Loading...
BCC Minutes 07/22/1997 R REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 22, 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 9:05 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Collier County Government Center, Administration Building, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRMAN: Timothy L. Hancock John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine Pamela S. Mac'Kie Barbara B. Berry David C. Weigel, County Attorney Robert Fernandez, County Administrator Item #3A AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good morning, everyone. I would like to welcome everyone back as we convene our July 22nd meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. We are pleased this morning to have Father Tim Navin from St. Peter's here to give us an invocation this morning. Father Navin, welcome and -- FATHER NAVIN: Good morning. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- thank you. FATHER NAVIN: Let us pray. We stand before you, oh Lord, conscious of our wants but aware that we gather in your name. Come to us, remain with us, and enlighten our hearts. Give us light and strength to know your will, to make it known and to live it in our lives. Guide us by your wisdom, support us by your power, for you are God. You desire justice for all. Enable us to uphold the rights of others, do not allow us to be blinded by ignorance or corrupted by fear or favor. Unite us to yourself in the bond of love and keep us faithful to all that is true. As we gather in your name, may we temper justice with love so that all our decisions may be pleasing to you and earn the reward promised to good and faithful servants. We ask this in the name of the living God. Amen. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Father Navin, again, on behalf of the Board, thank you for taking the time to be here this morning. FATHER NAVIN: Thanks. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good morning, Mr. Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: Good morning. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What do we have for changes this morning? MR. FERNANDEZ: We have no changes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You are a good man. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You sure we don't have anything to remove? No? Okay. Just thought I'd ask. Commissioner Mac'Kie, do you have any changes? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a couple of things, unfortunately, that I need some advice on where to add, probably from Mr. Weigel. One is about the Charter School issue and whether or not the Charter School is subject to the inter-local agreement with Collier County. It looks to me like they are, and I'd like to get an official opinion that they are. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Well, at least an official opinion. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. I'd like to get an official -- I'd like to get an official opinion that they are. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: May I just make a suggestion that we give -- without even bothering to -- I mean, unless there are people here -- let's just give Mr. Weigel some direction now to research that in the next day or so and get word to us. And if we can make it go quickly, we should. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That would be perfect. I didn't know if we needed to do that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Unless you have an answer today, Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: I think I'm prepared to show you the direction I have of an answer today. It may not be definitive, but very close to it. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Maybe under County Attorney. And the other one is under County Attorney too and it's probably likewise something that you -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me, Commissioner Hac'Kie, if I can. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sorry. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's get that -- let's get an item number for that, for the Charter School issue first. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Fernandez, are we going to add that under County Attorney? MR. FERNANDEZ: County Attorney. It would be Item 9(A). CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: 9(A) for Charter School. Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And similarly under County Attorney, I would like to get a report on the status of the Marco Island Hospital property. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is that appropriate under County Attorney? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I had discussed that with Mr. Weigel yesterday and I understand he will have a full report available next week. So, if you would like an interim report today, fine, but it sounds like we're going to discuss it in its entirety next week. Is that correct, Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Is that satisfactory? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's fine. If we're just one week away, it's just been quite a while so far. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Understood. We'll be hearing that next week. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And likewise under County Attorney is the issue about the new gift laws, whether or not -- I mean, I had -- I am under the impression that I've reported some illegal gifts because I have reported gifts over a hundred dollars in value. And there may be -- frankly, for me it's pretty clear. I'm just not going to accept anything over a hundred dollars in value anymore, but I'd like to get that issue clarified for the entire board about what exactly is a lobbyist and that question. So I don't know if that's something you could advise us on today or not. MR. WEIGEL: I think we can go pretty far along that line too, if you'd like, today. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. And my last thing is, I want a discussion -- and I don't know where -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You had a lot of time over vacation, didn't you? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I had a lot of time over vacation. I'm sorry. And the last one is that I want a discussion about a reconsideration of whether or not we want to request the clerk to look at the tourist tax money that was spent on the golf tournament last year. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So you are going to put that under Board of County Commissioners, to request reconsideration? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Of the post audit for that event. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that on F or 147 COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It needs to be an Action item, or I'm hoping it'll be an Action item, so I would assume it needs to be 10. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I believe that would be 10-F, Mr. Fernandez; is that correct? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I'm done. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So we have two additions -- three additions: Item 9-A, discussion from the County Attorney regarding Charter School; 9-B, discussion regarding gift laws, and 10-F, request reconsideration of golf tournament audit. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Norris, anything? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have, under Item 14, at the end of the meeting, I will have a statement to make into the record. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So Item 14-A. It doesn't necessarily need to be labeled, but we'll have communication from Commissioner Norris. Commissioner Berry? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Nothing at this meeting. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Bless you. Commissioner Constantine? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have no changes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And neither do I. Do we have a motion on the -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion we approve the agenda, said agenda, as amended. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Item #4 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETINGS OF JUNE 10, JUNE 17, JUNE 24, 1997 AND BUDGET WORKSHOP MEETINGS OF JUNE 18, JUNE 19, AND JUNE 23, 1997 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, we'll get onto approval of minutes. Commissioner Constantine, would you have a motion on that? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We have a number of minutes to approve. I'll make a motion that we approve the minutes of the regular meetings of June 10, June 17 and June 24, 1997, and the budget workshops of June 18, 19 and 23, 1997. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, motion carries unanimously. Item #5B EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED We are to Item 5(B), Service Awards, and I have Commissioner Norris listed as presenting five service awards this morning. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have a number of people with ten years' service. Here we'll start with Albert Compton from Building Review and Permitting, ten years' service. (Applause) COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Here you go, Albert. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Good start. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Second half of the package. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Our next one is Richard Noonan from Building Review and Permitting. (Applause) COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We have Ramiro Ponce from Road and Bridge for ten years. (Applause) COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And Judith Radi from Social Services for ten years. (Applause) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You ought to tell Marco what to do. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And with twenty years of service today is Pablo Salinas from Parks and Recs. (Applause) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Norris, thank you. It's always a pleasure to honor length in service. Item #5C1 ROY LEWIS, FLEET MANAGEMENT, FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, RECOGNIZED AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR JULY, 1997 We also have this morning the ability or opportunity to recognize an employee of the month for July 1997. Is Mr. Roy Lewis with us this morning? Roy, if I could ask you to come up here and be duly embarrassed, sir? job. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's what you got for doing such a good CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If you would stand here to my left and face the camera so the VCR at home can pick all this up. Roy's a five-year employee of Collier County Government and was nominated by his supervisor for this honor. With over twenty-five years of automotive and heavy equipment repair, the mechanical expertise, hard work and positive attitude has been invaluable to county operations through increased productivity and decreased down time. He works well without supervision and does whatever it takes to get the job done right the first time by his consistent attention to detail. Roy offers his knowledge and experience freely to coworkers without expecting a reward and is often given the tough assignment. Without any reservation, he was nominated and selected as employee of the month for July 1995. And for that honor, Roy, we have a plaque from the Board of County Commissioners designating the honor for July 1997. We also have a letter of congratulations signed by me, the Chairman of the Board, and $50.00 check, and our thanks, Roy. (Applause) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The meeting of the Roy Lewis Fan Club will be out in the hall. Item #SA1 COLLIER COUNTY'S SPONSORHSIP OF ISTEA TRANSPORTATION ENCHANCEHENT PROJECTS - APPROVED We are to Item 8(A)(1) under Community Development, approval for Collier County's sponsorship of ISTEA Transportation Enhancement Projects. MS. TAYLOR: Good morning. My name is Amy Taylor. I am with the Planning Services Department's HPO staff. Before us is a request for the board's approval for Collier County to sponsor applications that would be submitted for ISTEA Transportation Enhancement funding. We received a total of ten applications this year. Two will be -- have been sponsored by the City of Naples, and before you are eight applications for your consideration. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: They are sponsored by the City of Naples. Do they fall under any different consideration or category under ISTEA or is it all lumped into Collier County? MS. TAYLOR: For purposes of funding through the Florida Department of Transportation, it was considered all together. The HPO will have an opportunity prior to advertise these applications and will be considered City of Naples projects as well to make a recommendation before the Florida Department of Transportation. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That was my next question. Do you have any questions on this matter? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All you're looking for today is us to agree to go ahead and sponsor these applications? MS. TAYLOR: Exactly. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have any registered speakers on this, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: No, not on this. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, carries unanimously. Thank you, Ms. Taylor. Item #SB1 RESOLUTION 97-290 APPROVING AN INTERLOCAL AGREEHENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EVERGLADES AND COLLIER COUNTY - ADOPTED We're to item (8)(B)(1) under Public Works, recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt a Resolution and approve an Interlocal Agreement between the City of Everglades and Collier County. Mr. Bobanick, I see you're on deck. MR. BOBANICK: For the record, my name is Dave Bobanick, Interim Transportation Director for the County. Commissioners, staff recommends the approval of an interlocal agreement and a resolution with the City of Everglades, in effect providing to the City of Everglades two parcels of land for them to use for their maintenance work, and, as compensation for that, to receive work on the street system, county street system in Everglades as compensation for that effort. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Are there any questions of Mr. Bobanick on this? COHMISSIONER BERRY: The only question I have, Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Certainly. COHMISSIONER BERRY: -- has to do with, in regard to the mowing, does this also cover the mowing between Everglades City and Chokoloskee? MR. BOBANICK: No, it does not. It's just to the city limits. However, there is a supplemental agreement attached to this that we can work with Everglades City, hire them to do some work for us in that regard. COHMISSIONER BERRY: That is a concern of mine, that we make sure that we keep that area mowed -- MR. BOBANICK: Yes. COHMISSIONER BERRY: -- from time to time. It certainly doesn't help the mosquito population, but I think if we can keep that mowed, and just general appearance of that area, I think it would be beneficial if we can work out something. MR. BOBANICK: I understand. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My question is, is that within the parameters of Everglades City or is that county? COHMISSIONER BERRY: Well, I don't know. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER BERRY: And that's the reason I didn't know if this was part of that agreement because of this conveyance, that kind of thing, so that was the reason for my question. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Okay. Any further questions on this item? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Bobanick, thank you, or are you -- okay. You're not up for the next one. All right. Item #882 ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATHENT PLANT ODOR CONTROL SYSTEM - APPROVED Item 8(B)(2), request to approve additional funding for South County Regional Water Treatment Plant Odor Control System. I'm sure Commissioner Hac'Kie has a motion on this one. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is there anything -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's just a darn shame we didn't do this back when we thought we were doing it because it's costing us an extra million bucks. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The reason for the increase, Mr. Gonzalez? MR. GONZALEZ: Good morning, Commissioners. Adolfo Gonzalez, Capital Projects Director. The previous budget was based on the alternative technologies we were trying to pursue. After two years of pursuing something that just the pilot tests were unsuccessful, we asked you or we recommended to you to go with some proven technology, the same as the North Water Plant. That's where the additional increase is, similar technology. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So it's not the time lapse, it's the change in technology? MR. GONZALEZ: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, okay. MR. GONZALEZ: Bids will be open next Wednesday on this project, still on schedule to meet the January -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Go. MR. GONZALEZ: -- completion date. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My motion stands. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Any speakers on this, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have a second? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none. Mr. Gonzalez, thank you very much. Item #BE1 EHPLOYEE TUITION REIHBURSEHENT POLICY - APPROVED WITH A $20,000 ALLOCATION We are to item 8(E)(1) under County Administrator, consideration of an employee tuition reimbursement policy. Good morning, Mr. HcNees. MR. HCNEES: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. I'm Mike HcNees from your County Administrator's Office. We spoke to you in Hay about creating an employee benefit for your employees of tuition reimbursement policy. You gave us some general direction and a majority opinion that you were in favor in concept of developing such a program and asked us to go back and redraft it to take into consideration some of your concerns. What you told us on that day was that you had a number of concerns. One of those was that any degree program or course that you reimbursed an employee for be directly of benefit to the citizens of Collier County. You asked that any course, obviously, that you reimburse be actually completed with a grade of B or higher for a graduate level or C or higher an undergraduate course. You asked that our original proposal that a twelve-month employment commitment be made by anyone receiving reimbursement be increased. You discussed eighteen months as a possible compromise. We're bringing to you a proposal today that requires an employee remain in Collier County employ for twenty-four months, or else they have to pay the money back. And I've spoken to Mr. Weigel about our ability to actually withhold money from an employee's final check. He believes that's legal and will be putting a mechanism in place to do that. You had a concern about whether an employee's final check would be large enough to cover a, you know, two or three-course reimbursement. Given that final check also includes vacation pay-outs and sick leave pay-outs, generally there would be enough money to cover whatever would be owed to the county, so we feel like that's been covered. You asked that there be reasonable guidelines written into the program to avoid some of the prior abuses. We've written into this policy a clear statement that elective courses that do not relate to county business, we do not pay for, so that we just -- there's a clear statement that the types of problems we had before with this program we just won't have here. One of you asked that we consider a shared cost proposal where you reimburse fifty or seventy-five percent of the tuition. The proposal that we're bringing to you today is for a hundred percent reimbursement. We've done some surveying. All of the other public employers -- I should say both of the other public employers in Collier County, the school board and the city, reimburse at a hundred percent. Most of the major private employers reimburse at a hundred percent. I will say the hospital reimburses at a hundred percent only for five-year employees. I believe it's seventy-five percent if you're a less than five-year employee. It's our feeling that we're not paying for books, we're not paying for lab fees, we're obviously not paying travel expenses or for the employee's time, so we think the employee is making a serious commitment to the program with their time and with their payment for books and lab fees and that sort of thing and that we believe it's appropriate for the county to reimburse then a hundred percent of only the tuition cost. And that would be our recommendation to you today. Obviously, we can talk about that. Those are the things -- there was one of you who felt that tuition reimbursement was just not an appropriate expenditure. This policy is for tuition reimbursement. We obviously couldn't make the policy to be everything to everyone, so I wanted to make sure you all understood what your concerns had been. This policy does require that any tuition or any degree program be approved by the county administration and that it be of direct benefit to the county. It requires twenty-four months to be worked or you have to pay the money back. It is a hundred percent reimbursement. We made one other change to the policy. Originally we had proposed that only fully accredited degree programs be reimbursable, and then we realized that, with Florida Gulf Coast being a brand new school, it will be a number of years before most of their degree programs are actually accredited. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes. MR. HCNEES: So we wrote an exception into the policy that applies only for courses taken at Florida Gulf Coast University, the accreditation requirement will be waived. And we think that's appropriate. We would propose to allocate across all funds for fiscal '98 a maximum of $30,000 for this expenditure, which is approximately three times more than you've ever spent before for this type of a benefit, and we -- I would be surprised if we can spend it all, or if we do spend it all, but I think that would be a great problem to have, if we have that many employees who want to advance their educations to that degree. It would be our proposal to bring back to you both a six-month and a one-year follow-up report to tell you what kind of degree programs you're paying for, what kind of utilization we're getting, and so you can be comfortable with where we've headed with this program. That would conclude my presentation and I would be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I have worked with Mr. HcNees to bring this forward before, and, quite simply, I think obviously we want to employ the best and the brightest, and if we can take care of our employees and A, make them happy, and B, have them well-educated, then I think the public clearly benefits from that. If you have happy employees they usually work harder, and if they are well-educated in their field, obviously they can do a better job at what their field of expertise is. The concern we had a couple of years ago when we had discontinued the program were some of the abuses and some of the classes that had nothing to do with the topics or the area of, quote, expertise that they were practicing in their field, and the library example was one that had really kind of tipped the scales. But I think the list that Mr. HcNees has run through, that the employees have to have been with us for at least six months, the fact that they have to stay with us for at least two years, I know was a concern you had raised, and I think a good one. We don't want to educate someone for the private sector. And so if we can get a couple of years' work out of them at the very least, then we benefit. Perhaps most importantly, when we bring this back, is the fact this it must relate directly to the employee's area that they are current working in. And I really think this meets all the criteria. The only question I know Mr. Hancock had raised before was the employee commitment and should it be a hundred percent from the county financially. And I've just got to think, if you go through a semester for a three credit course, you put in at least forty-five hours of class time. You practically put in the same amount again on study time. And I think, while that may not be ponying up a couple hundred bucks, ninety hours of your time or more is certainly a substantial investment. They would have to be fairly serious if they are going to take the time to get an A or a B in a course. I would think that would be an appropriate investment that we're requiring from them. So I hope the remainder of the board will see fit to approve this. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, as you remember, I was opposed to this when it first came to the board a few months ago, but, with the safeguards that we've put in place here and the -- all of the discussions that we've had in the past on this, I'm going to support it today, and intend to probably watch the progress of this and expect to get reports back in the future. If there's any problems associated with it, we'll want to discuss it again. But for today, I'm certainly going to support it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Hac'Kie, do you have something? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Second it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm going to ask the motion-maker to revise the motion to limit the first year to 20,000 instead of 30,000. The most we ever experienced in the past was $10,000, so rather than over budget, which we've tried not to do in county departments, I think $20,000 is double what we've experienced in the past when there were fewer restraints on this, fewer safeguards for the county. So I think 20,000 is more than ample for the first year. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What was the basis for the 30, Mr. HcNees? MR. HCNEES: Just recognition of the new university opening and the new degree programs that they are going to offer that have never been available around here before versus what we have used in prior years and trying to make enough available. What I suggest is, if you want to say 20,000 at this point and if we get a large number of people involved in, for example, public administration programs or that sort of thing and we reach the $20,000 limit, I expect we would probably come in here and say this has been a huge success and we would ask you to allocate some more money. But you would be able to make that judgement at that time. So if you want to say 20, I'm -- we're ecstatic with that and we'd have to come back to ask you for more. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I amend to 20. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion maker amends. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, before we call a motion I want to thank Mr. HcNees because I know there were some legitimate concerns we had with the concept and I think you did a great job of applying each of those. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It makes it tough when you list all your concerns and they get answered to say no, doesn't it? Item 8(E)(1), we have a motion to approve at a level of $20,000 and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none. Mr. HcNees, thank you. MR. HCNEES: If I may, since I'm the one at the microphone, on behalf of your professional level employees, I think on their behalf they would want me to thank you. This is something they have sorely missed and have been very anxious to see reinstated and they appreciate it and I'll thank you for them. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Looking forward to bloodshot eyes in the morning from late night studying. 8(E) (2) has been deleted. Item #8E3 RESOLUTION 97-291 SETTING THE COUNTY WIDE HILLAGE RATE OF 3.7316 FOR THE FY 98 COLLIER COUNTY BUDGET - ADOPTED 8(E)(3) is to adopt proposed millage rates for the fiscal year '98 Collier County Budget. Before we hear the presentation from Mr. Smykowski, how many registered speakers do we have on this? MR. FERNANDEZ: We have two. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have two registered speakers. If anyone here wishes to speak on the adopted millage rates, they need to submit speaker slips to Mr. Fernandez. Each individual will be afforded five minutes to address the board at the conclusion of Mr. Smykowski's presentation and any questions the board may have. Mr. Smykowski? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sorry, but for people in the public who may not understand, this is the item that has to do with any budget items. How's that for clarification? I'm surprised that there were only two people who wanted to speak on budget. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that's why I went through that. Maybe they haven't registered to speak. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm not sure they understand "millage". Well, I just wanted to be sure. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: When they get their tax bill they understand millage. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. I want to be sure. MR. FERNANDEZ: That's when they'll want to speak. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, they will. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Smykowski? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Michael Smykowski, Budget Director. The objective today is to adopt the proposed millage rates as the maximum property tax rates to be levied to fund the FY '98 Collier County budget. The tax rates adopted today must be provided to the property appraiser by August 4th for use in preparing the notice of proposed taxes. Each property owner will receive this notice, which must be mailed by August 24th under the Florida Truth in Millage Law. During your September public hearings, the board may lower or maintain the millage rates within each taxing district at the level of the proposed rates. They may not be raised, however, subsequent to today's adoption, without meeting additional public notice and advertising requirements. It's -- the statue does allow a provision to increase them at the public hearings but you have to send a certified letter to each property owner in the county. So it is a somewhat cumbersome and expensive process to do that. The proposed millage rates and the associated tax increase or decrease are included as attachments within the body of the executive summary. Just to highlight, the proposed general fund millage rate is 3.6864, which represents a tax increase of 2.2 percent before the roll-back millage rate. But for property owners, if your property -- per hundred thousand of value, that is $3.77 less than the adopted millage rate in FY '97. The proposed countywide millage of 3.7316 represents a tax increase of 2.1 percent above the roll-back rate. The proposed unincorporated area general fund millage rate of 0.5721 mills is 4.4 percent above the roll-back rate. Again, that is the principal reason, as we've discussed at the budget workshops, for the increase in the unincorporated area, was the funding of the Lely stormwater improvement project, and in line with the board's strategic goals of improving stormwater drainage. The aggregate millage rate is 4.4907, and it's a blended rate, factoring in all the special districts, and is 3.2 percent above the roll-back rate. In addition, the dates established previously for the public hearings on the tentative budget are Wednesday, September 3rd and Wednesday, September 17th, at 5:00 p.m. We have to communicate that information as well as the proposed millage rates to the property appraiser by August 4th, for his use in preparing the notice of proposed taxes that each property owner will receive in late August. What we need the board to do today is to adopt by resolution the proposed property tax millage rates for FY '98 as detailed in the attachments. There is a draft resolution that's been signed off for legal sufficiency in the package by the County Attorney's office. That concludes my presentation. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Questions for Mr. Smykowski? Seeing none, let's go to the public speakers. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: First speaker is A1 Newman. MR. NEWMAN: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is A1 Newman. I live on 639 94th Avenue, Naples Park. I appreciate you trying to keep my taxes down low. I can't afford them, but I can't afford to do without the sheriff's department and I go along with their -- with the sheriff's proposed budget. We do need more protection. We see a slight raise in our crime rate in Collier County. We don't need that. We do need more police, and the only way it's going to take for more police is more money. And if it takes me -- a little bit more out of my bank, it's going to have to cost me. Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Doug HcGilvra. MR. HCGILVRA: Huh? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's nice not to be talking about drainage, isn't it? MR. HCGILVRA: You better believe it. Good morning, Commissioners. How are you all? Good morning, Mr. Fernandez. My name is Doug HcGilvra. I live at 600 94th Avenue in Naples Park and I just want to get up here and kind of ramble on for a few minutes. I haven't been doing this for a while, so get -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We were missing you. MR. HCGILVRA: Don't throw rocks at me yet. I'm in favor of the sheriff's budget and I'll tell you why. The North Naples area, particularly North Naples, has had, according to the paper, if you can believe that, a 914 million dollar increase in new construction in the last year, most of it in North Naples. Now, with that brings a lot of people. If you have been in North Naples at all lately, you've seen construction all over the place, both in housing, construction of warehouses, construction of all types of different sites, buildings for commercial use, et cetera, doctors' offices. It's just, everywhere you turn, new stuff. It all has to be patrolled, folks. It all has to be looked at, looked over, and so forth. Brings the people in, people coming in like crazy. I'm concerned about that. Crime in that area is bound to go up, just by the number of people coming in. What we're talking about here is a difference of roughly two million dollars in -- 2.2 million dollars in the sheriff's budget. I talked to Mr. Smykowski yesterday trying to get some figures just to put in my own head, and, according to the figures that I got from Mike, I guess roughly $372.41 per hundred thousand dollars last year is the tax rate. This year, as it's done, with the sheriff's budget of 2.2 million out, it's $368.64 per hundred thousand dollars evaluation. So that's an actual reduction, and yet here we have a department that is in need of more -- I believe -- certainly in need of more money to fund what they need to do in order to take care of the large increase in North Naples and as well as in East Naples. The whole county is growing like crazy. And here we sit reducing our rates, not even leaving them the same, but reducing them and having the sheriff hang out on a -- the end of a line effectively. So, I'm all for increasing the thing, at least to the point where we can get it -- it should be at least even with last year and, if not, higher. Preferably a different way also should be thought of of paying for the sheriff's department. Whatever happened to the sheriff's impact fee? I would like to see that thing get put back, get put on the top burner. Move fast, you know. Do it like the Senate. No, don't do it like the Senate has. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, don't say that. MR. McGILVRA: That would take too long. And also the interim ad valorem tax on certificate of ownership properties that haven't come on line yet, that should be pushed through. That's probably a year away, but still that ought to be looked at real strongly and pushed. That will help out too. So I support the sheriff. I hope you all do too. Let's take a real close look at it before we finally set this millage rate. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Sheriff Don Hunter. MR. HUNTER: Good morning. Don Hunter, Sheriff, Collier County. I won't take up a great deal of time this morning. I'll just say one more time, I would like to ask the board to reconsider their position considering the reduction in the proposed budget of the Collier County Sheriff's Office, reminding you once again that I recognize the board wields a great deal of power and authority. And I would ask that you exercise your power and authority in a manner consistent with good public safety. I have presented to you a proposal that reflects such a proposal, for good public safety, and I believe that it is reasonable, sufficient to perform the duties of the office for the ensuing fiscal year, and I ask that you work with us to make certain that we remain a very safe community. And I will be available for any questions the board may have pertaining to the budget, in the back of the room here, and I look forward as you do to comment, public comment. And we have had a good deal of support and public comment since our last meeting, in favor of the proposal as originally proposed. With that, I'll reserve any further comment and I'll be available for questions. Thank you. Good morning. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's all? MR. FERNANDEZ: That's all we have, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Smykowski, do you have something you need to read into the record before we approve -- I can't remember if that's -- that's not until September that we do the long reading, right? MR. SHYKOWSKI: The joy of reading the millage rates and associated tax increases is something reserved for September. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to make a motion that we approve a resolution adopting or for the proposed property tax millage rates for fiscal year '98. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I would like to comment on the motion. As I understand it, based on the report you've given us today, that the property tax numbers came in substantially -- I'm sorry. The assessment numbers came in better than we had hoped so that we have perhaps -- and Commissioner Hancock's often stated a worthy goal of giving the taxpayers a break this year. We may have the opportunity to do that while still giving the sheriff an increase equal to the growth rate. I want to ask if anybody has done a computation of what would be the net effect of increasing the sheriff's budget by 7.8 percent as opposed to the 6, something that we compromised on in the budget hearings, and see if there's any support for that again on the board. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I guess I'm -- you know, I got a handful of letters and, quite frankly, a lot of them are from the sheriff's citizen academy graduates. And I at least thank them for admitting that they went through that and that they at least have an affiliation with the Sheriff's Office in some way. And, as I did last year, I went back and questioned our initial, our initial position. And last year that resulted in my trying to strike a balance with the sheriff, and I didn't get it as far as I wanted to, but we got a little bit of the way there. Unfortunately, a lot of the correspondence I received says things like, at least give him an increase this year, which is either somebody was misinformed or they misspoke in their letter, because a six percent increase in a fifty million dollar budget is substantial. I had the opportunity at the annual conference of the Florida Association of Counties three weeks ago to talk to other commissioners who thought we were, quite frankly, crazy, that a six percent increase was dramatic. I also talked to them about what they go through every year with their sheriff's budget and it's not unlike this. I mean, there's a lot of hue and cry, you know. The sheriff has a responsibility to ask for what he thinks is necessary to do the job. We have a responsibility, kind of pulling the other way, to try and be fiscally conservative, which is what we have told our constituents that we would do in this position, and those two things don't meld very well. So I tried to get an overall look at, compared to other counties, where are we. And in the past these numbers have always been subject to criticism, so I tried to ferret that out as best I can. I've offered a copy to everyone on the board, and I will give one to the court reporter for the record, and I have a couple available here that Mr. Fernandez can keep. In the last two years since I have been on this board, the total increase, if we don't change anything now, is about twenty percent over two years in the sheriff's budget. To say that this board does not support law enforcement after authorizing a twenty percent increase over two years, at least the two years I have been on this board, I think is wrong, and anyone who makes that statement clearly knows that. So I'm trying to look at, where are we compared to other counties? And what I did with the help of the Florida Association of Counties, and Mr. Fernandez was kind enough to gather this information at my request, is to look at coastal counties on the western side of Florida and determine where we sit in an unincorporated per capita comparison. What are our residents paying for law enforcement compared to other counties? And I tried to do similar counties. We have Charlotte, Collier, Manatee, Sarasota, Pasco, Lee and Pinellas. With the exception of Pinellas -- and the good news is we're thirty percent below Pinellas. They are $426 per capita, unincorporated area resident. We are just under $300. The bad news is, every other county is well below us. Manatee is -- we are fourteen percent higher than Manatee, forty-four percent higher than Sarasota, fifty-four percent higher than Lee, seventy-two percent higher than Charlotte and 116 percent higher than Pasco. This is unincorporated area resident. This is each county, counting costs for bailiffs, law enforcement and corrections, for a total sheriff's budget. This is removing all the incorporated municipalities. And I guess if you want to know if you're paying the right price for peaches, you go shop around. Who else has peaches? What are you paying for them? What are other people paying for them? And when I looked at this, it caused me concern. I was hoping maybe it would go the other way. Maybe I would see that we are in the middle of a pack and what this board was considering was not out of line. So these numbers don't give me comfort in bumping that number even higher. In fact, they give me enough discomfort to look further into the matter to try and determine for next year's budget where we need to be. So I'm concerned. As I said I have given a copy of this to the court reporter and I'm going to check further into them, but, based on this research, I have a tough time saying we are not funding our sheriff's office at an adequate level. In fact, in comparison to other counties, we're funding it at a much higher level per capita, cost per person. Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I am going to disagree with the basic premise of Commissioner Mac'Kie's comments, and that is that we're to get more revenue than we thought so perhaps we should spend more than we agreed to. That's a -- it's a government approach, and it's not a good one. You mentioned alignment with growth rate, and this year we had a higher growth rate so we should have higher than what the majority of the board agreed to for an increase. And, I mean, if you want to do that, let's look at what the growth rate was for the last several years. And a year ago if you had looked at the prior year's growth rate, it was about four percent, and we gave almost a fifteen percent increase to the sheriff. So I don't know that that's an appropriate measure, and, if it is, we have far -- gone far beyond that measure in the past. The majority of the board agreed to give the sheriff everything he had last year, plus $3,000,000 more. And we've had that debate. It's at twenty-two percent. When you do the mathematics out over two years, it's a little over a twenty-two percent increase in two years. That's plenty. And I'll just reiterate my motion to go ahead and approve the millage rate. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just, I'm not going to bother debating Commissioner Constantine's misunderstanding of what my comments were, so I'll refrain from doing that for the board's consideration of time. My support initially was for the 7.8 percent increase, and it continues, and I wanted to make a record of that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any further questions or discussion by members of the board? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER BERRY: No. I was just going to state that I was in agreement with Commissioner Mac'Kie -- excuse me -- in terms of the 7.8 percent because basically I thought we were kind of splitting the difference from what the sheriff had asked for and what the other proposal was, and I thought perhaps this was kind of middle ground area. I don't have the history of sitting on this board as to what you did in the past. It is -- it's pretty difficult to dispute when you have these numbers in front of you, and these are typically the counties certainly that have been used in the past to compare, not only in county government but school systems as well, these traditionally have been used to make some comparisons. But the only difference that I see, and maybe there is some disagreement here, is that Collier County is such a huge area, and that may be the difference. If I could look at anything that would be different, it would be the geographical area of Collier County as opposed to some of these other counties and the distinct differences that Collier has in that regard. That is a concern to me, and will certainly continue to be a concern. I guess if I had my druthers, I would still stay with the 7.8 percent. I understand where you're coming from and I also agree that government, you know -- you continue to look. You look for ways that you can do the job better, more efficiently, and I certainly support that. There's no question about it. But when I looked at this and started thinking about it, my concern has to do with the geographical area that Collier County has to cover, and it's massive. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I appreciate that. That's one reason why Pasco is included. It's a rural county. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right. I understand, but I'm not sure size-wise that it, it is the same apples and oranges, Mr. Chairman, that Collier is, only from a mileage standpoint. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is there any further discussion? We have a motion and a second. Further discussion? Seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries, 3-2. Thank you. Mr. Smykowski, thank you very much. Item #8E4 WILLIAM R. HOUGH & CO. SELECTED AS FINANCIAL ADVISOR AND STAFF TO ENTER INTO ANNUAL FEE NEGOTIATIONS AND REPORT BACK CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We are to Item 8(E)(4), presentations and selection of financial advisory firm. And, Mr. Smykowski, I want to kind of give a little brief here before -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: Sure. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- before we get going. There was a question posed to our staff regarding whether firms were allowed to be in this room while another was presenting and so forth. Based on the legal interpretation of the Sunshine Law, we do not have the right or ability to ask anyone to leave this room during presentations. It is completely at the decision of each financial advisor whether you wish to stay in for the other presentations or not and it can't be held against you one way or the other. So we're not going to ask anyone to leave for the presentations. You are able to do what you wish, and we'll hear each presentation in whatever order has been determined. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Traditionally, what have we done? I guess the difference for me is we can't require anybody. We can -- traditionally we've suggested that they, they step outside, but we can't require that. Is that the distinction? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel can elaborate, but even suggesting has been brought into question. MR. WEIGEL: I think we have a fine new tradition, that's not commencing today, it's already commenced earlier in the county administrator selection process, but this is the way it ought to be and the best way done. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Okay. Mr. Smykowski, please go ahead. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Thank you. For the record, again, Michael Smykowski, O & B Director. What we're going to do today is hear presentations from the three firms that were short-listed and select one firm to serve as financial advisor to Collier County. The current three-year agreement with Raymond James expired on April 1st. On March llth the board authorized a ninety-day extension, carrying us essentially through July 1. Staff in the intermittent period prepared an RFP to select a new financial advisor. We received five responses. The county finance committee reviewed the proposals and developed a short list based on staff rankings. The short list includes the following, William R. Hough & Company, Public Financial Management, Inc., and Southern Municipal Advisors, Inc. The board directed that the three short-listed firms be invited to make brief presentations at a county commission meeting. At the conclusion the board would rank the three firms in order of preference. In addition, until we execute a contract agreement with the top ranked firm selected by the board today, Raymond James has agreed to remain as the county's advisor on an interim basis under the same terms and conditions of their existing agreement. In addition, to insure continuity, Raymond James will also serve as the financial advisor on the Naples Park financing until that financing is complete. With that I would like to -- the three firms at this time would like you to hear brief presentations from them. I'm going to follow the order in the executive summary. William R. Hough, PFH, and then SHA, Inc. MR. REAGAN: Good morning, Commissioners. I don't know if I was ever so successful chasing away my competition that quickly. I'm Bill Reagan. I'm Senior Vice President with William R. Hough & Company and along with me today is Bonnie Wise, who is First Vice President with William R. Hough & Company. First allow me to say that we're very proud to be here and we appreciate this opportunity to go ahead and make our presentation and give you our qualifications and credentials. You asked that we stay to five minutes. We will respect that. We know you have a long agenda, so we'll move quickly. We want to highlight four items for you that I think that would be helpful. Go ahead. Bonnie is going to hand out some written presentations, so in case I miss something or say something that you think I didn't say, it should be in there. Along with the staff, if we have extra copies, Bonnie. We would like to try to talk. Number 1, when you select a financial advisor, what's important? Probably the most important single thing is your personnel. We would like to talk to you about our philosophy and role and what we would provide as your financial advisor. We would like to talk to you about the knowledge and experience with Collier County specifically, and then I'm going to try to conclude real fast and try to keep it under five minutes for you and then if you have any questions, we're more than happy. As you can go to that first page where it talks about the financial team, the project group. We've put -- assembled a team of six individuals that equal around a hundred years of public finance experience. Bonnie and I will serve as your project managers. We will be together at all items. We will be -- back each other up and there will be no delay in case you can't get ahold of one of us or the other. Market consultation, which is the second, the most important thing, if you don't have a financial advisor who knows what market conditions are, there's no sense in having a financial advisor. Scott Johnson has over twenty years, assisted by Manteen Witt of ten and Jean Man of ten also. Technical analysis is Brian Harris. We build most of our programs in-house. We are one of the few firms in the nation that has in-house capabilities. Brian is in charge of the quantitative and technical group. He will be assisted by Julie Santamaria. We've added a new member of our staff at Hough of Richard Suttmeier. You may have heard or read about him or seen him on TV. He is an analysis (sic) who projects -- chief financial strategist who projects interest rates and stocks and bonds and gold prices and all those things that somehow I'm not always that well versed on in that particular market. As I mentioned to you before, I just want to go over a couple items about Bonnie and I regarding our expertise. Bonnie and I together have probably been serving close to over three billion myself and 3.8 for Bonnie. There is just about any conceivable financing that's happened in the State of Florida or even its surrounding states, Bonnie and I have probably worked on it. Bonnie currently serves as financial advisor to some well known counties such as Hillsborough, Sarasota and others, while I serve in Leon, Hernando, and we're both project managers together for the State of Florida's financial advisor team. I worked -- Bonnie and I worked at previous firms and we worked together in some different counties. And when we both joined Hough -- we have very similar philosophies. We don't tell the client what they need, we listen to what your needs are and we work with your staff to try to come and hopefully that next year at your millage rate, maybe there are some ideas and some assistance we can help your administrative staff in lowering your millage rate and keeping your taxes where you want to be. Our particular expertise, I have expertise in lease purchase. You have a board member here, Commissioner Berry, who I've done a number of certificate of participations and master lease programs for the Collier School Board. Also instituted one of the first-rated equipment lease programs for Orange County, Florida, as a financial advisor. Bonnie has solid waste, affordable housing, tax increments and utility financing background, all particular expertise, all processes we both have from one time or the other either worked individually or together. Bonnie? MS. WISE: I'm going to discuss a little bit about William R. Hough & Company. I know that some of you are already familiar with the firm as the firm has done a lot of bond issues for your county in the past. One thing that distinguishes our firm from the other firms that are competing is that we are a firm that does both underwriting and financial advisory work. We have a trading desk in our St. Petersburg office, which we think is very important to allowing us to be the best financial advisor possible. We -- our firm is headquartered in St. Petersburg. You can see our offices distribute throughout the country. We have thirteen fully staffed public finance offices, most in particular to note, the one in Naples, of course. Our firm is considered the leading market maker of municipal bonds in Florida. We carry an inventory of 80 million dollars. I want to explain a little bit about why it's so important to have an underwriting desk. The underwriting desk provides Bill and I the information that we need to accurately price bonds. And it helps us with market timing, for example, if any economic data is coming out, what other bond issues are coming into the marketplace. Our underwriting desk routinely gets calls from financial advisory-only firms because they have to use only indices to price their bonds. We know, for example, if a large trade of bonds, let's say a 30 million dollar block of Orange Utility Commission bonds trades in the secondary market. We can compare that to your interest rates. Structuring of financing is about, more the flexibility it provides to you, the security that we're going to pledge. The underwriting spread is important, but that's not the only factor. (Timer goes off) MS. WISE: The final thing -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That would be five minutes, believe it or not. MS. WISE: Okay. The final thing that I'd like to mention is that all our work is done in-house. We do not have to rely on co-financial advisors. We do not have to contract out our services. I'll allow Bill to -- MR. REAGAN: Hay I conclude? Okay. I want to do it very quickly. The last chart shows you a whole bunch of cute boxes. I want you to take a look at the commitment to public finance. Everyone talks about it, but I want to give you a story. About twenty years ago this county was facing a financial crisis. I happened to be the new -- fortunately or unfortunately, the newly elected clerk. We were about ready to go in default on 12 million dollars' worth of bonds. While I was new and while I may have been young -- twenty years ago -- I was smart enough to know that this county was not going in default on my watch. We talked to a group of local banks, some Wall Street firms, to help us out of this problem and, much to our concern and dismay, that they really didn't have a great deal of interest because of the problem that we had. We borrowed the money from the state, went through validation, went to the Supreme Court and lost the case. I got a call one night at my house -- this was 1977 -- from Bill Hough who said, "I heard you had a problem, can I come down and see you?" And I was exhausted from just going through this for about two or three months. And he came down the next morning, worked with us, helped us solve that problem and stayed with the business. It's the kind of commitment that we talk about that no other firm has. It's been doing business since 1963 in county, over 300 million in this particular county. I myself have over close to 250 million just doing itself locally. We don't need startup. We don't need to have a curve. We know the product, we know what you need. We know what your demos are. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. REAGAN: Do you want to us stay for questions or how do you want us? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It would be fine to go ahead and have a seat in the audience. If there are questions to be directed to you, it wouldn't hurt if you're here. Thank you. MR. SMYKOWSKI: The second firm would be Public Financial Management, Incorporated. MS. WISHER: Good morning. For the record, my name is Lavon Wisher with Public Financial Management, and with me today is Patti Garrett, who is the senior managing consultant from my Ft. Myers office. I think that the issue today is, what does Collier County expect from their financial advisor? Are you going to take a narrow view and look at transaction management only, and, if so, all of the firms that you have or that you will hear from today are qualified to do transaction management. While we think we do it better than anybody else, all three of us can do you a good job. But in today of lower taxes, increased service delivery, derivative products, yield burning, and when you look at all of those issues that will be facing Collier County in the future, we believe that you really only have one choice today. PFM is the only full service advisory firm that you will be interviewing today. What does that mean? It means that we do not look at transactions in a vacuum but we look at the whole financial picture of Collier County or of our clients. We are not driven by financial management. In fact, over sixty percent of our revenues come from non-traditional transaction management. We look at the very core of your revenues. We look at how you spend your money, if you request us to do so. We are the only firm here today that offers you independent national financial advice. Each of our clients throughout the nation -- and we have fourteen offices and we are a national firm -- is represented by one of the owners of the firm. But the good part about that is that we have core groups within our corporate structure -- that is, solid waste, transportation, strategic planning -- that assist each one of the managing directors in serving our clients. Governments that are in trouble, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, the City of Miami and now the seaport in Dade County have all hired PFM because they were in trouble. In Los Angeles when they went with a bankruptcy, there were a 180 governments within the pool and ninety of them hired PFM to get them out with as little loss as possible. The City of Philadelphia is now on their feet after near bankruptcy. Washington, D.C. is on their way. They have a long way to go. The City of Miami was 65 million dollars in bankruptcy and the oversight board of the State of Florida took over and they have now hired us. Last month we heard the controversy on the seaport in Dade County and they have now hired us. What really sets us apart, though, from everyone else is the fact that we are in the market every day. We are the only firm in the whole nation that in 1996 was in the market every day. Our competitors will say to you that we don't have a desk and therefore we cannot price your bonds. I am -- I don't completely agree with that, but we do have a desk, and it's not well known because we do it through the management of investment funds. We have a portfolio management. We don't handle money, though. We only manage the assets, and we have portfolios for in excess of 9 billion dollars that we manage every day. We have traders that exceed the numbers of any Wall Street firm that would be there. But that is not even important, that you be Number 1. It is not even important that you be the largest and it is not important that you have the trading, the desk. What really sets us apart from everyone else is our ideas. Twenty-two managing directors, sixteen of those which come from some form of government, create the core for our corporate structure which is the development of ideas. We meet every three months and develop ideas that will service our client. We think that is the culture that sets us apart. We have an opportunity to be investment bankers. We're not by choice, because we believe our clients need unbiased, free of conflict advice in the management of their assets. And I have thirteen seconds left and I will quit and answer any questions that you may have. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any questions at this time? Seeing none, thank you for your presentation. MS. WISHER: Thank you. MR. SMYKOWSKI: The final representative is from Southern Municipal Advisors, Inc. Invite them to the podium and hear their presentation. If you would like me to distribute -- MS. CAWLEY: Good morning. I'm Teressa Cawley, president of Southern Municipal Advisors. We're a firm who provides independent financial advisory services to local governments throughout the southeast. I hope you have had the opportunity read our proposal, particularly Pages 7 through 13, which will really focus on our understanding of the county and help demonstrate to you our experience as a full service FA. To prepare for this opportunity to propose to you today, we've spent the last year researching and analyzing every facet of the county and developing a strong sense of your demographic makeup, of your financial condition and also of your upcoming needs. In the interest of time, instead of repeating what's in the proposal and going over the little souvenir that I passed out to you up front, I'd really like to focus on what can SMA do for you? We understand that the county has a desire to always put safety first, and that parallels SMA's fiscally conservative nature. We understand the county's strong financial position, its somewhat narrow service-oriented tax base, or economic base, and a capital plan that continues to work with a reduced millage of something like 0.3 mills, and that the balance of your capital projects are funded with various non-ad valorem revenues. We believe that we can help you develop financing and revenue options that will continue to work with you in the millage constraints that you have. The recent approval of your NM service fee, your ongoing EMS impact fee, the consideration of a sheriff's impact fee, really go in line with our creativity and we want to work with you to help you continue to come up with ways to make sure the taxpayers are -- pay their fair share, that no one group is paying more than the other one. All of this knowledge is going to provide us with a foundation in order to help you prepare for the future. Our ability to communicate financial issues in a succinct and timely manner with you as the commission, the staff, the rating agencies, the markets, will provide you with ongoing support and will provide you with services that will assist you when we're communicating in the markets with upcoming changes in the county. We've done all types of financings, and on Page 3 of the little flip book I gave you you'll you see the different types of financings that we've done. But in closing, the thing I want you to remember is that your business is important to us. We'd like to work for you. We're dedicated to working for you and, in the interest of time, I didn't bring other people with me today. I'm going to be the lead for you. It's not going to be a different person. I'll be here to work with you on a daily basis. And I also hope that you can see that the year we've spent preparing for this presentation will be a demonstration of what we'll provide for you in the future and our commitment to becoming a hard-working team member of the Collier County team. Again, thank you for the opportunity, and we'd love the opportunity to support you as your FA. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Ms. Cawley. Any questions at this time? Mr. Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Ms. Cawley, if I could ask you a question, please? MS. CAWLEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The other firms had a page here that showed where their offices are. MS. CAWLEY: Right. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And their personnel. Where are you located? MS. CAWLEY: Our main office is in North Miami Beach. I also work out of the Boca Raton office because I live there. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. MS. CAWLEY: And it takes me an hour and forty-five minutes, door-to-door. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. MS. CAWLEY: Except when my battery died, like this morning when I got here. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Smykowski, at this point I think if the board has further questions for any of the presentations or members of the presentation teams we received, it would be appropriate. Otherwise what we need to do is go through a ranking process. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: In addition, there is -- as part of the executive summary, Page 3, there is a cost matrix of the proposed hourly fees for various services provided by each firm and what those would be if, obviously, they were selected. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman, whichever -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- firm we go with, is this a, a year-by-year or three-year contract; what is it? MR. SMYKOWSKI: For the record, it's two years and there's a renewal clause for two, one-year renewals as well. