends to you as well as the final decision-making body on -- on a variance, and -- and so I think it's a question of interpretation from my perspective as to how far conditions and safeguards may be. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I'm not going to listen to you two argue. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They won't even take my legal advice, Bob. I bet they won't take yours. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. I'm not going to -- MR. MULHERE: Well, I got to practice attorney for a few minutes anyway. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Appreciate that, and you'll be getting a bill. Mr. Weigel, my -- my question -- has been forgotten, so never mind. MR. WEIGEL: If your question is, if you go forward with the staff recommendation, what happens or what may happen -- might that be your question? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. Thank you. I -- I remember it. Is there a way for this property owner to obtain title to this property but just have to pay for an additional layer of insurance in -- in obtaining it? I mean, I -- I -- when I -- when I bought my house, there was an encroachment into a utility easement that had been there since the home was built. Well, I paid an additional level of insurance to obtain title to the home -- MR. WEIGEL: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- and just upped my annual -- my annual amount, but I was still able to obtain title. What we're hearing is that if we don't grant this variance, this home can never be sold to anyone. I don't understand that to be true from my personal experiences. MR. WEIGEL: No. What I think -- We've run into this problem with what happened to be original construction and -- and location defects up in Pelican Bay and other places where -- in fact, yes. It's a title glitch for the review of title, and frequently in financing they say, "Oops, this is a problem. It's got to be taken care of," and that's where the problem is. It, in essence, could continue to exist for an indeterminate period of time with the current ownership, but it's the -- usually in the financing end of things that someone says, "Well, I think we've got a problem here." If it's not totally copacetic, they won't provide the loan to the purchaser to make the -- to make the purchase. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. WEIGEL: And -- but there are other ways of relief, as you mentioned, and that is concei -- conceivably to purchase additional land or break out a segment -- it might require a resubdivision, though, if we're talking about an area that's already subdivided, a replat requirement so that instead of buying a whole lot next door, if you're going to break out a little sliver and not run into a problem with what's already built next door in its setbacks and stuff like that. It could be problematical, but it could potentially be done too as far as that goes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just -- I want to make clear what I think is a short answer to this. You probably can't get a mortgage on this house unless we approve the variance. So if the house can be sold for cash -- but I bet there aren't a lot of those transactions in Naples Manor, so this house can't be sold by a buyer who requires a mortgage as long as this exists on the -- unless this variance is approved. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Tells us something about the '87 purchase, doesn't it? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are there any public speakers, Mr. McNees? MR. MCNEES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I know this is a very unfortunate situation, but to grant this variance would be a disservice to the adjoining property owner. Since the variance is going to run with the land, that means that this -- this particular dwelling could be removed and another one rebuilt within -- what did you say? -- 3 inches -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: 3 inches. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- of the property line? That's just -- simply is not fair to the adjoining property owner. I -- I think that we could perhaps maybe take some -- some different action at a future date on this particular property if our staff is able to come up with some mechanism for us to do so in the LDC, but for now I'm going to make a motion to deny this variance. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If -- if this -- Mr. Weigel, if this variance is denied, is there a time limitation on -- assuming that we got a change in the LDC in this cycle, would this negative vote prohibit the reapplication under the new -- new and improved conditional variance that we're talking about? MR. WEIGEL: I think there is a time limitation perhaps through the procedure. You may just want to table this indefinitely. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what I was hoping. My -- if we tabled this -- MR. WEIGEL: Or table it -- table it with a time certain to -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: -- come back, like six months or eight months. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll amend my motion to one of tabling this. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And -- and just specifically, that tabling is until such time that we complete the current Land Development Code amendment cycle and other relief may be available to the property owner? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Is there any discussion? All those in favor signify -- I'm sorry. The second amends? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The second amends. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There wasn't a second so -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It was a second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. All those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It is now. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that is tabled. Thank you very much. Item #13A3 RESOLUTION 97-142 RE PETITION CU-96-25, AGNOLI, BARBER & BRUNDAGE, INC., REPRESENTING COHMUNITY CONGREGATIONAL UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST, REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE "7" AND "11" OF THE "A" ZONING DISTRICT FOR CHURCH EXPANSION AND ACCESSORY USES AND A CHILD CARE CENTER FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15300 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH - ADOPTED WITH STIPULATIONS On to No. 3, Conditional Use 96-25. Unless the board has a concern, it's my intent to go through the remaining items without a break, complete the -- complete the agenda and -- and adjourn. CU-96-25. Would all the members of staff, the public, and otherwise stand and raise your right hand, please. Madam Court Reporter. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, can I ask our staff three quick questions on this? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You certainly can. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just yes or no on these. This is a -- There is an existing church? MR. NINO: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And it's located on U.S. 417 MR. NINO: Correct. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just up by the Lee County line? MR. NINO: Immediately south of Szabo Nursery. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And -- and there have been no public objections to this -- MR. NINO: Other than -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- expansion? MR. NINO: Other than the communication which I just handed out to you in which they really don't object to it, but they ask two additional stipulations be added to the resolution, and -- and staff has reviewed this. We have no -- no difficulty with it. We think they -- they should be added. The petitioner agrees to add them to the stipulations. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the planning commission approved? MR. NINO: The planning commission did not have an opportunity to review this inasmuch as it came to us after the planning commission meeting. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: With the exception of those plan -- MR. NINO: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- the -- those changes, the planning commission approved unanimously? MR. NINO: Yes. Unanimously. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Can I get on the record, the petitioner, do you agree to the items that Mr. Nino has -- has stated? MR. FARRAR: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. And your name for the record? MR. FARRAR: Brian Farrat for Agnoli, Barber & Brundage. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Are there further questions of staff? Mr. HcNees, do we have any speakers? MR. HCNEES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- with the stipulations in this addendum. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none -- (Applause) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Your -- Your patience is appreciated. Item #13A4 PETITION V-96-28, JOHN GRISSOM REPRESENTING LANDMARK COHMUNITIES, C/O MIKE JEPPESEN REQUESTING A 1.94 FOOT DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE FROM THE REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT OF FIVE FEET FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN A PUD ZONING DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN QUEEN'S PARK SUBDIVISION AT LAGO VERDE, PHASE SEVEN, LOT 189 - TABLED UNTIL LDC AMENDMENTS ARE COMPLETED. STAFF TO WORK WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COHMITTEE RE SURVEYS Next item, Petition Variance 96-28, John Grissom representing Landmark Communities requesting a 1.94 dimensional variance from a setback of 5 feet. Again, would all members -- all -- all individuals here to speak on this item please raise -- stand and raise your right hand. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Good afternoon. MS. HURRAY: Good afternoon. Susan Murray with current planning. The applicant is requesting a 1.94-foot dimensional variance from the required 5-foot rear-yard setback requirement to allow an existing pool walkway and screen enclosure to remain at 3.06 feet from the rear property line. The need for the variance resulted from a scaling error of 6.94 feet by the applicant's pool contractor. At the time of application for permit approval, the pool was shown lying 10 feet from the rear property line. When the pool was -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry. When was that approval? When was this done? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Just very recently. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: '96? MS. HURRAY: Yes. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, '96. MS. HURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So the pool company made a -- an apparent mistake but submitted documentation showing the pool being 10 feet from the rear property? MS. HURRAY: That's correct. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who was the surveyor? Do we know? MS. HURRAY: Let me check the -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In the erroneous survey. MS. HURRAY: Well, let me explain a little bit further. When the appli -- The pool contractor came in to apply for his pool permit. He drew the pool in on a survey and showed the left rear corner being 10 feet from the rear property line. So in the end when they -- he went to get final approval, in reality the pool was constructed 3.06 feet from the rear property line. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So he told us, "We're going to build it 10 feet from the property line," and then failed to do so? MS. HURRAY: That's correct. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: For me the most telling thing is the second paragraph under considerations and we're required -- if we're going to grant something, to -- to -- there's a certain hurdle which must be met, and -- and it says it's not due to special conditions and circumstances peculiar to the land, structure, or building, and there are no preexisting conditions. I guess we need the petitioner to tell us otherwise if there is, because by law we can't grant it unless there are. MR. MCNEES: You do have a speaker registered. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Assaad, you also rose to speak on this matter. Are you registered to speak also? MR. ASSAAD: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Is the petitioner here? Are you the petitioner, sir? MR. GRISSOM: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Please come to the podium and state your name for the record, please. MR. GRISSOM: My name is John Grissom. I own Diamond Pool Construction. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Grissom, did your company make a mistake here? MR. GRISSOM: I personally made the mistake. I -- When I went in to do my permit application, I did not have a scale ruler with me, and I had a copy of the faxed survey with me. I used a -- a 25-foot tape measure, and I just scratched the thing in on the survey, and it was incorrect. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Grissom, quite frankly -- MR. GRISSOM: I -- I understand. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- we have been asking adjoining property owners to eat these variances because of mistakes such as not properly surveying the corner points of the work to be done. We had in Naples Park the same situation. We had one situation where a surveyor even went off the front property line and never checked it off the rear. I don't recall granting that variance. And I'm just -- you know, I feel like granting this type of variance is accepting the practice that you just outlined, and that's very, very difficult for me to do individually. MR. GRISSOM: I understand. I -- I can't -- There's nothing I can say to justify the mistake, and to do so would be ridiculous but -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I'm not trying to grill you. I'm just trying -- MR. GRISSOM: I know. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- to tell you -- MR. GRISSOM: I know. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- the position we're in. MR. GRISSOM: I -- All I can say is that I've been doing this for five years in Collier County. I've never made a mistake before. I -- I went for the variance for my customer. I paid for the -- and I -- I -- I'm just trying to serve my customer here. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I understand. Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let -- Let me ask a couple of questions. What -- what is -- That's a lake drainage easement? You're -- you're backing up -- MR. GRISSOM: Yes, sir. There's a -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- to a lake? MR. GRISSOM: -- 20-foot lake drainage easement beyond the rear. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. And what would you have to do -- If the variance is -- is declined, what action would you have to take to make this conform? MR. GRISSOH: I'd have to cut the 1.94 square feet off of the corner of the pool deck and angle the screen enclosure there, which really doesn't -- it doesn't serve the neighbors either, I mean, as far as -- what this -- it -- It doesn't help anybody if we have to do that. It -- It takes away from my customer, but it doesn't help the neighbors either because it doesn't affect the neighbors actually. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Because -- MR. GRISSOH: It's a radius line. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Because there's not a neighbor? MR. GRISSOH: No. There are neighbors. There are neighbors. It's on a cul-de-sac though and the -- the lots -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: There's side neighbors, but there's not a rear neighbor? MR. GRISSOH: No, there is no rear neighbor. And if they planted a bush in that corner, it would be the same effect. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Are there any further questions for the petitioner? Do we have registered speakers? MR. HCNEES: Yes. One. Wafaa Assaad. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. GRISSOH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Wafaa, you can just hand those to me. I'll hand them out. Thank you. MR. ASSAAD: For the record I'm Wafaa Assaad, the president of Landmark Communities. We are the owners and developers of the land, and we contracted to build the house that has the variance. After the house was permitted without the pool, it was surveyed, and the survey meets all of the requirements, including all of the setbacks. The owner of the house or the buyer of the house wanted to build a house, so we contracted with this pool company to -- to get the permit and build the pool. When they went to get the permit, they did not go for the actual engineering or mathematically calculated. He used the scale offered use survey plan to measure the setback and get the permit expeditiously. This is where the mistake happened by the pool contractor. After the pool was built, the house was sold. And to make the problem a little bit more clear in your eyes, it's -- it's a cul-de-sac lot, and it's not like a block of land even where a variance would be protruding into the back yard, would take the elevation or the view from neighboring properties. It just clip the corner of the pool to the extent of about 2 feet. That would have been very simple to correct if you can look down the cage and take that 2 feet out except that the pool sits about 2 feet away from the cage. It doesn't have a very wide deck. So if you take that 2 feet out of the pool deck and push the cage back, you would have a screen enclosure that sits right at the edge of the water line of the pool in one corner where it prohibits access around the pool. None of that is -- is intentional. It's a small mistake. I don't think it helps the neighbors to -- to do any of that. It's definitely a mistake. The cure is much worse than the problem. We thought if the variance was granted we'd be very happy to landscape around that corner of the pool and thus make it look like part of the landscaping image of the community and not part of any protrusion into the back yard. If you go out physically to the site like I did, you will find that this particular lot is at the tip of the cul-de-sac. That protrusion doesn't take a lot of view from anybody else. And given the lake back behind the house and the access easement and the drainage easements and the water level in the lake, you don't feel that the house or the cage is sitting too close to the lake. There is plenty of room, grass, landscaping, and sodding behind. So we're down on our knees. We're asking for mercy. We made the mistake. I wish there was a penalty or a cure other than not granting the variance because simply not granting the variance would compound the problem and would not make it good for anyone, including the neighbors or the community. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Is the house -- you say it's been sold. Is it currently occupied by the -- the owner? MR. ASSAAD: Yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It is. MS. MURRAY: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. MS. MURRAY: If I may, just for your information, I wanted to let you know I did receive letters in opposition, one from a Mr. Rafael claiming to be a representative of the neighbors on either side of the subject property. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is he an attorney? MS. MURRAY: No, sir. He is a home care company and real estate broker. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MS. MURRAY: And the second was from a Gary and Linda Peretes, and they lived across the lake on Lot 95. Actually, kind of the gist of both of these letters were that these folks wanted to design a similar type of pool, and -- and it fell into the setback -- rear-yard setback requirements, so they were required to alter the design of their pool to comply, and -- and they feel a -- a little bit unfairness here because somebody made a mistake and they had to comply. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. My question is -- is -- is actually -- This may be more for Wayne or Bob. Gentlemen, if I could have one of your -- one of your attention, please. How come we keep coming back to issues regarding pool companies where there was no spot survey required before the pool was constructed? I don't understand why we require spot surveys on homes and commercial buildings yet a tape measure seems to be acceptable for a pool. MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think -- For the record, Wayne Arnold, planning services director. In speaking, I guess, in this instance for the building department, I would tell you that I don't believe it's a requirement that you turn in a survey pre-building permit issuance, that the spot survey is the guarantee that everything is in compliance with the setback requirements in the code. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And the spot survey we requ -- we received at the final construction of this pool is what indicated the encroachment? MR. ARNOLD: In this particular case it was. It's a ten-day spot survey requirement, but it's also required prior to getting your further inspections, but on a pool there really aren't that many inspections so that it -- it -- it generally falls with the final. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I just know before you pour the foundation of a house it is almost -- I mean, it's an industry rule that you get a survey company to set the corner points yet no one -- you know, we keep seeing this on pools. Apparently, you know, there's so much competition out there, corners are being cut so much that they're -- they're taking chances on where this pool ends up being regard -- you know, in relation to the setback. That's bad business. It's bad for the customer, it's bad for the industry, and it puts these kind of lousy decisions in our lap, and I don't appreciate it because we either have to unfairly penalize this homeowner because of a stupid mistake, or we have to accept it on behalf of the people who live in that community who don't want it. We're in a no-win situation here. MR. ASSAAD: I wish there was a cure where the pool guy -- the gentleman who built the pool and even myself can pay a penalty, can do something that -- that -- that make the system whole. It's -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We've looked into that. MR. ASSAAD: It's a mistake. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We can't do it. Okay. MR. ASSAAD: But -- and -- and -- I mean, in all fairness also, just maybe a consideration is it's a cul-de-sac lot. There is a big lake behind it. The protrusion is not the entire length of the screen enclosure. It's just the corner. If the cage was built properly and we have planted a couple of trees -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me -- let me ask you -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. I'm -- I'm going to interrupt you because we're -- we're -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask a very simple question. Are there special conditions or circumstances peculiar to the land, structure, or building, keeping in mind that economic hardship does not qualify? MR. ASSAAD: I -- I would have to say that the only cure to the problem is to knock the cage back by the 1.95 feet would -- would put the cage right at the edge of the pool; so, therefore, if you want it down, it would create a bigger -- a bigger impact on us. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So -- so the answer to my -- MR. ASSAAD: The planning -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The answer to my question, then, is no? MR. ASSAAD: The answer to your question is no because -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I -- MR. ASSAAD: I mean -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I heard a -- a potential special circumstance. I'm not sure which way -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's what I was looking for. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm not sure which way I'm going on this, but a circumstance might be that the decking on this pool is unusually narrow; therefore, if you cut it off, there is no pool deck at this corner. That seems to me to be, you know, potentially a special circumstance that we might -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Boy, I don't know if that fits land, structure, or building. I mean, that's -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, structure. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- part of the problem with what they built. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The deck is the structure. I'm -- and I'm not, again, taking a position yet. MR. ASSAAD: Can I have -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm just -- MR. ASSAAD: I have -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Assaad, can you just -- Thank you. The -- The structure is the one we're talking about though, and that -- that deck and the pool is what's in question. I think when we talk about structure, we're talking about setbacks on existing structures, or maybe Mr. Weigel can help me there. But if I build a home that encroaches on the setback, my home is then a structure, but that doesn't count. It -- it's -- The idea when it says "structure" is for preexisting conditions or something that is out of the ordinary. I can't have created the problem. MR. WEIGEL: That is correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A tenth of a foot is a mistake. This isn't an oops in my opinion, and I -- I just -- again, I just tremendously resent being put in this position and I am -- you know, I'm -- I don't want to let a company off the hook by making this decision and -- and I'm sorry. I know that sounds cruel, but I did it in my own district. You know, this isn't something I haven't stood up to in other areas of the county, including those that may affect me individually. So I'm just not inclined to say it's okay. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're right. I mean, the board said probably a year ago that we needed to take a stand to assure this didn't happen. We had -- We had kind of floundered on two or three items, and -- and we said we need to take a stand to make sure that -- I mean, ultimately the pool builder is going to be responsible here, and -- and while it will certainly be an inconvenience to the homeowner, I don't know that it will hit them economically, but we're required -- I mean, we have a responsibility here. If we're going to grant a variance, it has to meet certain criteria, and it -- and it doesn't, and so I don't know that we've got a whole lot of -- MR. ASSAAD: Hay I -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- leeway here. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No, Mr. Assaad, you may not. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You want to close the public hearing? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are there additional public speakers? MR. HCNEES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I'm going to close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to make a motion to deny the petition because it does not meet any of the criteria. It's not a special condition or circumstance peculiar to the land or structure or building that were existing. There are no preexisting conditions. This was plain and simple an error. And while it's unfortunate we need to go that way, it doesn't meet the letter of the law we're required to follow. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I understand and completely agree with you; however, I think what we're going to do if we deny this variance is punish the homeowner more than we're going to punish anyone else and like -- like has been stated already, this is -- this is one of those really awkward positions where either way you go you're probably wrong, and I don't know what to do about it. I -- I -- I think that the homeowner is the one that's going to suffer more than anyone else though, and I don't -- I don't really think that's in our best interest. COMHISSIONER BERRY: CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: COMHISSIONER BERRY: past? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: COMHISSIONER BERRY: CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: COMHISSIONER BERRY: CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, how many -- Commissioner Berry. -- of these have you granted in the While I've been on the board? Yeah. I mean, just -- Yeah. -- do you roughly recall? I'd say it's a third, two-third -- you know, two-thirds of them have not been granted, and maybe, you know, a third have. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Have most of them had neighbors behind -- living behind them or -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, the most recent one -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- that -- that are impacted by this? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The most recent one a unanimous decision -- decision by this board was in Vanderbilt Beach with a canal behind them, you know, and that involved tearing down the wall of a structure. COMMISSIONER BERRY: It required -- They had to do that because it was denied? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. We have in Naples Park cut off the corner of -- We've done the same thing, cut off the corner of a cage, if I remember correctly. And the whole idea was to send a message to the building community that you checked your work before you construct, not after, and apparently that message has gotten through in some areas but not in all. And the same argument could be made for every one of those cases we turned down in the past, that we're penalizing the homeowner. The truth is, who's going to have to rectify this is the pool company at their expense, and it's a civil matter between the homeowner and the pool company. It was the pool company's job to make sure that this complied with the setbacks. They failed to do that. I -- I have a second step here, regardless of how this motion goes, that is going to ask our staff to develop a notification to all pool companies when they pull permits that a spot survey prior to construction is highly recommended and -- and -- and some notification element because apparently this is not an industry standard or we wouldn't be seeing these kinds of variances. But, you know, this decision stands alone. I don't disagree with you, Commissioner Norris. I'm just -- I'm trying to be consistent. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I understand. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I -- Some of those votes haven't been unanimous because I have voted in the minority because I can't get the phrase "the death of common sense" out of my head. I agree that we have a big flag waving here that there's a problem, but the problem needs to be addressed in our codes, perhaps in the way that you're describing, and not to -- to penalize the innocent, and -- and I'm going to continue for consistency to vote against the motion that's on the floor and to urge us to address the problem and particularly with regard to pool enclosures. Apparently this is the prevalent issue. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion. Is there a second? I'll second the motion. All those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Aye. Opposed? COMHISSIONER BERRY: Aye. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Aye. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The motion fails. Is there a substitute motion? The opposition was Commissioners Berry, Norris, and Mac'Kie. Is there a substitute motion? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I will reluctantly move approval of the variance request in the interest of common sense and -- and ask you, please, Commissioner Hancock, to forge some kind of a recommendation to staff along the lines that you were describing earlier. COMHISSIONER BERRY: I will second that based on the very same thing because I agree with the chairman, that this seems very flagrant actually. I mean, you're not talking a matter of, you know, a couple of inches or a foot. This is, frankly, ridiculous, and I think we need to do something, but I'm not -- I'm not ready to penalize the homeowner at this point. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm just -- I'm having a tough time with how we're going to turn -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me make a -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- out the next one. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me make a suggestion. COMHISSIONER BERRY: No. I think with your -- with your recommendations that we take -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion to table this. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. There is a substitute motion on the floor which does take precedence. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll consider seconding if you explain why. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Because we're going to revise our variance procedures in the next cycle of the LDC. The problem with granting this 2-foot variance is there's -- once you do that, there's no restriction then from them building anything out in that -- that varied area. COMHISSIONER BERRY: Then I'll withdraw my second -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- of the previous motion. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. There is a -- There is now one motion on the floor. Is there a second to the motion? COMHISSIONER BERRY: To -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: To table. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: To table. COMHISSIONER BERRY: To table? I'll second it to table. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There's a motion, and there's a second to table. Is there any discussion on the motion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye. COMHISSIONER BERRY: Aye. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Opposed? Aye. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries 3-2. That is tabled until the LDC amendments are completed. Then we'll address at least the issue of variances and meth -- methods of variances. I'd like to ask the board to give direction by a consensus to our staff some checklist criteria, a single element with a signature required be issued to -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agreed. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- pool companies at the time of building permit issuance that a spot survey is -- not a spot survey, but -- but corner points be located by method of acceptable survey prior to construction. I want them notified of that because I have every intention of continuing to deny these types of petitions individually in the future. MR. ASSAAD: May I be allowed to address the board for half a minute? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Actually, Mr. Assaad, we really can't. That's out -- That's out of order from the -- the process we're in, so I'm sorry. MR. ASSAAD: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- maybe for Mr. Weigel about the -- what's the legal status of this property with the motion to table? MR. WEIGEL: Well, it's -- pardon me. It's not in compliance with our code. It's sub -- It's technically subject to, you know, being considered in violation and enforcement. I expect that the unwritten statement from the board in both this and that prior item is that from the county staff enforcement standpoint, etc., this will be on hold until they come back from the LDC. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I -- I think that's -- that's assumed, that enforcement action on these two are to be withheld, but that's not to apply to all variances that may appear on our agenda between now and the time of -- of the -- I want to hear them individually according to existing code. Is there some direction to staff? And I think they should work with the development services advisory committee in formulating how that should be done but there is -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. That is the end of V-96-28. Item #13A5 RESOLUTION 97-143 RE PETITION V-96-30, JOEL HETTS REPRESENTING FRANCIS OAKES OF OAKES PRODUCE MARKET REQUESTING A VARIANCE OF 15 FEET FROM THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 15 FEET TO 0 FEET FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2205 DAVIS BOULEVARD - ADOPTED Next item, V-96-30, Joel Metts, representing Francis Oakes of Oakes Produce Market requesting a 15-foot variance. I would like to ask all members that are here to -- to testify in this matter to stand and raise their right hand. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have one question before you start. The -- Is there a variance on this property today existing? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The -- No. The building was built in the 1950s, I believe, and at that time the side setback was zero. That's what they built on this property line. Today the side setback is 15, and they want to tear down a portion of the building and rebuild that portion, but they want to come to you on the same existing prop -- building line. In conjunction with this variance, they are also proposing to relandscape the side and close one of the accesses for the side and resurface the parking lot, restripe it, and provide handicap space. The planning commission heard this petition and by vote of 8-0 recommended approval. Unfortunately I don't see the applicant here today. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My concern is they want to replace an existing one with something larger. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just in the for-what-it's-worth department, to let you guys know, I -- hopefully today, maybe tomorrow, a series of -- of letters are going to go out from me to all the property owners along the East Trail and Davis Boulevard corridors to ask them to begin meeting to discuss issues similar to these that result from -- Our codes currently create a great disincentive for improvement of property along these two corridors, and I'm hoping that we can get some ideas from the public and our staff as participating not in necessarily a redevelopment agency but in -- in -- in an effort to encourage the redevelopment improvement of these commercial properties along those two corridors. And I don't know, Mr. Hulhere, if you'd have an opinion about in general whether or not, you know, this is the kind of thing that -- that we're going to be looking for, but I -- I do want to encourage this redevelopment effort when it results in bringing some properties up to code for signage and landscaping and those kinds of considerations. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You did say up to code. MR. HULHERE: I -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. HULHERE: I -- I think that -- yes, the staff in other circumstances -- for example, with the -- in the next Land Development Code amendment cycle, you'll be hearing about the Marco Island overlay district. We looked at some areas on Marco Island that really were probably right for redevelopment, and we looked at, you know, reducing some things like side setbacks in excha -- or reducing parking requirements in exchang for certain things the property owners -- and this is all to be proposed to you -- but in exchange for certain things that property owners would be willing to do, which would be adhering to the new signage requirements, you know, improving the landscaping to meet the code, and -- and maybe even going further, at least in the Marco Island scenario, and I think the staff -- and the reason for the staff's recommendation on a variance like this -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Mulhere and Commissioner Mac'Kie, we had an item that this may be an ancillary to, but the item before us is a variance. MR. MULHERE: And -- and I just want -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Can we get through that item before an open discussion on redevelopment? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, actually, the -- the reason for the mention was to -- because I think it's a factor in whether or not we approve this variance, that it is difficult to encourage redevelopment and improvement of properties without variances presently. CHAI~ HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I want to encourage, and I think the only avenue available currently is a variance. MR. MULHERE: I'm not trying to get off the subject. I was going to tie it into the fact that the staff's position has been in the past with these and the reason we recommended approval on this one has been that, you know, we -- we would look at having improvements to the property, and -- and another ancillary factor is that in residential zoning the Land Development Code allows you to construct along the same line even if you're nonconforming if -- if when you develop, you developed according to the standards set forth in the code. And I recognize the board's recent position has been somewhat different from that. And -- and so ancillary to this petition is the fact that whether or not any future considerations of the same factor where you have a -- a building that was built and conform to the code and now they want to expand. In exchange for that expansion, they're willing to make some improvements. Our position has been to support that, and -- and I recognize that the board has some concerns over that position, and that's why I brought that up. CHAI~ HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. I -- I understand the context now. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you just show me on that map the -- in -- in the summary it says part of the existing building is at zero. They would like to enlarge what will be at zero. MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you show me on there how that works? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: This is the portion of the building that's sitting right on the property line here, and they are tearing down this portion of the building and building this instead. And I should add that there's an existing building on the property -- built on the property line right here adjacent to the proposed building. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Say that again, please. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: There's an existing building on the property line which will be adjacent to the proposed building. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So there's no separation between the two structures? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: There will be no separation. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Are they correcting non -- or other issues on this site that are currently not in compliance with the code but will be afterward? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: For one thing, they have too many accesses to the road -- CHAI~ HANCOCK: Okay. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: -- and we are enclosing one of those accesses for the side. They are going to relandscape the entire side per Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. That -- you probably don't mind if I do this. Commissioner HcNee -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Commissioner HcNees, what district do you represent? MR. HCNEES: You already promoted me once today. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I am so hungry. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: He just cut your pay in half. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There goes your raise. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. HcNees, I apologize for the -- either promotion or insult. I'm really not sure which. Do we have any public speakers on this? MR. HCNEES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm going to close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Move approval. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, V-96-30 is approved. See, we approve variances sometimes. Item #14A ECO SYSTEM RESTORATION TASK FORCE TO MEET AT THE CONSERVANCY ON MARCH 4 REGARDING LAKE TRAFFORD - CHAIRMAN TO SIGN A LETTER IN SUPPORT OF THIS MATTER We are on to BCC communications. Commissioner Mac'Kie? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. Actually, my only item of communication I think I communicated in the variance, just to let you know that that process has begun, and I'll keep you posted. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Very efficient. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing today. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry? COHMISSIONER BERRY: Yes. On March 5 the group called the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force Working Group is going to be meeting at The Conservancy, and they will be reviewing projects and trying to prioritize them apparently, and one of the projects in consideration is Lake Trafford, and I'm asking if we might by consensus have some kind of support in terms of a letter or something, that I -- I'm planning to attend this. They do have a time for public comment. They are looking for support in this regard, and I would like to have some kind of a letter to take from the Board of Commissioners over to speak to this group. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This board has adopted a resolution in the past supporting efforts and identifying county participation. Does the board have any problem with my signing a letter restating that resolution and the board support of same? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Encourage you to do so. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. And, Miss Filson, would you prepare that? We have something similar to that already prepared that was addressed to Mr. Thomas. If we could get the proper addressee from Commissioner Berry, I'll be -- and you'll prepare that, we'll -- we'll get that signed and taken care of. Item #14B DISCUSSION REGARDING PUBLIC ACCESS TELEVISION - NO INTEREST BY COHMISSION Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a -- a few items. One, first of all, is fairly quick. I had a gentleman -- and he may have stopped to see each of you -- but spoke with me in reference to public-access television and the purported advantages thereof and -- and didn't know if the board wanted to entertain that at any point or not. I told him I'd bring it up to the board, and if we didn't, we'd let him know, and if we wanted to explore that, then we'd let him know as well, and wanted to just see if there was any interest in the board in -- in exploring that as we prepare to deal with our franchisers -- ees. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And -- and you're -- you're referring to full public-access television? COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's correct. COHHISSIONER NORRIS: No, I don't have any interest in that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: From what I've seen of content and lack of control in the full public-access TV in other areas, I don't -- I'm not really -- I don't think that's an area I want to bargain with in the -- in the future. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Can't the cable company do that on their own? I mean, do they need our -- Why would they need our approval? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't -- I'm just asking if there's -- I'm not a proponent. I'm just inquiring. He said, you know, if -- if the board doesn't have an interest, we won't spend a lot of time, and -- and so I told him I'd ask, and if there's not, we won't have him spend a lot of time on it. Item #14C HOUSE BILL 207 RE FLORIDA RETIREHENT SYSTEH - RESOLUTION TO BE BROUGHT BACK OPPOSING SAID BILL A couple of other things. One, I wanted to bring to your attention -- there is a house bill -- this has been introduced the last couple of years and failed both years and hopefully will again this year, but I wanted to see if -- if there was interest in passing a resolution opposing House Bill 207 which deals with the Florida retirement system, and what it would effectively do is take county commissioners out of the Florida retirement system -- COMHISSIONER BERRY: And school board. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and school board members, other elected officials. And my concern is, particularly here in Collier we've grown into a place where this is a full-time job, and -- and there are small communities around the state where clearly, you know, someone is -- is gathering $8,000 or $15,000 a year. They're not depending on this as their primary job. We have commissioners who are, and -- and my concern is, if you take the commission and other elected officials in similar-sized communities out of the Florida retirement system, you are effectively penalizing people for serving four years or eight years of public service by not allowing them to have some sort of retirement in their job. And -- and I take this very seriously as a full-time job. I know other commissioners on our board do that and I just -- While I appreciate the fact that in some of the small communities it may not be a full-time job, it is here, and it is in other counties around the state, and I think House Bill 207 goes a step too far. It is actually penalizing people for public service. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I agree. It doesn't differentiate between size, and size is directly related to responsibilities, I think, and maybe 20 years ago this -- this -- and ten years ago, this may not have been a full-time job, but it can be today. And so I am in support of a resolution in opposition to Bill -- House Bill 207. COMMISSIONER BERRY: They continue this every year. For probably eight of the ten years that I was on the school board, this is something that cropped up, and they tried every year to eliminate this particular part. Also in regard to school boards, they tried to take them out of the payment system all together. Due to the time consumption of this particular job, it does require a lot of time, and it is a -- a full-time job. I certainly support anything that we can tell them to be in opposition of this particular -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There -- COMHISSIONER BERRY: -- proposal. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's three. And if there's no objection, I'll just have Mr. Weigel prepare a resolution and -- and bring it back for some -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Great. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- formal action but -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's fine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- that's a legitimate concern. Item #14D DISCUSSION REGARADING GOLDEN GATE ESTATES AND PARK SITE OWNED BY AVATAR - REAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT TO LOOK AT THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY A couple other items. One, I have handed out to each of you a tiny little map which is a section of Golden Gate and also a legal description. The area that's included there was originally designated when Avatar developed this property as a park site. And as is written -- and I -- I guess it's not highlighted on y'all's copy of the legal description, but over on the right-hand side it says 1969. Note, this should have been raised to $6, blah, blah, blah, and it says park site. And several times in the last four years I've had people from the Golden Gate community inquire and say, "Gee, does the county own this? Is this going to be a park site," and we do not. It is still Avatar property, but it had always been designated as a park site by them. They're going to put that property up for auction I'm told -- March 15, I think it is, of this -- of this year, next month, and I wondered if -- if we might -- if you'd have any objection not today to endorsing the idea of us pursuing that but at least having our real property people look at it and see. It -- It's small enough so it would be a community park, which doesn't necessarily fit into our long-term plan, and that's certainly open for discussion, but just in the next week or two have our real property people look at it and at least know so we're informed prior to when it goes to auction. We may choose to participate. We may not. But because the community has always kind of assumed this was going to be a park site, I thought it may be something worth pursuing and -- and at least having the information on it. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I don't have any objection to exploring it. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No objection to exploring it, but I have a question. There's also another park site shown on the corner of Hunter and something that's not identified, Parcel 213 -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right here. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- on the same map. COMHISSIONER BERRY: Right off of Hunter. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: See the word "Hunter"? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, yeah, yeah. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. Do you know the status of that one? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That is vacant right now, although I think the southern portion of that may have been developed, but I think most of that is still vacant. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The -- the same as the -- the issue on Marco Island. I don't have any problem taking a look at it, but I need to know how it fits into our overall park expansion plans, and without that information, I don't think this action should in any way be seen as a -- as an action of intent to purchase. Item #14E TRANSPORTATION NETWORK AND TRAFFIC FLOW RE LIGHT AT BEAR'S PAW - STAFF TO EXPLORE ALTERING SIGNAL DURING OFF PEAK HOURS AND TALK WITH CITY COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A final comment on a different topic and that is, right now -- and this is one of my pet peeves. We're always talking about trying to maximize our transportation network and -- and how our traffic flows are, and just before Neil left, he indicated we were looking at computerizing some of our signals and so on. One of my pet peeves is, as you travel on Golden Gate Parkway, we installed a couple of years back at the city's request by Bear's Paw's new entrance a traffic signal because very obviously at 8 a.m. and at 5 p.m. it's virtually impossible to get in or out of there. During regular traffic hours, however -- say you go by at 3 p.m., it's not that hard to get in or out; however, the light is still activated, and so what you end up doing is stopping three or 400 cars on the parkway so that one car can pull out instead of waiting an additional 60 seconds or 2 minutes. It just doesn't seem an effective use of one of our main road pieces, and -- and the city has requested -- had requested that, and -- and all I'm asking is that we might explore and take a look at obviously keeping it in during those rush-hour times but altering that signal during ten o'clock to three o'clock or something where traffic is not as heavy. It's not as difficult. It just requires maybe an extra 60-second wait if you're coming out of Bear's Paw instead of inconveniencing a few hundred drivers so that every time a car pulls out of -- out of Bear's Paw. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Might I suggest that this signal-timing question, that you get an answer to that first and then ask if your -- if your -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I do have an answer and I don't know if -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've explored it with staff, and -- and the one thing they've done is they're looking for direction from us at this point because they said the one thing they've done is the city had requested that it stay all day long. It currently blinks after 7 p.m. until 7 a.m., but during all daylight hours it is operational. That's just simply on a city request. It does not meet warrants, nor have warrants been done there but it doesn't -- This is from David Bobanick, our interim director, and it says it does not meet warrants and statistically is outside that with the exception of rush hour. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And the reason it was put there in the location the entry was moved is because it also is supposed to line up with something to occur across the street down the road -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- and we all understand that. So I think the idea of having it on all hours of the day right now doesn't make a lot of sense, and if there -- if there can be a -- you know, a delay cycle or a shorter cycle that helps traffic but still serves the needs of the folks in Bear's Paw, then let's take a look at it but -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The one thing we do right now -- and it says that there's nearly double as far as the timing on it -- on the signal is nearly double the timing, so there is a little delay when you come to the signal but -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- again, just to stop several hundred cars for a car doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me when it clearly doesn't -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If the car gets creamed and the occupant gets killed. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could I '- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. During rush hour it clearly needs to be there. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could I ask that instead of our deciding the -- the question today we -- if you have a memo, if you'd share that with us and -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- and maybe forward it to -- or -- or I would forward it to city staff and ask if they have some justification or some reason for having requested it be all day. Let's discuss it with them before we just make a decision, in the interest of harmony. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If you guys want to be harmonious, I don't have a problem with that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. That's fine. I'll be happy to provide you with that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's just -- As we try to maximum our road network, it doesn't make a lot of sense. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's the only other item. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. Item #15A DISCUSSION REGARDING LDC AMENDMENTS - MAY 21, AND JUNE 4, 1997 TO BE NIGHT MEETINGS Miss Filson? MS. FILSON: Yes. I have one item. We need to decide when we're going to hear the January 1997 cycle of LDC amendments. The choices are May 21 and June 4 or June 11 and June 25. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The sooner the better considering we have the budget hearings several days in a row at the end of June. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Take the earlier of those two cycles and, of course, Mr. -- are those -- those -- Those are individual workshops; correct? MS. FILSON: Yes. Wednesday evening, 5:05. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. That's fine. Item #15B LETTER FROM DCA RE HURRICANE ANDREW AND REIMBURSEMENT PROCEDURES WHICH HAVE NOW BEEN CLOSED OUT - RECOGNITION GIVEN TO ED FINN FOR HIS EFFORTS Hr. HcNees? HR. HCNEES: I have one item, Hr. Chairman, that I'd like to call your attention -- and I hope you'll feel like it's appropriate in this forum. I would like to read to you one letter -- one sentence from a letter from the state DCA that we got this week. Enclosed is a copy of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, a summarization of the final closeout on your project application. This file is now considered officially closed. What this is about is a FEHA letter that we also received in January stating that our Hurricane Andrew reimbursement process which we got $1.94 million from the -- from FEHA has been officially closed out. I bring that to your attention today because that happened without any money having to be returned that we received from FEHA with full compliance. In nineteen or -- 1994 when Hurricane Andrew hit, we had no procedure, we had no policy, we had no experience, we knew nothing about the FEHA process, and one staff member took on the reimbursement process, stuck with it through two promotions, never once said, "That's not my job," or handed it off to anyone else. He stuck with it like a bulldog, and I wanted to recognize him today. Ed Finn, would you stand up. And -- (Applause) COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you, Ed. MR. HCNEES: Not a dime had to be returned to FEHA. So he figured it out, and he stayed with it, and I just thought it was appropriate to recognize him for that now that it's all closed out and no more audits. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: His name on his business card will now forever be known as Bulldog. MR. HCNEES: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Bulldog Finn. MR. HCNEES: Thank you. That's all, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. And with that, I have nothing. We are adjourned. ***** Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner Hac'Kie and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted: ***** Item #16Ala RESOLUTION 97-97 RE CODE ENFORCEHENT CASE NO. 61002-026, OWNER OF RECORD - EUGENIO LOPEZ AND SUSANA LOPEZ Item #16Alb RESOLUTION 97-98 RE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 61010-028, OWNER OF RECORD - E.B. BASSICHIA, ET UX Item #16Alc RESOLUTION 97-99 RE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60905-057, OWNER OF RECORD - LEONARD J. BUBRI AND NICKOLAS KARALIS Item #16Ald RESOLUTION 97-100 RE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60613-013, OWNER OF RECORD - RICHARD F. HC CULLOUGH Item #16Ale RESOLUTION 97-101 RE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60529-077, OWNER OF RECORD RICHARD F. HC CULLOUGH Item #16Alf RESOLUTION 97-102 RE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60223-087, OWNER OF RECORD - HAURICE C. RIX Item #16Alg RESOLUTION 97-103 RE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60326-005, OWNER OF RECORD - THE NEW YORK TIMES CO. Item #16Alh RESOLUTION 97-104 RE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60502-052, OWNER OF RECORD - DONALD H. THOMPSON Item #16Ali - Withdrawn Item #16Alj RESOLUTION 97-105 RE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60521-015, OWNER OF RECORD - ANTONIO L. QUINTANA Item #16Alk RESOLUTION 97-106 RE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60617-036, OWNER OF RECORD - CHARLES E. DUQUET Item #16All RESOLUTION 97-107 RE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60619-021, OWNER OF RECORD - LLOYD G. SHEEHAN, TR. Item #16Alm RESOLUTION 97-108 RE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60621-029, OWNER OF RECORD - CLAUDE E. SCHOLLAERT Item #16Aln RESOLUTION 97-109 RE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60626-055, OWNER OF RECORD - E. SCOTT HERRING AND DEBORAH L. HERRING Item #16Alo RESOLUTION 97-110 RE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60701-105, OWNER OF RECORD - GEORGES VERBERT EST. Item #16Alp RESOLUTION 97-111 RE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60718-017, OWNER OF RECORD - ROBERTO C. ONOFRE Item #16Alq RESOLUTION 97-112 RE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60718-019, OWNER OF RECORD - MICHAEL R. FREDRICKSON AND VIRGINIA FREDRICKSON Item #16Alr RESOLUTION 97-113 RE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60722-065, OWNER OF RECORD - ANTONIO HARULANDAAND FLOR HARULANDA Item #16Als RESOLUTION 97-114 RE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60806-124, OWNER OF RECORD - GUISEPPE DONOFRIO Item #16Alt RESOLUTION 97-115 RE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60808-016, OWNER OF RECORD - HAURICE TREHBLAY Item #16Alu RESOLUTION 97-116 RE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60808-023, OWNER OF RECORD - JOHN C. GARRISON, JR. AND VIRGINIA GARRISON Item #16Alv RESOLUTION 97-117 RE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60809-010, OWNER OF RECORD - NASSER NASSER AND HAYEL HASSOUD Item #16Alw RESOLUTION 97-118 RE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60819-020, OWNER OF RECORD - PHILLIP PIERRE AND MATTHEW HENDRICK Item #16Alx RESOLUTION 97-119 RE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60822-062, OWNER OF RECORD - FRED C. KRAMER, SR., EST. Item #16Aly RESOLUTION 97-120 RE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60827-048, OWNER OF RECORD - VINCENT SOLIHINE AND HARILYN A. SOLIHINE Item #16Alz RESOLUTION 97-121 RE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60829-024, OWNER OF RECORD - LOCKPORT TRANSPORT SERV. INC. Item #16Alaa RESOLUTION 97-122 RE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60829-036, OWNER OF RECORD - BENITO F. RECIO Item #16Albb RESOLUTION 97-123 RE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60830-074, OWNER OF RECORD - HERMAN SCHUHACHERAND ILSE SCHUHACHER Item #16Alcc RESOLUTION 97-124 RE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60905-042, OWNER OF RECORD - ROSE L. CASTEEL Item #16Aldd RESOLUTION 97-125 RE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60905-052, OWNER OF RECORD - KATY E. HULLEN ESTATE Item #16Alee RESOLUTION 97-126 RE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60911-028, OWNER OF RECORD - ZBIGNIEW TOHSZAY AND DORILA H. TOHSZAY Item #16Alff RESOLUTION 97-127 RE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60913-048, OWNER OF RECORD - THOMAS SANZALONE, ET UX Item #16Algg RESOLUTION 97-128 RE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60913-049, OWNER OF RECORD - KELLY ANN HOHN AND JAMES O. HOHN, II Item #16Alhh RESOLUTION 97-129 RE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60919-043, OWNER OF RECORD - DANIEL R. MEYER, TR. Item #16Alii RESOLUTION 97-130 RE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 61001-100, OWNER OF RECORD - BARBARA K. HAMORY Item #16Aljj RESOLUTION 97-131 RE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 61017-060, OWNER OF RECORD - MARIA VICTORIA PIHIENTA Item #16Alkk RESOLUTION 97-132 RE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 61104-023, OWNER OF RECORD - THOMAS J. GAETANO Item #16A2 ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES FOR VILLAGE WALK, PHASE 5-A - WITH STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OR BOOK PAGES Item #16A3 APPROPRIATION OF $5,258.91 CARRY FORWARD FUNDS RECEIVED FROM PRIVATE DONATIONS FOR THE BUILDING IHMOKALEE TOGETHER PROJECT Item #16A4 APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "SOUTHWEST PROFESSIONAL HEALTH PARK" - WITH CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS Item #16A5 AUTHORIZATION FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF JOHNNYCAKE COVE - WITH CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT, CASH BOND AND STIPULATIONS Item #16B1 CHANGE ORDER TO A PROFESSIONAL LEGAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ROETZEL & ANDRESS FOR REVIEW AND CONSOLIDATION OF COLLIER COUNTY UTILITY ORDINANCES - IN THE A_MOUNT OF $1,500.00 Item #1682 LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD FOR THE USE OF BIG CYPRESS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CAFETERIA FOR A STAFF PUBLIC MEETING ON 2/26/97 REGARDING THE WIDENING OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD Item #1683 BUDGET A_MENDHENT TO TRANSFER FUNDS FROH FOR THE AIRPORT ROAD HEDIAN PROJECT #60121 Item #1684 PURCHASING POLICY WAIVED; STAFF AUTHORIZED TO APPROVE A RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT AND PURCHASE ORDER IN AN A_MOUNT UP TO $127,180.00 FOR ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS TO ORANGE BLOSSOM DRIVE FROM GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD TO THE ENTRANCE TO THE CROSSINGS/VILLAGES OF MONTEREY Item #1685 LEASE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) ARTICULATING FOUR-WHEEL DRIVE FRONT END LOADER FROM LINDER INDUSTRIAL MACHINERY IN ACCORDANCE WITH BID #97-2618 IN THE A_MOUNT OF $80,885.96 Item #1686 LEASE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) THREE TON TRACK HOE FROH KELLY TRACTOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH BID #97-2617 IN THE A_MOUNT OF $33,500 Item #1687 LEASE PURCHASE OF FOUR (4) CREW CAB FLAT BED DUHP TRUCKS FROH WALLACE INTERNATIONAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH BID #97-2616 - IN THE A_MOUNT OF $150,604.00 Item #1688 LEASE PURCHASE OF FOUR FIVE CUBIC YARD DUHP TRUCKS FROH WALLCE INTERNATIONAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH BID #97-2615 - IN THE A_MOUNT OF $136,120.00 Item #1689 NOTICE OF CLAIH OF LIEN FOR THE ENFORCEHENT OF THE NOTICE TO PAY WATER AND SEWER IMPACT FEE STATEMENT FOR A_MBLEWOOD CONDOHINIUH ASSOCIATION, INC. IN WYNDEHERE SUBDIVISION Item #16C1 WORK ORDER #CT-10 (UNDER CONTRACT 95-2334) TO CHRIS TEL COHPANY FOR IMPROVEMENTS AT THE COHMUNITY CENTER AT FRANK E. HACKLE JR. COHMUNITY PARK - IN THE A_MOUNT OF $57,767.00 Item #16C2 RESOLUTION 97-133 APPROVING THE EXPENDITURE OF COUNTY FUNDS FOR EXPENSES INCURRED IN CONJUNCTION WITH COLLIER COUNTY LIBRARY CHILDREN'S PROGRAMS Item #16C3 BUDGET AMENDMENT PROVIDING FUNDING FROM WITHIN EXISTING LIBRARY IMPACT FEE FUNDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND FOR A NEW NORHTERN REGIONAL LIBRARY Item #16C4 RENEWAL CLAUSE CONTAINED IN THE LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE TASK FORCE FOR THE HOMELESS EXTENDING THE USE OF TWENTY (20) PARKING SPACES ON THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMPLEX FOR USE BY THE ST. HATTHEW'S HOUSE FACILITY LOCATED IN THE OLD EAST NAPLES FIRE STATION Item #16C5 STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT, SOUTHERN STATES UTILITIES, ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS IN THE CIRCUIT COURT CASE OF COLLIER COUNTY V. POINT MARCO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL., CASE NO. 92-4315-CA-01-DRH Item #16C6 AGREEHENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND THE FORD HOTOR COHPANY FOR THE CONTINUED USE OF A VAN FOR THE VETRANS'S TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM - SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND MINOR AMENDMENTS BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Item #16D1 REPORT TO THE BOARD REGARDING EHERGENCY REPAIRS TO THE IHMOKALEE JAIL, NAPLES JAIL AND BUILDING "K" ICE MACHINE CHILLERAND THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR REPAIRS OF SAME Item #16D2 SATISFACTIONS OF NOTICE OF PROHISE TO PAY AND AGREEHENT TO EXTEND PAYMENT OF WATERAND/OR SEWER IMPACT FEES FOR MICHAEL L. DEHINICO, PAUL AND PHYLLIS BENEFIELD, BEVERLY KAY BECHTOL, CARTER AND MOLLIE BRYAN, ELIZABETH J. CORNACCHIA, SHARON CUSCHIERI AND BETTY ARNOTT, AL GALLNLA/~, JEFFREY AND SUSAN JORDAN, EDWARD F. HC CARTHEY, MARTIN HC GILL, BARBARA MASON HOSCARDELLI, MORGAN L. MURPHY, GILBERTO AND MATILDE ORTEGA, ODILO AND SANDRA PEREZ, HARVEY AND MARY SWOPE, DANIELL AND VIRGINIA TETLOW, JOAQUIN AND ANTONITA ULLOA, KRISTOPHERAND SHEILA UHPENHOUR, AND CARLOS VASQUEZ AND PATRICIA ROJAS Item #16D3 NOTICE OF PROHISE TO PAY AND AGREEHENT TO EXTEND PAYHENT OF SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEES BETWEEN LARRY R. ANDREWS AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Item #16D4 MAXIMUM EXPENDITURE OF $350.00 FROM THE GAC LAND TRUST FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASING SHOVELS TO BE UTILIZED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE FOR DEPUTIES ASSIGNED TO THE ESTATES AREA Item #16D5 AUTHORIZATION FOR THE REMOVAL OF CERTAIN ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE ACCOUNTS FROM THE BOOKS AND RECORDS - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16G1 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 #1611 SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR WEED ABATEHENT LIEN CREATED IN 1984 AGAINST UNIT 3, BLOCK 96, LOT 19, GOLDEN GATE CITY - OWNER OF RECORD: ALICE SANFORD There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:48 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL TIMOTHY L. HANCOCK, 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: Christine E. Whitfield, RPR