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And on these fees, I take it this is not like a CCNA where you make a choice and then negotiate a fee, the fees have already been outlined in our packet here so those would be fixed; is that correct? Not necessarily? MR. SMYKOWSKI: I believe they are, based on their submittal -- at least their hourly rates, for there principals and the staff. MR. MCNEES: Mike McNees from the administrator's office. I think that's -- Mr. Weigel can correct me -- but you're not at this point today committing to any fees. They've recommended or told us what their fees would be that they would propose under the contract. You certainly have the authority to tell your staff, "We like Firm A, see if you can beat them down a little bit as you negotiate," and we would have that opportunity. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My concern is that we can rank them by what we have received and the presentation we have received today. What I then would like to see is for the Number 1 ranking to come back with a typical scenario of service and cost in comparison to what we've experienced in the past so that we can determine whether that's in line with what we had, what we have had or not. Otherwise, we -- the idea of a blind shot and whatever the cost is, the cost is, is not something I want to enter into, so it would be my desire that we do a ranking today and that we negotiate with that firm to arrive at a typical year's cost. I know that's a tough thing to do in this field, but it can be arrived at if both parties work hard enough at it. Is that a fair direction? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Fine. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let's go ahead. And what I'd like to do is for each member of the board to rank the firms 1, 2 and 3. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 1 being the best? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: 1 being your best -- your highest choice, 3 being your last choice, and to do so orally, for the record. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sure. My first choice is the Hough company, second, SMA, third, Public Financial Management. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I think it's important that our -- that William R. Hough has a local person here and, not only that, but the local person that would be operating as our financial advisor was formerly our clerk of courts so he has intimate knowledge of Collier County and its workings. For that reason -- for those reasons I ranked Hough Number 1; PFM, 2, and Southern Municipal Advisors, 3. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Hough is Number 1, and again, it's the local presence, and just as they appear, Public Financial Management Number 2; SMA, Southern Municipal Advisors, 3. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I too will rank Hough Number 1, the local presence and Mr. Reagan's experience with the county the primary reasons for that. SMA, I think, and particularly in their packet, is pretty impressive, despite the fact they are on the east coast, and I would rank them Number 2, and PFM Number 3. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I was impressed with the attention to detail in the application that SMA provided, however, the size of the staff and the geographic spread of their clients was a little bit of a concern for me, so I have ranked Hough Number 1, SMA 2, and PFM 3. It doesn't really take a rocket scientist to figure out who comes out Number 1. I believe SMA then had more votes for rank as Number 2. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, that's correct. They had 3. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And then PFM has 3. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Three second place and two -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So we'll ask you to work with Hough and come back with what we'll ask for, a brief presentation on what would be, I guess an annualized cost that we can anticipate in comparison to the history of what we have spent on these types of issues in the past to get a feel, and if that's acceptable to the board, we'll execute a two-year agreement at that time. Is that acceptable to the balance of the board? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If for some reason it wasn't we can go on to the next one? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If for some reason it's not acceptable, we will then go to the second ranked firm. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Fully expecting that, since we have this hometown boy, we're going to get a much better deal than anybody else gets. The hometown guys get the best deal. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Look for a real low travel column there, Bill, okay? Okay. Any other questions? Seeing none. We thank you all for your time and presentation. More thorough than I expected and thank you again for being here today. Item #10A RESOLUTION 97-292 APPOINTING RICHARD JOSLIN, ROBERT MEISTER, JR. AND THOAHS HEGGER - ADOPTED Let's -- it's about 10:20. Let's take a five-minute recess. (A brief recess was taken) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We are going to reconvene the Board of County Commissioners' Meeting. We are to Item 10(A) on the agenda, appointment of members to the Contractors Licensing Board. It looks like we have four people and three appointments to make, if that's correct. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It looks, it looks like maybe one person's already, however, served six years so that we would have to do a policy change to allow him -- he's already served two, three-year terms and that's the limit. So my suggestion is that we appoint the other three, Joslin -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree. If we're going to be consistent -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Beaumont and Megget. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- with what we've done in the past, unless we didn't have any other qualified applicants -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- we have not made the exception. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Beaumont has done a fantastic job. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But I agree. I think we need to -- when we have new appointments, need to take advantage of them, so I think that's a good deal. Someone like to make a motion on that? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve the three -- let me just list them again -- I'm sorry. Hang onto that S -- Joslin, Meister -- if I'm pronouncing that correctly -- and Megget. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And we of course will send correspondence to Mr. Beaumont thanking him for six years of dedicated service on that board. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none. Mr. Beaumont can reapply next year. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a question on the agenda. Were we going to talk about the charter school and the gift law? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I apologize. I skipped over that. I missed that note. That is my fault. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's okay. Item #9A DISCUSSION REGARDING CHARTER SCHOOL ISSUE - ITEM TO BE HEARD AGAIN IN ITS ENTIRETY CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's go back to Item 9(A) under County Attorney's Report. The question we have -- I think we're all aware of it -- is whether or not charter schools are considered under the interlocal agreement with the school board so that impact fees can be waived. Let me just ask if the -- I feel like I've read enough and seen enough on this that it makes sense to me that they should be waived since they fall under the school board and operate under contract with the school board. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me frame the question I would have. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have not seen or read a whole lot since I have been back about sixteen hours. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I envy you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The framework of my question is very simple, and that is, obviously they are -- the institution itself will be a public school. The question is, this is a private building and there's a private group involved, and I think that's probably the crux of it. I know they're being sponsored by the public school system and so on, and that's where our legal question comes in, but I think that anybody who is arguing the other side is simply saying, it's a private group and a private school, and that's -- for me anyway, that's the framework of my question. COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's not a private school. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's not a private -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, I know. I know. But I need to question the set-up. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the bottom line is that it's a public school because your tax money is paying to run it and operate it, so it's a public school. COMMISSIONER BERRY: But not solely. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Before getting to Mr. Weigel, I think the only real concern here is, as long as it's being operated as a public school per se, that's fine. But let's say a building is constructed, they close the school and the building then is used for another use, impact fees should be paid by -- that's the only catch I see. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that for someone else to move in that building and use it for something other than a public school, impact fees should be paid. So that's the only twist I've seen. Mr. Weigel, if you could -- I know that you were anticipating something in the very near future and having an answer on that, if you could tell us where you are and if our concerns are going to be covered by that decision or not. MR. WEIGEL: I've always been afraid you'd say you didn't need me and, in regard to this question and issue and the questions that each of you individually have framed collectively to me, you've practically provided the answer that I was preparing for you right now. You're right in the heart of the matter in that there are some issues concerning the private element of this as well as, of course, the issues of the public school element. And staff -- I must say, staff and county attorney's office have not had a lot of time to work on this because things have been moving rather quickly. The agreement with the school board and the charter school as adopted June 10th to be effective July 1st, and things have been with us a rather short period of time, but what I note is, and, as Mr. Constantine indicated, that the property upon which this contracted-for charter school is to operate is in fact the property owned by private owner, Elhanon Combs. That private property is currently in a conforming use status. It has been in a nonconforming use status for many years. And this board may recall that there have been a few attempts from other parties to come forward to use it for other purposes, such as a skateboard center and things of that nature, which never quite made it. The county attorney's office and staff have been looking and trying to distinguish the differences between the property and that which will run with the land in the future and the development of the property. And, notwithstanding our discussion with school board counsel concerning whether school board counsel considered whether the charter school fell under the interlocal agreement that the county has with the school board, I believe that it ultimately will give this board an opportunity to make a choice, but we still have to take into account the potential of the fact that, if the property -- that if the property takes a turn for development as -- with a school without impact fees and other things applying to it, that if the county doesn't do it properly it may be subject to successful lawsuit, visa vis, other property owners and interests nearby that may have a problem with that. That said, I think what we will see is that -- and must recognize, again, as I state, the private -- the property is privately owned. The charter school corporation is leasing this land. Pursuant to its agreement with the school board, the school board is called the sponsor, the charter school corporation is called the school in that contract, and the school board, as sponsor, has the ability under its agreement with the charter school to in fact terminate its arrangements with the charter school at any time for cause. Other than that, there are certain milestones of review, I think on an annual basis. And so the charter school is actually operating under a lease with the private property owner. So what we must be careful about from the county standpoint is, if we're dealing with a leasehold owner in the sense of the charter school, what are we doing affecting the underlying land and its private ownership? The -- I do think we can distinguish land use from the development and if the board were to consider this development of a school facility as falling under the interlocal agreement that the county has with the school board, staff has previously provided for -- in fact, next week's board meeting -- that the nonconforming use that currently exists potentially be rectified, be altered and recognized as a different kind of nonconforming use with the school facility that would come to be utilized, constructed and utilized on this property. I would suggest to the board that if it were to fall -- to come to the conclusion that this is a school recognized with the intent of the interlocal agreement that the county has with the school board, that it additionally recognize that the nonconforming use go forward next week in regard to the underlying private property ownership. But further, that any -- by application of the interlocal agreement, the nonrequirement for permitting fees, inspections, impact fees and things of that nature, exist to this underlying land, only so long as it is used as a charter school under contract with the school board. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just one comment. The -- as I read the interlocal agreement, it has two significant effects. One is the financial one that results in non-payment of permit, application fees and impact fees. But another benefit of the interlocal agreement is that public schools are permitted uses in all zoning districts. As a public school then, I don't understand why we get into the nonconforming use discussion. It's a public school, it's permitted in all districts. It seems -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If I may, Commissioner Mac'Kie -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- to me it's both ways. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- we only get into the nonconforming when it ceases to be used as a public school. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So why do we need to talk about that next week? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, I think it's a safeguard. I think if we ignore the fact that the underlying land is in private ownership and that, should it cease its operation as a school, that impact fees that are appropriate would be due at that time. I think we have to recognize that that can happen. It would be like leaving an open door where we -- where we can easily close it and safeguard the protection of impact fees for non-public use. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So what would we be doing? We would be saying that the nonconforming use status -- I don't understand that part of it. Could you explain it to me again? MR. WEIGEL: Yes. I will certainly try. It would appear to me that the interlocal agreement contemplated that the school facilities ostensibly would be owned -- or school properties would be owned by the school. Now, if the school -- if the school board has a school property that it determines is no longer property for a school and did not pay the impact fees and things of that nature, there is an argument that that property will never be subject to impact fees in the future. But this particular property, having a kind of a particular identity of a private property merely leased to a private -- well, a corporation but that not, it's not even leased to the school board itself, that we have -- just to kind of correct the record, we have a current non-conforming use there which is not even -- with a private landowner which is not recognized or changed in recognition, notwithstanding contracts that the school board has -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: -- with the charter school. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So what you are saying basically is that we'll open the window for this use but with a caveat that it closes in the event it ceases to be used as a charter school. I've got no problem with that. MR. WEIGEL: I would expect that the underlying property owner -- and we're certainly not attorneys for the private property interest -- but if there were to be a lawsuit, the underlying property owner would be sued and the county would be sued by virtue of the fact that the status of the property didn't, didn't reflect a new, nonconforming use. And I'd rather not fight that battle, and this is more an abundance of caution than just saying, "I think we're okay and full speed ahead." COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just, in the short time frame that is available since school is, what, three weeks away or something, we -- next week, I guess, is good enough, if the staff is continuing to process this. MR. WEIGEL: Well, they are. It's an advertised matter. We've advertised it. It's ready to go at this point. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So we'll hear that matter in its entirety next week? MR. WEIGEL: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Does that update answer the questions the board had at this point? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, I think one of the problems here is that most charter schools have been existing schools that have been turned into charter schools. I don't know of any -- I don't know of any personally, but -- and I don't know how many counties have used the charter school where they have gone out and secured another location for a charter school. I would be curious to know that and then to know -- they must have the same problem. I can't imagine of sixty-seven counties that this isn't something that hasn't arisen before. This is the first for Collier County. This is not the first in the State of Florida. They've had other charter schools that are in existence already. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, but, like you said, those I've heard of converted, but -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Have converted current schools, existing schools into charter schools. So I would be curious to know, and even by calling the Department of Education, they could possibly tell you in Tallahassee, some other district that had this same problem, and it might clear it up real quick. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'll tell you too real quick, just because I asked the same question, Wendy Girarden is the attorney to the charter school corporation, and she tells me that she's already done that research and the answer is, when this similar situation has arisen in other counties, they have had the benefit of being treated as a public school. So that might add some ammunition. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, it appears that the legal determination Mr. Weigel is making is heading in that direction. MR. WEIGEL: Well, it is, in fact. I think if the board -- if this board -- the counsel for the school board did not indicate, you know, with specificity an interpretation, but if this board wishes to indulge that interpretation, I'm saying, that's perfectly within your province. I'm really more concerned about the underlying ownership and the private ownership capability. The charter school in this case merely has a leasehold interest and a sponsorship contract which is subject to termination unilaterally by the school board at any time. So with these elements in place, the facts that are dealt us, I felt that this was probably the best way to go to avoid a potential property use lawsuit or issue to have to respond to in the future. And I really don't think that, based on the very short time that staff has had this, that we've been a sticking point for going forward in this regard. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, understanding the workload you've had, I would agree with that, so -- Any further questions on this matter? Seeing none. Item #9B ISSUE REGARDING CLARITY ON ACCEPTING GIFTS - DISCUSSED We are to Item (9)(B), request by Commissioner Mac'Kie for a review of the changes in gift laws which we have received in writing, but apparently you had a specific question? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, my specific question is this. When I -- frankly, first of all, I'll just state my disappointment is that it's late and it was mid-year before I had received advice from the county attorney's office about the change in the law and how it would affect my need to make or to accept gifts or refuse gifts. And in the meantime, I had accepted a gift for the Heart Ball and a gift for tickets to the film, what was it, Gone Fishing, and reported those, and both of those gifts were over a hundred dollars. And when I got my memo from the county attorney's office, in my panic I went to Mr. Weigel and said, "Ah, I think I've done a bad thing." And he indicated, "No, that may be not be the case because a lobbyist -- you know, these people you gave you those tickets may not be lobbyists." In my mind they're lobbyists and I'm not going to do it any more, but I think it's important that we get it real clear what exactly we're allowed to accept and what we should not accept. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just, I mean, by way of a compliment, the fact that you reported those items makes it clear there was no ill intent -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- obviously. And I think we just need to make sure we're all clear on what you can and can't do. MR. MANALICH: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. For the record, Ramiro Manalich, Chief Assistant County Attorney. On responding to your questions, Commissioner Mac'Kie, basically a gift is defined as that which is accepted by a donee or by another on the donee's behalf or which is given to another, directly or indirectly, for which equal or greater consideration is not given. One of the main changes to the law that occurred in this last period was that food and beverage, it used to be it was excepted if it was at a single sitting, now it can be included. The other thing you asked about was the definition of a lobbyist, and that is a person who, for compensation, seeks or sought during the preceding twelve months to influence governmental decision-making or to encourage passage, a defeat or modification of any proposal or recommendation. Those are the essential definitions. Now, if you would want a little more guidance I can go a little more broadly than that and just give you a breakdown of the amounts, et cetera, but I don't know if you want me to go that far. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. What I want, real specifically, is, I would -- my interpretation of that definition of a lobbyist is that it would include land use attorneys. Yes or no? Land use attorneys who appear in front of the commission, have in the last twelve months and are reasonably expected to in the next twelve. MR. WEIGEL: Well, I'll respond. And the answer is, probably yes, although there is a statutory exemption for attorneys under the conflicts law, and it's a little bit up in the air and there have not been significant opinions that provide for that. And, as Chris Anderson of the ethics commission has indicated, we take the law as we find it. It's not created here locally and there is in fact an exemption for attorneys under the lobbyist category. I might also note that Florida Association of Counties' counsel, Mr. Bill Roberts, had provided the Board of County Commissioners in March an update of the statutory changes that had occurred to both the lobbying law and the gift law, itemizing the more salient, salient changes that existed and discussing both reporting requirements and what in fact cannot be received. You know, we try to inform you and plus respond to specific requests that come to us in that regard. But we are dealing with a highly technical area of the law. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And let me just say that I respect that your job is to interpret it and tell us what the law says. You're not making moral judgments or giving us moral advice on what we should or shouldn't do. I'm asking you a legal question and you're giving me that legal answer. And then, if I choose to say it includes -- for me, it includes land use attorneys, then that's my business. But if attorneys is not a good example, is developers a good example? MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think so. Again, you'll always have to look to the individual context before you make -- apply just -- this may be a broad generalization -- but within the statutory definition that's provided, that has come above or attempted to influence the board within the previous twelve months, whether that's an attorney or developer -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or perhaps an engineer, planner. MR. WEIGEL: Whatever moniker that it may be, it is probably the better course, and call it a conservative or at least a cautious course, to look at it very carefully and perhaps determine that in fact this may potentially be a lobbyist. Now, what's also very important to note is that the lobbyist, or donors generally, have significant statutory requirements of themselves. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I think that this board, and I think that the public should be well aware of the fact that commissioners or any elected officials that of course fall under the ethics laws regarding gifts and reporting, have a duty -- there is a statutory duty, and the elected officials have a duty and statutory right to be told -- in fact, it is an obligation to be told -- of any person that is a lobbyist that in fact that they are a lobbyist and that anything that they may be giving, whether it's a lunch or a ticket or anything of any value whatsoever, is coming from a lobbyist. And I would expect that the record would reflect, if there were a record, that often that has not been the case. And that's a bit of the conundrum that the commissioners find themselves in, that they may receive something that, in the normal course of events, seems very, very normal, typically, and not of significant value. But anything between a $25.00 and a hundred dollar value from a lobbyist, in fact, the commissioner or any elected official receiving such -- potentially receiving such a gift, by law, is supposed to be told that it is a lobbyist attempting to give that gift, and that in fact it's going to be reported by the lobbyist. And by virtue of the fact that that probably has not happened -- the law has been changed. It's relatively new, so the lobbyists or persons that would be lobbyists may not be fully aware of that -- places additional difficulty on behalf of a commissioner. And I think that that's not a point that's supposed to be lost. My last specific question was, because of the definition of lobbyist including appearances, you know -- influencing the county commission for pay, basically, what about things like the chamber of commerce, the EDC, the civic associations of the world, do you think they would or would not be included in "lobbyist" for reporting? MR. WEIGEL: It's a close call. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me add something to that question -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- because one of the things, when I first got elected to the board, one of the questions that came to Mr. Tyler and yourself was groups like that, and the answer had been, if those groups are asking you to come in your capacity as commissioner to -- I don't know how it was phrased -- but to, quote, add to the event, or somehow either have you speak or just want the public official participation, that wasn't a problem. And I think we need to define then, what is that? If a civic association invites you and there happens to be a meal involved and six months later that civic association comes on some item here, you're right, they're not paid, but just so we're clear on that -- MR. MANALICH: Remember, again, the lobbyist political committee prohibition as it applies to you requires that you not accept anything over a hundred dollars in value. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And report anything between twenty-five and a hundred. MR. MANALICH: Well, the requirement is on the political committee or lobbyist to report in that range. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't have to report it? MR. MANALICH: Not in that range. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. MANALICH: But, you know, the curious thing about the law, the way it was written by the legislature, is that one of the things that you don't have to report is prohibited gifts because it's self-incrimination. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I wanted to take the opportunity to remind everyone that these fine laws are brought to you by your state legislature, who is exempted from them. You know, they make the laws for us that we have to wade through that make you question someone you've known for ten years. You go out to dinner with another couple, and this time you pick up the check and next time they pick up the check, and you've known them for ten years, and now all of a sudden -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's very confusing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- I've got to ask myself, "Is this person a lobbyist?" You know. And, you know. So the bottom line is, don't take anything over a hundred bucks, boom. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Period. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Make it easy. MR. MANALICH: One other thing I would add to that, and we have stated this in prior memos also, and that is, there's another section of the code of ethics that says you cannot accept one penny if either you know or should have known that it was given as a quid pro quo to influence decision-making, so -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Now, that's old law, though. MR. MANALICH: That's -- yeah, that's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Welcome to common sense. MR. MANALICH: Right. Exactly. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. So if I -- what's the distinction -- I don't have to report any gifts at all ever again as long as I don't take a gift that's over a hundred dollars? MR. HANALICH: Essentially, that's correct. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Then what's the -- MR. HANALICH: Now, there is a reporting requirement on the giver of the gift. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: From them. I don't care. That's their business. But if I don't take -- as long as I take no gifts over a hundred dollars, either to me or to friends of mine, blah, blah, blah -- I thought that I had to report it if it was between twenty-five and a hundred dollars. You're telling me I don't? MR. HANALICH: No. I don't read it that way. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: All right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What would be comical is to get a reporting sheet from a Dade County commissioner. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Well, then the bottom line -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All six pages. COHMISSIONER BERRY: -- and then you can't take anything over a hundred dollars anyway. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. I don't understand that distinction. MR. HANALICH: Well, you can't receive anything over a hundred dollars from a lobbyist or a political committee. You can receive it from someone else but you would have to report it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But if you give me a present at Christmastime -- COHMISSIONER BERRY: Don't kid yourself. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- worth a hundred and one dollars, I have to report it? COHMISSIONER BERRY: Don't wait, okay? I like you, Tim, but -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But not that much. COHMISSIONER BERRY: No. MR. HANALICH: You don't have to report it from relatives. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So let's try and boil this down to something we all understand and individuals and the media can stop playing attorney for us. MR. MANALICH: I would emphasize also, as Mr. Weigel indicated, you have to evaluate these things on individual context. You know, we can give some general guidelines and pointers but, you know, there can be some real subtleties here as to whether somebody falls within these technical applications or not. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But the advice I'm looking for is, if I want to be absolutely sure that I'm in compliance, I'm not looking for close calls, if I want to be safe, the only way truly -- the only way I can be positively safe is don't accept anything over a hundred dollars from anybody except my mama? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Your mom is going to give me something over a hundred dollars? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not you, me. MR. WEIGEL: That's fine. And also, one other thing to note. The rules are placed in a simplified way on the quarterly gift disclosure forms which, of course, are available to all of us. One of the, one of the elements under -- there are -- this form, how do I determine the value of a gift, and it notes that, and I quote, compensation provided by you to the donor shall be deducted from the value of the gift in determining the value of the gift. So, if there is something potentially that's over a hundred dollars, a hundred and ten dollars, if in fact it looks like a good thing, there may be some value to go to it, and, after all, there may be business value of attending these things, and not related to a specific agenda item but information that occurs in the civic area arena, the elected official potentially receiving this gift from the donor may in fact, I would suggest, prior to the event, make the appropriate compensation, pay for it, to reduce the value below a hundred dollars. And that again pulls you -- the legislature's provided a way so that the valuation does not become a critical factor. There may still be the requirement for a lobbyist to report. That doesn't change. And there's still a requirement for a lobbyist to tell you that yes, he or she is a lobbyist and that they are going to report, and that may not be occurring, and it should be occurring. But to a certain extent, you're caught with the people as you find them in that way. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One of the many challenges of this job is interpreting that. COMMISSIONER BERRY: We bought our own popcorn at the movies. Does that reduce the value of that particular ticket that we got? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How much were they getting for those tickets? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Two of those tickets to the Gone Fishing was 120 bucks, so I should pay the twenty bucks. MR. WEIGEL: Pay twenty-one. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, twenty-one. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A clarification is, a lot of times, like at charity dinners, the tickets are, say, a hundred dollars. There's an actual value to the ticket. In other words, the cost of you coming to the event. In other words, it's usually the meal cost, because that's really all those things are is the meal. MR. WEIGEL: That's right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The rest goes to charity. MR. WEIGEL: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's the actual cost of the ticket, the actual value, not the cost, that is subject to reporting requirements. In other words, the donation that would go to the Heart Association or to the Chamber is not a part of the reporting requirement. MR. WEIGEL: That is correct. MR. MANALICH: As a specific provision, it says that the value of a gift of an admission ticket should not include that portion of the cost which represents a charitable contribution if the gift is provided by the charitable organization. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So I overreported my Heart Ball tickets. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Assuming -- because I do this -- if we get invited to an event, and it's usually two tickets, for you and a guest, I want to know the value of each. So I have, you know, someone call and find out so I know whether, you know, my wife has to stay at home or not. No, I'm just kidding. So I know whether it exceeds that amount. And if it does, then I don't go. And if it doesn't, then I consider it. But, you know, I mean, you guys know. You get invitations to that stuff all the time. You can't go to all of it, but there are some, some select few that you can and I think you just need to go through that process when you do it. Are there any further questions on this? Okay. I think it's at least good that we had a public discussion of it so it should serve to give a lot of great editorial comments for at least two weeks. Okay. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Two weeks' worth of news. Item #10B DISCUSSION REGARDING EXTENSION OF TERM ON AIRPORT AUTHORITY - TERM OF NENO SPAGNA EXTENDED TO SEPTEMBER 8, 1997 - APPROVED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All right. We're done with 9(B). We already heard item 10(A). Let's go to item 10(B), discussion regarding extension of term on Airport Authority. This is a request from Mr. Neno Spagna, who is not asking to renew his term but has asked to be extended through September 8 so that a transition of officers can Occur. First of all, I appreciate Mr. Spagna notifying us of that in ample time to be placed on the agenda, and I would like to see this extension occur today. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion approved. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Now then, Mr. Spagna, thank you. Item #10C RESOLUTION 97-293 APPOINTING MARCO EXPINAR TO THE ENVIRONHENTAL ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED Item 10(C), appointment of member to the Environmental Advisory Board. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion. I believe this is one position, and I'd like to see Marco Espinar, a very intelligent guy, active in the community, and I don't know about you all, but he's taken the time to come in and talk to me about this, it means a great deal to him, and I just think if we see that much commitment before he's even appointed, we can expect a lot out of him on the committee. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Second it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. There is a motion and a second. Are there any further suggestions or discussion on the motion? Seeing none. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none. Motion carries unanimously. We thank all those that submitted their names for consideration and encourage them to do so the next time a vacancy is available. Item #10D RESOLUTION 97-294 APPOINTING HARK W. HOUGHTON TO THE GOLDEN GATE BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY COHMITTEE - ADOPTED Item 10(D), appointment of member to the -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, one vacancy, one applicant. I'd suggest we make a motion. We -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- we approve that applicant. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have a motion and an early second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Item #10E DISCUSSION REGARDING ADVISORY BOARD POLICY - COUNTY ATTORNEY TO AMEND POLICY TO INCLUDE THAT ONLY THE COMMISSION CAN APPOINT OR TERMINATE MEMBERS CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none. Next is a discussion regarding advisory board policy. This came up because, quite honestly, I asked that we discuss this today because we have some conflicting language in both ordinances that create advisory boards and in our land development code, and here's the crux of the matter. You'll find now and again somewhere that says if someone misses so many meetings, the committee or the advisory committee or myself or the board may remove that person. Yet we, as a board, are charged with the appointment of those positions. And a previous board, which did not include a majority of the individuals here, had at least an oral policy that if anyone were to be removed from an advisory committee, that that committee would make that recommendation to this board or this board would bring that up, and that the removal of someone would occur only in that manner. That policy, if you will, unwritten, conflicts with the stated methods and a lot of our ordinances. And we need to reconcile them because we just want to be as clear on this as possible. And I'm certainly of the opinion that if we do the appointment, we should do the removals. But that's -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we need staff direction to do that? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I was going to say just that, Mr. Constantine. I think you and I were both here when we made this an oral policy, or a desire, at least, of the board. And what I would like to do is ask to -- the board to give direction to the county attorney's office to make sure that the -- are there ordinances, I guess, for all of these advisory boards, that each ordinance is modified, if necessary, to reflect that the committees may recommend removal of a member but the final authority is left with the board of commissioners. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is that a motion? I'll second that. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that was just -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just direction. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- asking to give direction. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It will have to come back for a motion. Mr. Weigel, do you see any conflict with following through with that? MR. WEIGEL: No, not at all. And I appreciate the clarification. And part of what we've found is, of course, there are individual ordinances for essentially all of the advisory boards, but we have our general advisory board ordinance anyway, which was amended in 1992, and it itself largely reflects the kind of direction that you're speaking about right now. And it does -- it -- if it were applied uniformly to all the specific ordinances, including the advisory board ordinance or two that exist within the land development code, it would greatly simplify things. And so I think that the direction that you appear to be giving is that, that we, in the next land development code cycle, make the appropriate change for the EAB and any other -- there may not be any other, but any other advisory board that's, that's referenced in the, in the LDC, as well as all the other ordinances. We will greatly simplify our stand on all ordinances if we bring them into conformance with our, as we call it, 8641, as amended in 1992. And I'd be very happy to go forward as a project that way. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We'll consider that board direction and bring this back in lump, or mass, as necessary. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And there is no real time frame on that but the board has given -- we are just saying that we are honoring the previous policy set forth by a board and will operate in that manner, you know, until those changes are made. MR. WEIGEL: That's fine. We'll make sure that's coordinated with staff and all advisory boards. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you very much. And we do want the advisory boards to notify us when absences or other elements are, are triggered. That's the whole idea, because we do want to know about those things. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: This is a principle that we need to be more aware of as a community, is that the ordinances today say one thing that perhaps we're not in agreement with, but rather than disobey the law or not follow the law, what we're doing as a board today is taking the step to change the law to reflect our -- the way we would rather have it done, not just simply ignore the law. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The law is on the books. We have to follow it, and that's a principle that everyone needs to be aware of. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed. Item #10F RECONSIDERATION OF AUDIT REGARDING TDC FUNDS FOR THE GOLF TOURNAMENT - NO ACTION Item 10(F), request for reconsideration of golf tournament audit. This was Commissioner Hac'Kie's addition. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes. I would like to ask the board if we could add to -- perhaps the best way to do it would be to add this item back on an agenda for consideration. This goes back to the Senior PGA event, that the fact that we amended the contract after the fact to eliminate the reporting requirements for the PGA on the tourist tax half a million dollar funding. Frankly, I think that there are a great many issues associated with that that are going to continue to be discussed and I'm trying very carefully not to comment on the Ethics Commission's discussions on Mr. Norris' issue, and I know that they will be making that determination in the next month, but I think that it's incumbent on the board to ask the clerk to look again. Frankly, I think the clerk would be anxious to look at, where did that $500,000 go. Just for history and recollection, what we were told at the time, we discussed this previously, we had a contract in place with the, with, I believe it was Intellinet regarding the PGA. That contract required or permitted payments without verification. Payments were made by the clerk's office upon request because the contract allowed -- required a post audit. And, as the clerk was in the process of that post audit, he requested information from the PGA, asked for proof of some of the expenditures. The PGA responded to that request with information that indicated that some of the expenditures had been inappropriate. At that point he continued to request more information from the PGA and got no more information. Thereafter, this board amended the contract to eliminate the requirement for the audit of those funds. So we still don't know where that $500,000 went. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: May I ask a question? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just as soon as I'm finished. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was going to ask you, actually. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Actually, well, just -- I'm almost finished. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think that there are lot of questions that are outside the jurisdiction of this board about, you know, that go to the Ethics Commission, but this is $500,000 that we authorized to be spent, and I think that it is incumbent on us to look into it, find out where the $500,000 went. And I would like to ask you if you want to reconsider that, if you would like to get a report from the clerk on next week's agenda, or however you'd like to handle it, I think that we need to -- I think the public -- well, frankly, just my constituency has been very vocal in their request that we follow up on, where did the $500,000 go? I'm finished. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Constantine? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My recollection when we discussed doing this before was, one of the reasons we decided not to was it appeared it would be duplicative of the information that was provided. And we did have the question as to whether or not the PGA was being cooperative. My recollection was that we were assured the PGA had started to be cooperative at the end of our discussions and was indeed providing the information. And my question is, did that information flow stop? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That information flow stopped as a result of our amendment to the contract, that -- our amendment to the contract, or the clerk's interpretation of our amendment -- and frankly, I think it is what we did -- we changed the contract to say no other information is necessary. The only question is, did the event occur and did -- were those advertisements on TV, did they actually occur? And if those two questions were yes, then the $500,000 expenditure was appropriate. So no other -- the information flow between PGA and the clerk's office stopped at that point. I'd like for us to ask the clerk to reinstitute that process. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because the reason I didn't support doing the audit before was, quite simply, that it appeared that it was simply duplicating the information that was being provided to us anyway. And if Mr. Weigel or someone from the clerk's office, if they're here or someone can tell me that didn't happen, that's worthy of concern. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, let me ask a question. Which tournament are you referring to, '96 or '97? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The most recent tournament. I believe we completed the process -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But you said Intellinet. Intellinet had nothing to do with that one. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You're talking about -- are you talking the LG Championship or the Intellinet? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, did we have an audit of the Intellinet? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is your item. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: This is your item. You tell us. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then let's make it both. If there was no audit of the first one, we should know where that money went. But my item was the discussion that we had when Commissioner Berry had first come on the board. I remember her question, "Do you people do this often; you amend contracts after the fact?" That's the contract to which I refer. I'm sorry if I said Intellinet. It had -- frankly, one of my issues with the tournament was that it began as Intellinet but by the time we got to the tournament it was LG. And I thought that was a modification that should have been approved by the board. But -- COMHISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which one are you -- I just get confused. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The second one. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: July -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry? COMMISSIONER BERRY: The one that she's speaking about, I had just come on the board, so it had to be 1996. It had to be the tournament of that year, okay? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Because I came on the board last November. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Then it is -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: So it is not the one that was held this year. And, as I recall, that was the discussion about the audit. All right? Then there was discussion about this year, whether there was to be an audit. And I believe at that time it was referred to as being duplicative of information. In other words, there was going to be -- they were going to have to show for every dollar that they collected, they were going to have to give some kind of an invoice that would verify the dollars that they wanted. I personally, I believe I voted against that because I felt that it -- and again, that it was all -- it's going to be very clear. I mean, they've either -- they can either substantiate the request or they can't. So why would you go ahead and do that again? That seemed to me to be a duplication. The first year, I wasn't on the board, didn't know, but that was when you came back and asked that you change it, so -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The contract that I'm interested in is the one that we amended after the fact. COMMISSIONER BERRY: That would have been '96. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think of them as both as Intellinet contracts, so I apologize if that, you know, got confusing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I need to clarify something. Your recollection has left one part out that was important to the discussion at that time. And I won't talk about the inferences in your question, because I think they are obvious. And I'm curious about the source. But the reason that we did not require an audit is because we received a response, and Jim Mitchell was standing right at that microphone, we received a response from the PGA that said, "We hire bulk contract to handle tournaments." What happened is, they don't hire people just for the Intellinet tournament. They hire someone to handle a series of tournaments on the Florida swing. It's at least four tournaments. And that person's job is to go from one tournament to the next as needed. They don't punch a time clock at one end or the other. The goal is to get it done, whether it's a greens keeper whose goal is to get the greens the way they need to be for a senior PGA event or whether it's some guy who pulls cable for the television, they hire these bulk contracts. They were unable to separate out the costs in those bulk contracts of the tournament in Naples from the tournament in Sarasota or Tampa or the one that starts on the east coast. And what I remember is, we had the discussion, that, if they cannot pull out and separate it, an audit of that function is next to impossible. What we would be performing is an audit of a function of however many tournaments they purchased under bulk contract and if they did not do it in an accounting way that you can separate one tournament from the next, which they had no need to, and our contract did not require them to initially, then we could not perform the audit function. That's why I voted to change the '96 contract because, based on the information that PGA gave us, that was not available. When you say PGA funds expended were inappropriate, I would like some very specific examples of what the clerk's saying is inappropriate. Was it inappropriate from an audit standpoint or inappropriate that it did not meet the contract requirement? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: B. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Where are the examples? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How so? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Because we weren't shown any of those. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, do you know what? Probably the best thing to do here is instead of all of us going off of our separate recollections is to ask that we add an item to next week's agenda to invite the clerk or his designee to be here to discuss this with us so that we can have real facts, but with the goal of investigating whether or not there is -- it would be appropriate to do on audit of the Intellinet, the Intellinet one. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, we can always do that. But you brought the item up and asked that we do it today. And you made the statement that there were inappropriate expenditures. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to know what those are. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. The one that -- the one that I remember had to do with the advertising. It was about a $30,000 item. It had to do with the advertising, the licensing of the PGA name that was -- appeared to have been charged twice, simply stated. That was one that, if you recall, came up. There were three specific expenditures that appeared not to have met the contract guidelines about whether or not they were appropriate. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What were the other two? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're not going to do this as a test of my memory today. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not trying to test your memory. I'm just -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If I knew them I would have just said them to you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. I mean, just, you brought the item up. You said there are specific ones. I assume you've been working on this or you wouldn't have brought it up, so -- I don't recall at all what they were. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: See, that's the first I heard of a PGA logo being charged twice. I have no recollection of that. And we stood -- we were in this meeting with the clerk and all of his people sitting right there. And I'm hearing stuff, I believe, for the first time today, that there were three expenditures that didn't meet it. So, you know, if there were three expenditures that were inappropriate and we want to go after those three expenditures, then let's do it through our legal staff. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's find out if they were, because the flow of information stopped when we amended the contract. The clerk no longer pursued the matter with PGA. Would you object to having a report from the clerk on the status of the TDC funds at the next meeting? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel has something. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Did you have something, Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Well, just that the assistant county attorney has brought down the amendment to the contract, and essentially what it did was, it took out the formal audit requirement but it did have other language concerning financial record reporting. And it reads as follows, rather quickly, "Grantee shall maintain adequate financial records concerning the expenditures paid by the county pursuant to the terms of this grant. All records shall be available to the county for its inspection upon written notice to the grantee. Grantee shall also submit any additional documentation requested by county to complete its final accounting of this grant." So, you know, there was -- it's not that we just said, "No audit, no nothing" at that point in time. It appears that, from that standpoint, this particular contract subsection is an ongoing subsection the county could pursue as it wishes to in regard to, at least reasonably, over time, requests of information that it may have. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Likewise, if the clerk had concerns that inappropriate expenditures occurred, there is nothing in that ordinance to prohibit him from requesting information on those expenditures. MR. WEIGEL: In the contract, no. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: In fact, isn't that the function of the clerk's office; aren't they the auditor and can't they request this if that's what they want to do? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, if this board doesn't want to ask for that, then I'll approach it that way. I'll go to the clerk and discuss it with him, and I'm confident that you'll hear about it, one way or the other. I wanted, frankly, for this board to take a position that we needed to look into this issue and that hopefully this is the first of, of several items we might discuss related to all of these -- all of this problem. But because we have already spent this money, I am hoping that this board will ask the clerk to review that, not just punt it to the clerk. I'm also confident that if we told the clerk to stick his head in the sand, he wouldn't do that. I wanted this board to ask the clerk to do it. If we won't, I'm sure the clerk will do it. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The clerk has the authority, and frankly, the responsibility to make sure that the expenditures are appropriate. And an allegation that something might not be, that's his job to look at. And then if he finds that there is something that he thinks may be inappropriate, bring it to us and we can take it. But to suggest that one commissioner thinks there might have been three items, two of which cannot be recalled, that were inappropriate and we're going to take a stand on that? Doesn't even make sense. Let's let the clerk do his job. If he finds a problem, that's the appropriate time for us to do ours. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I would -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Get back to you that way, if that's the way you prefer. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: When we -- when we heard this item the first time, everything that we're talking about now was available then. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It was presented then, Tim. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me. There is no information in the meantime; is that correct? I'm asking you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think there's new information. Frankly, I think that there's -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, what is it? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- new information as a result of the ethics investigation. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. You have hit on what my concern is. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The request for an ethics opinion. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Which occurred from Mr. Norris. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What is that new information? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Can you explain that; would you like to explain that? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My constituency, people who are calling me more at a higher pace -- I get more calls on this issue than I have ever gotten on anything. And the issue is, we knew there was something wrong at the time of that $500,000. Go back and find out where that money went. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And you think this somehow involves Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think that we should have audited it at the time and I'd would like to audit it now. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't believe that was his question. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What is the new information? You still didn't answer that question. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My question is, you believe that involves Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think that the issues associated with Commissioner Norris' ethics question cause us to have to look into this more carefully. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My concern falls -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Just wait a minute. Let me do this. I'm going to make a little statement into this meeting which will clear up your concern, and those of your constituents, and perhaps you would be better advised to wait until then before you make any more statements. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think that's sort of the way this is going anyway. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, the way it's going for me is that, we based a decision on a set of information presented to this board on a given date. You're saying that new information from a yet to be completed ethics hearing is causing your constituents, who I assume did not attend the hearing but have just read the paper, to twist your arm to request an additional audit or another audit or a different audit or a specific audit. I don't think this board should be driven by media frenzy. I think we made a decision at a given point, with a given set of circumstances. If those circumstances have changed, then I personally would like to have the information presented that is a change in those circumstances for me to consider whether or not it's worth opening up something that we decided, what I think was a logical decision then, based on the explanation given, to do or not to do. That's not happening. What I'm hearing is, "Let's just delve back into this," because you're getting phone calls. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because of innuendo. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And so that's not how I wish government to do business and -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You know that I disagreed at the time. I mean, it was a 4 to 1 vote. I didn't -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed. You lost then. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I understand. And I was hoping that the latest events might make you think that you needed to reconsider the choice that you made then. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You're presupposing there's a connection and you're going to find out today that there's not. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm willing to wait for that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm not going to be driven by the media. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'll talk to the clerk. And I'm not either, Tim. That's the only thing I resent in what you're saying. I'm trying to be a little restrained here but, a media frenzy -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's far too coincidental, Pam. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- is not relevant to me. I'll give you the number -- I'll give you the listing of phone calls. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, I have them, too. They're asking me to force him to resign as if I'm the governor, you know. But that's not my role. That's not my job. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But my job is to speak for the people whom I represent, and that's what I'm doing today. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You are. But the point you raised was that there was new information, and phone calls as a result of articles in the newspaper aren't what I would consider new information. So if there is new information, I'd like to know what that is. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going to go through the clerk's office with this and bring it back that way. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Because I don't think anyone on the board wants to pay for things that we don't receive in services. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And if there's any implication from anyone to the contrary, they need to stop and think about that, because it's not the case. So again, if there's specific information, I would love to see it. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman, this raises -- I wasn't here when a lot of this took place, but this raises some concern for me that if we have -- and then I direct this to the county administrator too, although it's not his particular problem, but because this is a constitutional officer that we're referring to here in the clerk of courts -- but if there is something that is awry in any one of these departments, I would feel that those individuals should certainly approach the chairman or the county administrator and bring that to his attention. And I'm concerned that, that perhaps one of us -- and it could be at any time it appears -- we could be in the same position perhaps that Commissioner Mac'Kie's in, and it looks like there's kind of an evasive, kind of, "There's something here but we're not going to tell you what it is," and, and I have a concern about that. If there's a problem here, then let's get it out right now so not -- that all five of us know about it, the county administrator knows about it, so we can deal with the problem and deal with this in the future. I'm not -- I'm sitting up here kind of in the dark, but -- that's not unusual -- but, at any rate, I'm -- I really am concerned that this be brought out and, frankly, I'm disappointed that, if there is some innuendo that there has been some problem prior to now, why -- why now? That, if there has been a problem, this is something that should have been brought out last November or December or January, whenever this was discovered, why was this not brought to the commission? And I have some real concern about that, because this is leaving a lot of things wide open here, and I'm not -- I'm just not pleased about that. But if there is something, let's get it out right now. Let's don't linger and let's get it out here and get it discussed. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that's what my request was, that we ask the clerk to look into it and answer that question. COHMISSIONER BERRY: But, excuse me, Commissioner. I'm not questioning. You shouldn't be having to do this. If there is a question in the clerk's office about this matter, then this is a matter that should have been brought to the county commission a long time ago. And I resent the fact that any one of us could have been used in this particular kind of matter. It happens to be this matter this time. It could be something else down the road. I don't appreciate that as a commissioner. And I really feel that, if there is something that there is a grave concern about that there has been some misuse of funds -- and that's what the insinuation is here, a misuse of funds -- then this is something that should have been brought to this commission a long time ago. It shouldn't have to come through you. It shouldn't have to come through any one of these members up here on this board. I feel very strongly about it and I feel very strongly about being used, whether its Barbara Berry, Pam Hac'Kie, Tim Hancock, anybody else. I don't think that's right. I think that it should have come out long before now. And I think that's wrong. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Again, honestly, that's my frustration, is I'm looking for, you know, the old, where is the beef? What is it that is driving this request? I want to know what that is because if it's valid, I'm with you. I want the -- I want to know what it is, what's at the center of this? Because for us to give direction that involves the use of staff, whether it be the clerk's office or not, takes them away from other duties, and I want to know why I'm requesting that. That's all. And that seems to be elusive right now, whether you know or don't know or whether you're afraid to say or -- I don't know. I don't have a feel for what the basis of this request is, and that's, that's the biggest point of my hesitation. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I can tell you that ever since our vote, the clerk was dissatisfied with our decision to change that contract and felt that it restricted his ability to get the information that he wanted. That's my understanding. I know that the clerk has had his attorney researching whether or not our amendment to that contract violated state law because he would like to undo that and go back and be able to do the audit that he had originally expected to be able to do. I think that my mistake today is in bringing this up to the board instead of going through the clerk's office and working with the clerk. So I'll stop and do it that way. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Actually, I think Barbara's point is valid. The clerk should be working with you or me or -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He is already. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: He's been doing this legal research already. But between my knowing that and between the calls from constituents about their outrage over our having made what they believe, and I believe, to be the incorrect decision at the time, I wanted to give us the opportunity to, instead of the clerk coming and saying, "You were stupid," for us to say, "We made a mistake. Let's go back and do a full blown audit of that money." COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And my primary concern is that people generally, including me, generally distrust government. And what we have here is kind of a vague comment that, "I think there may have been something wrong." And, like Commissioner Berry said, what specifically are we saying -- when you say, we should say we made a mistake, what mistake did we make? What specifically is the problem? Because I -- I hate to just have vague innuendo floating out there because that generates little conspiracy theories. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The specific -- and this is exactly the point. The -- what we did wrong was eliminate the opportunity to find out, to get the answers to the very questions you're asking. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Can I interrupt, because what David Weigel, what our county attorney just read, says that if you think there's a problem with the use of the PGA logo three times, our contract does not prohibit in any way, shape or form the request and acquisition of information to verify or deny that claim. Nowhere is that prohibited in that contract. We were very careful when we did that, there was a hurdle to an overall audit due to the way the PGA did it's bulk contracts. We recognized that hurdle but not want to prevent the ability to attack areas that we felt or we had information that said money was not expended appropriately. We were very careful. And the wording is proof of that. So my question is, if the clerk feels -- and I, you know -- here we are, we're talking about what the clerk thinks and feels, and that's kind of silly. He should be here if it's his problem. But if he feels there were things not done correctly, where is he? Why was this not brought by the clerk to say, "Board, I think something occurred inappropriately here, and here's a recommendation I'd like to pass on to you"? That's the way government should work instead of this roundabout business that we're dealing with today. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My -- and obviously we disagreed. And I'm going to, you know -- I'm willing to stop. But what my position was, is I know that the clerk is going to do exactly that. He is -- he's doing the legal research to, to get the ammunition to be able to come in and say that we need to have the ability to require more information. But he is researching the question of whether or not the amendment to the contract was legal. And he'll get that opinion and he will come to us and then he, depending on the outcome of that opinion, will ask us to give him the authority to do more -- a broader audit. My wish today was that we would instruct the clerk to do a broader audit instead of waiting for him to ask. Frankly, because I'm looking for a way for this board to be able to, to restore some confidence in government, that we're not afraid to ask the questions. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well -- COHMISSIONER BERRY: -- do we have the authority to ask the clerk? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We can request the clerk to do anything and he can decide whether to or whether not to. He also has the authority to act on his own within his, his powers. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Well, that my -- that's what I would think too, and that's why, why I'm just having -- I'm struggling with this. I can't understand. And here again, the clerk is an attorney. What -- this discussion took place back in either November or December, as I recall. We are now into the end of July, coming up to August. What's the problem? I mean, what -- I just don't understand this. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Can I say something? I think we, we all want the questions answered. Nobody wants to sit here with these questions hanging out that you have raised. But what we're simply sitting here discussing is a matter of procedure. It's the clerk's purview, as I understand it -- and maybe I'm wrong -- but I think it's his job, if there's a, if there's a question on any contract that the county has entered into for any, for any subject, that if he thinks there's something that needs to be examined on that, that's his job, not ours. And we're just simply saying -- I think I hear the rest of the board members just simply saying, why isn't he doing it? Why does he need us to tell him to do it? Why does he need you to tell him to do it? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He doesn't. I was just hoping that we would. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh. Well, why don't we just leave it at this. The entire board wishes to have these questions answered and put to rest. But it's not our job, it's his. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Whatever they are. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Whatever the questions are. We haven't heard any mentioned yet. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: If you can formulate the questions. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As I said before, the clerk has both the authority and responsibility to do that. If there is a specific problem and he brings it forward, that's the appropriate time for the board to act. But I haven't heard anything specific today. And again, that's my frustration is, there's a general distrust of government and just to float vague innuendo and not be able to suggest anything specific, I think harms our cause. I agree that we should be working with the clerk and find out if there are questions, great, let's bring them forward. But I don't know what those questions are right now and I haven't heard anything yet. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The last time -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just let him do his job. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The last time I checked, when any constitutional officer has a request of this board, I usually get correspondence on it. I get it from Mary Morgan, I get it from Abe Skinner, I get it from Guy Carlton, I get it from Don Hunter. If there's some way we need to work with the clerk and the clerk is already working on that, I have received nothing. And I'm going to go back and check through the mail that built up over the last couple of weeks and maybe it's in there, but I'm going to assume that it's not. So let's all do our jobs, period. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Item #11A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF NAPLES AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR THE USE OF THE SPECIFIC COUNTY VOTING AND BALLOT TABULATION EQUIPHENT FOR THE CITY ELECTION OF FEBRUARY 3, 1998 - APPROVED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Item ll(A), contract between the City of Naples and Collier County for the use of the specific county voting and ballot tabulation equipment. I will let everyone know, I talked to Mary Morgan this morning, a constitutional officer, on this item, and she supports the summary as it's presented in our packet today. It actually meets with her requirements. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Seconded. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries 5-0. PUBLIC COHMENT - JERRY BERRY REGARDING THE INCREASE FOR APRKS & RECREATION FACILITIES. ITEM #16Cll TO BE RECONSIDERED AT JUNE 29, 1997 MEETING We are to Public Comment on General Topics. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, it's up here. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman, we have one speaker, Mr. Jerry Berry, who asked to speak on an item that essentially was on your Consent Agenda, but -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, and, you know, Bob, you passed that message to me earlier. And, Mr. Berry, I apologize. I don't know if you were made aware that that item was pulled from the agenda or not. MR. BERRY: 16(C) (11). CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. Let me ask you to come up to the microphone. MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman, his little note indicated Item 16(C)(1). I checked later and it was 16(C)(11), is what he intended. That was in fact on the agenda. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. BERRY: I apologize. I was here. I just didn't know I needed to give that before you got to the Consent Agenda. Timing is everything, something minor compared to what you have been discussing. The 16(11)(C) discusses an increase in user fees for some of the park and recreation facilities. Jerry Berry on behalf of the Naples Youth Soccer Club. I'm president of the club. We have 200 members. The increase is, in past years, last year we paid $8.00 per player. The increase this year is proposed seventy cents per week, which doesn't sound like much but it comes out to $21.00 plus per child, a 250 percent increase. It increases our budget around $2,500, which, frankly, we don't have. We have to scrape together to where we can just buy uniforms, pay referee fees and so forth. We just found out -- I found out about this Friday, I guess it was, otherwise we would have more people here. I don't know if you have the authority to do it now, but a 250 percent increase seems out of line, particularly when it applies to children. There's alternatives. $8.00 a year last year, we could live with $12.00 a year, which is a twenty-five percent increase per child per year or leave it at seventy percent per week (sic), if that seems fair, and cap it off at $12.00. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Can I ask, Mr. Berry -- MR. BERRY: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: How long is your season? MR. BERRY: Seven months. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: See, I think -- MR. BERRY: We practice, we practice for seven months, including seasons and end-of-the-year play. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: See, we had -- we had a policy of a flat charge for co-sponsored leagues, but seven months versus -- I know when I played baseball it wasn't seven months, it was, you know, three months or so of games and so forth. I'm wondering if the duration of your season just puts more wear and tear on the field than say baseball or football does due to the duration of their seasons. MR. BERRY: The soccer fields we use are the ones at the Vineyards. When we're not using them, they are sitting there. So I don't know how, how it increases the cost to the county. I may be wrong, if it's certainly lining fields and so forth, we can certainly get volunteers to do that. But I can't imagine -- that does not include, by the way -- I may be wrong. But I don't think that includes paying for the lights. During portions of the year we pay for the lights too to practice at night and play games at night. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You have something, Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. Just with regard to the request, it's pretty consistent with what we did less than a year ago for the Little Leagues. We had bumped the Little Leagues, the cost per kid, substantially two or three years in a row. And we said we were going to hold it even or minimize it. I think we actually held it steady, and mainly for the purpose of -- we know we got to pay the cost, but if we can encourage families to be out there doing something positive and recreational with their children, we should be doing that. And it seemed like a fairly high area when you look at the number of children involved and the concept of virtually all of them, it's a family-type thing, Mom and Dad go out and see the game. MR. BERRY: It's ages eight to seventeen, so I know the issue of juvenile delinquency -- we've got kids -- we have fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen year olds, supervised, on a field at times when they may be idle. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And really, I see this as the same issue. And if we can kind of try to follow the policy we set with the Little Leagues and try to encourage that and try to minimize the impact on a family's -- I know it doesn't sound like a lot of money but I know there are families in certainly Golden Gate and East Naples and North Naples and probably county-wide that, it makes a difference. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is Mr. Olliff here? I don't -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: He's not. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there any objection if we put this back on as a regular item in the week, brought it back? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Because the Consent Agenda has already been approved, what we'd have to have is a motion to reconsider. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I make that motion. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And we may or may not change it but at least bring it back and have a full discussion on it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that, is that proper per Robert's Rules, Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: In our ordinances, yes, I believe it is, and particularly if your direction is to bring it back. You could actually bring it onto the floor now for consideration or you can set a time within which you would like to reconsider. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I would like to bring it back because I would like to have Mr. Olliff here and discuss some of the background, so, to try -- I know that means you'd have to give up another day or someone else would. MR. BERRY: That's fine. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I apologize for that. We have a motion and second to reconsider next week. As I understand, it doesn't have to be advertised. Is that acceptable? MR. BERRY: Sure. That's fine. I'll try to meet with Mr. Olliff and maybe we can work out a compromise. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. All in favor signify by saying aye? Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none. Thank you, Mr. Berry. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's it for Public Comment, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: That's all we have. Item #12B1 ORDINANCE 97-29 RE PETITION PUD-97-3, DWIGHT NADEAU OF HCANLY ENGINEERING AND DESIGN, INC., REPRESENTING JAMES R. COLOSIHO, TRUSTEE FOR THE ULTIMATE LAND TRUST, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "A" AGRICULTURAL AND "HHO" TO PUD TO BE KNOWN AS TWIN EAGLES GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB FOR A MAIHUH OF 275 DWELLING UNITS FOR PROPERTY ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES OF IHMOKALEE ROAD - TABLED UNTIL LATER IN THE MEETING. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We're to the afternoon portion of our agenda. Under Advertised Public Hearings, Item 12(B)(1), Zoning Amendments. Petition PUD-97-3, Dwight Nadeau of HcAnly Engineering and Design. This is the Twin Eagles project. Mr. Nino, good morning. MR. NINO: Good morning. Ron Nino, for the record, Planning Services Department. The issue that's before you seeks to have 1,374 acres of land rezoned from agricultural to PUD for the purpose of bringing about a development to consist of two eighteen-hole golf courses and 275 single-family dwelling units. The property is located to the north and south of Immokalee Road, immediately contiguous to Bonita Bay Golf Course. I'm not going to spend any great amount of time describing that because the petitioner will spend some time discussing where their project is and touting its advantages, and they also have prettier maps than I have. But let me cut to the chase of the issues here. And those are twofold. And that is whether or not the growth management plan, future land use element anticipated the cjustering of development within the non-urban, agricultural area. As you know, the FLUE does not advise that the agricultural area is a pure agricultural area. Residential development -- and I need to emphasize that -- residential development in the agricultural area is permitted on the basis of one dwelling unit per five acres of land. So it's not an exclusive agricultural area. It was never intended to be that way, based on the growth management plan, future land use element. And the question is, can we interpret that provision in the FLUE to allow the averaging of the one unit per five acre concept to allow cjustering. That question, in the opinion of staff, was open to interpretation, and interpretation was made that indeed cjustering is consistent with the provision of the FLUE requiring one unit per five acres of land for residential development. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That interpretation was made by whom? MR. NINO: That interpretation was made by the planning services director. It is on appeal and that matter stands with you, I believe, for resolution during this meeting. Assuming the board -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Wait a minute, Mr. Nino. Call me crazy, but shouldn't we settle the issue of -- that issue or if we're going to hear that issue we hear this, it's kind of -- it seems like it would be moot if we choose to hear an appeal, to do so after this. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A logical recommendation. Kind of tough to argue that, isn't it? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Actually there's what, three appeals on it. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I assume we would hear them -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Hear them concurrently. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- together. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The appeals are in our agenda, Mr. Fernandez? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: 13(A) (2). MR. WEIGEL: (2), (3) and (4). MR. FERNANDEZ: 13 (A)(2), (3) and (4). CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Were those all separately filed appeals? MR. WEIGEL: Yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Bart, one other thing I was trying to figure out from reading those, are they the exact same appeal? MR. WEIGEL: I think the answer is yes. It looks like Mr. Arnold, who has written the opinion, is going to address that. I believe that the answer is essentially yes. MR. ARNOLD: Wayne Arnold, Planning Services Director. Two of those appeals are responses to an interpretation. There were two separate interpretations filed and both interpretations had appeals filed with them. Two appeals were filed based on one interpretation and one appeal was filed on the other interpretation, but essentially the same answer. And I would assume that we would hear all three of those together if we hear those. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. If it's the desire of the board, we need a motion to table and then we can go to the -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion to table 12(B)(1). COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second to table. Any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Items #13A3 & #13A4 PETITION A-97-4, NANCY ANNE PAYTON, FLORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATION, AND PETITION A-97-5, BRADLEY CORNELL REPRESENTING COLLIER COUNTY AUDUBON SOCIETY, REQUESTING AN APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF INTERPRETTATION 1-97-1 IN WHICH THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR FOUND THAT RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS AT A GROSS DENSITY OF ONE DWELLING UNIT PER FIVE ACRES WITHIN THE AGRICULTURAL/RURAL DESIGNATED LANDS OF THE FUTURE LAND USE HAP ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GROWTH NLA/~AGEHENT PLAN - DISMISSED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's move to the appeals, then, which must be heard prior to this or will now be heard prior to this. We are on Item 13(A)(2), Petition 97-3, Item 13(A)(3), Petition 97-4, and 13(A)(4), Petition 97-5. The first one, 97-3, Mr. Arnold, let's go through that again. What you're saying is that we have -- the appeals have the same support and answer even though they're filed separately? MR. ARNOLD: That's essentially correct. There were -- the interpretations requested, there was one interpretation in which three parties were a part of that interpretation request. There was another interpretation filed solely by Mr. Anderson. There was a response and appeal to that interpretation. The answers were nearly identical. The questions of the interpretation were slightly different but the responses were nearly the same, and that issue was merely the one of whether or not you can have a residential PUD outside our urban boundary. And I responded to separate interpretations with a consistent answer, that yes, you could have residential planned unit developments outside of our urban boundary subject to a gross density requirement of one dwelling unit per five acres. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me ask. We have the disclosure requirement here and I'll start that off. I've met with Miss Payton, Miss Straton and Mr. Anderson on this matter, each discussing issues relevant to -- at that time Miss Payton and Straton's meeting was not relevant to the appeal but they did notify me they were going to file an appeal. And Mr. Anderson met with me to discuss technical issues on the appeal. Why don't we go ahead and complete the disclosure. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have had numerous correspondence, written, verbal, telephone, in-person contact, with various parties on both sides of this issue as well. But I will make my decision based on what I'm going to hear in this hearing. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ditto. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Ditto. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I have had communication in all forms except telepathy. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's coming later. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You may have had that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It may still be on its way. And as required by the state of law, by the State of Florida law, I'll make my decision based solely on the information provided today. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I feel the need to resolve one issue first that Mr. Anderson brought to my attention. There is a requirement when an appeal is filed, within a thirty-day period that the basis for the appeal be included. Mr. Arnold, was that requirement met by the appellates in this case; did they include the basis for their appeals with their application? MR. ARNOLD: That has been the subject of some question and in this particular case, Appeal 97-4 and Appeal 97-5, filed by Bradley Cornell and Nancy Payton, the requests for appeal were essentially very simple requests to have an appeal of the interpretation rendered. There was no supporting documentation with those requests for appeal. I think there, there is a separate code of law that may require you to have additional substantive information that would explain the basis for that appeal of a decision. I would go ahead and tell you that our land development code, which also has an appeal section, does not make that same requirement. It doesn't say that you have to have the basis for your appeal as part of your requirement. I would tell you that, from my perspective, it makes sense that we know the basis of an appeal because I feel at a great disadvantage to stand here and defend the county's position if I don't know the basis of the appeal that's been filed. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is the procedural problem. Mr. Anderson brought it to my attention. It caused me concern because to file an appeal without a basis gives our staff no ability to respond to the specifics of the appeal. It's akin to a property owner holding another hostage, if that's the case, say on a variance. Filing an appeal to a variance without any reason. So this is done -- yes -- does the name Reiss ring a bell? This has been done in the past on larger scale projects and I abhor it. I want to know the basis of the appeal so our staff can respond effectively and specifically to that. And what I'm hearing is, no basis for the appeal was filed within the thirty-day period. And, Mr. Weigel, my question is, is it improper then for this board to hear the appeal people if they did not meet the minimum requirement of either filing time or information with the appeal? MR. WEIGEL: Well, we've certainly looked at this very closely prior to today's hearing on this subject. And it is our interpretation and recommendation to you, not merely looking at the land development code but the special act which does have the specific requirements of what an appeal entails, to tell you that the appeals as filed for Item 97-4, Petition 97-4, and A97-5, we determine are deficient and legally insufficient and our recommendation to you would be that your action would be to dismiss them. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If we chose to go ahead and hear them against that recommendation, what we're doing then is just creating an appeal process for possibly the property owner. I mean, here we have a recommendation from our county attorney saying that they are insufficient so we're just opening up the legal door to go to court on that. And if the appeal is in the favor of either Ms. Straton or Mr. Cornell, the likelihood of being overturned in court is fairly high, I assume. MR. WEIGEL: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And thus your recommendation. MR. WEIGEL: That is my recommendation. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman, I'm going make a motion that we deny these appeals based on the fact that they haven't been filed properly. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's -- that's two out of the three, that's not all three? MR. WEIGEL: That's not all three. They're very similar, and I would request that the actions that would be taken, whether it's by motion or resolution, I expect it's by motion, would be taken by individual agenda items referencing the individual petitions that were filed. But that's only two out of three. That's A97-4 and A97-5. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which still leaves us an opportunity to hear the issue. MR. WEIGEL: Well, it does, although interestingly, the appeal -- the other one that we're not discussing at this moment here is an appeal that may itself be mooting out by virtue of the actions that you may take based upon the legal recommendation that we make to you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let's deal with the two we have a recommendation on. We have a recommendation from the county attorney's office that they are, the requests for appeal have been deemed insufficient. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I need to understand what might happen to the third one before I vote on what to do with the first two. I want to know -- I don't, frankly, mind too much about a technicality on the first two if I'm going to hear the issue. Am I going to hear the issue? MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, interestingly, you will -- Wayne, I'll let you take over if you'd like -- but you will hear the issue in the context of the Twin Eagles agenda item anyway in which there will be a forum for anyone who wishes to speak to sign up and speak. In regard to the third appeal that's before you, I believe that's on behalf of -- through Attorney Bruce Anderson -- which is a protective appeal on the very same issues of A97-4 and 5, so that he too would have an opportunity to argue the interpretation. In fact -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He'll withdraw that as soon as we, you know, dump the first two. MR. WEIGEL: And that's why it may be mooted out. And correct me, Wayne, if I've misstated or failed to state something. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But our decision really needs to be based on the law not on whether we may or may not -- I mean, I would prefer to hear the issue. I agree with you. But unfortunately we need to base it on the law as opposed to what Mr. Anderson may or may not do. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we collected $750 in fees and then we're not going to hear him? MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think that these petitioners have filed the appropriate appeal fee, which they have done. By virtue of the fact that they may have not, and it would appear indeed have not, complied with the requirements of the appeal, two things come to mind. One, staff has still had to reckon with the appeal, and that's what those costs are about, or the board could determine, if they felt that it was more appropriate, that the petition fee be returned. But again, the fact is, although the appeal may not be heard on the basis of insufficiency, there -- costs have been incurred significantly by staff in researching and trying to work on this up to this point. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to hear them. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well -- MR. WEIGEL: Well, again -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I wish that were the decision, but -- MR. WEIGEL: The argument -- pardon my interruption. I would just say that one of the reasons that we make the recommendation of legal insufficiency is because there would be arguably a denial of due process to not only the property owner but other affected persons who essentially might be, quote, blindsided, by whatever the nature of argument of appeal that may be made in these two petitions where nothing -- no information has been provided in the first place. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And if they don't like the decision that we make, that would be anybody's basis of an appeal of the decision. They could -- among the other objections they would have to our decision would be a denial of due process. MR. WEIGEL: I'm -- I'm not talking about the appellants. I'm talking about others. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What I'm saying -- but here's what I'm saying. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If we hear the petitions, we hear -- if we hear the petitions and overturn the staff interpretation, who is going to be mad about that is the property owner. The property owner is going to appeal that to the court. When he's appealing to the court, not only is he going to say that we based it on bad logic but that we also were technically incorrect and violated his due process rights. So that would be a basis for his additional appeal, if he's dissatisfied with our decision. But it doesn't prohibit us from hearing the issue. MR. WEIGEL: No. And I don't tell you you can't hear it. I merely advise you of a decision that you may make, and it's a legal recommendation in this regard. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This for me is an issue of principle. We -- if a petitioner comes before this board and has a wholly insufficient application, does not provide information or basis for their request and does not meet the required criteria of our codes and of state statute, if it applies in that area, we have been very consistent in not hearing that item. To do so would be an exception, regardless of -- I mean, I have done a lot of homework on this thing. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Me too. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There's a lot of things I would like to have discussed on this. But for the sake of consistency, for the sake of complying with our own protocol and the state's laws on these things, I think to make an exception to the law and get around it is forcing the property owner into an appellate situation. What right do we have to do that when the first party did not meet the requirements. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But if we hear the question and agree with staff, they're not going to go to court. If we hear the question and disagree with staff, this is just adding an additional objection for them on due process. It doesn't -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Quite frankly, I disagree -- personally, I disagree with the staff position. However, I have a respect for the process, and I -- we can't just make the rules up as we go along. And if the appeals weren't filed properly, we can't just make the rules up and say we're going to hear it anyway. It's no different than any other permit that is applied for. If it's not done properly, you don't follow through and issue the permit anyway. It's -- I mean, it's a -- we got to have some respect for the process and that's some responsibility by the appellate person or group to make sure they've done it properly. If they haven't, we can't just arbitrarily change the rules. We just had this discussion on another topic not thirty minutes ago. So I disagrees with Wayne and with staff's -- but we can't just go ahead and hear it because of personally how I feel. The process has to unfold in a proper and legal manner. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, this is another example of what we were talking about earlier. If we don't like the way the law is written today, fine, let's take steps to change it. But until we change it, you got to follow it. Mr. Arnold, did you inform these appellants that their appeal was insufficient at the time? MR. ARNOLD: At the date that it was submitted, I was not present for Bradley Cornell's submission so it was merely submitted to our planning technician and of course was receipted and it began the process. I understood through others that Mr. Cornell was not available but I did communicate with Nancy Payton throughout the process requesting additional information to substantiate the request for the appeal and gave deadlines that were not met for additional information. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Is it appropriate to refund their money on a case like that? MR. ARNOLD: At this point it really becomes an issue. We've expended probably more than the $200 filing fee in my time preparing the thing plus advertising costs associated with it. It becomes a very minor issue if that's the direction of the board, to refund money. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have a motion on the floor. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I move -- MR. GROSSO: Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Sir -- MR. GROSSO: Hay I be heard? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No, sir, you may not. You're out of order. We have a motion on the floor. We have not gotten to a hearing. If we were hearing this item, it would be appropriate to hear from you, sir, but we are -- we have a motion now not to hear it, so, no, sir. MR. GROSSO: Can I be heard on your motion? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No, sir. MR. GROSSO: I am an attorney. My name is Richard Grosso and I represent the two petitioners, and you've got a motion on the floor -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's correct. MR. GROSSO: -- to dismiss their petition. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's correct. MR. GROSSO: So I think it would be proper for me to be able to speak to that motion. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That is your opinion, sir. Mr. Weigel, it is not my understanding that public comment or comment from the petitioners are taken in a situation like this. Am I missing something in Robert's Rules of Order here? A motion has been made. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It appears to me we're discussing whether or not to hear an item. And if we decide not to hear it, we're not going to have a discussion on it. So it doesn't make sense. And, quite frankly, you're chairman and you're running the meeting. I mean, if you decide we should, that's fine, but I don't see it as necessary. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But the irony of the due process discussion and not allowing somebody to talk is a little unbalanced here. MR. WEIGEL: I believe you have a question? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Grosso, I'm going to ask you to limit your comments solely to the determination that our county attorney has made. MR. GROSSO: Certainly. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And to keep those comments brief, if possible. MR. GROSSO: Certainly, that's why I held out. I was waiting for you to call the question on the motion, so I could just speak to that issue. On the question of should you not hear the issue today, the interpretation in question says on its front page it's made under Division 1.6 of the code. When you read that section of the code that specifically governs this interpretation, it specifically has a section on appeals to you all, the Board of Zoning Appeals. It says you must pay your fee. It doesn't say anything about a statement of grounds that must be supplied. So the two petitioners did exactly what the code tells them to do, and yet there's a motion here to dismiss them because they didn't do what the code tells them to do. So factually, that suggestion is wrong. They did what the code says. Somebody is suggesting that there's another section of the code somewhere that tells them that they had to file a statement of the grounds. That's not the code that applies to this case, to this question. So, they only code section that applies here, the one that specifically applies doesn't include that requirement. They did everything they were supposed to do, so I think it would be, obviously, very inappropriate to dismiss their petition. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, that's contrary to what you opined ten minutes ago. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Respectfully, I just restate the fact that we have made a determination that it's legally insufficient. The interpretation or opinion that's provided by the planning staff itself does not have an -- there is no obligation it has to restate what must be done in asking for an opinion or what be must be done in filing for an appeal. Under the special act and due process requirements, I restate my prior interpretation and recommendation. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Grosso, at what point were you hired as the attorney for these two petitioners? MR. GROSSO: Only recently. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So you had no hand in the submittal of these applications? MR. GROSSO: No, sir, but I am an attorney and I am reading your code section, and I'm not -- your -- the interpretation does reference the code section, but I'm basing my interpretation not on staff's interpretation. I agree it's not their job to tell us what the law is, but I'm reading your code and that's the source of the law. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But isn't your contention that, because we didn't cite another part of the code that does have that requirement that somehow it's not required? MR. GROSSO: No. It's my interpretation that, as a lawyer, when I go to the very section that governs this very procedure and that section tells me exactly what to do to file and then I do that, then I've done everything I have to do. It would be improper to dismiss me for doing exactly what that section says. I mean -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I need understanding about -- there are several ordinances. Are we talking about ordinances and statutes? MR. WEIGEL: We're talking about the land development code and the special act that applies. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And this special act is what? MR. WEIGEL: Are you asking the citation of the special act? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. It's a state law? MR. WEIGEL: Yes. An act of the legislature. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So there -- so the requirements of our ordinance say there are two steps or, you know, say whatever they say. MR. WEIGEL: Right. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And now, in addition to the ordinance, there is a special act, which is a state law. MR. WEIGEL: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That says you have to do what our ordinance says plus this? MR. WEIGEL: Well, it doesn't say you have to do what our ordinance says but it provides the criteria that are necessary for an appeal and included in which is state the reasons for the appeal. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Why would that not be restated in our code if it's going to be enforced in this situation? MR. WEIGEL: I don't know. It probably would be the better thing to do, but I would say, if we're talking about potential lawsuits, I'd much rather fight one in regard to the dismissal of the appeal than potentially of violating due process and going forward with these appeals, contrary to my recommendation. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Grosso, have you handled appeals of this kind before? MR. GROSSO: This is a fairly unique type of appeal. This is an administrative internal appeal that happens before you would appeal the final decision outside. So I don't think I've done one of those before, and I'm not aware of a state law that applies to administrative internal appeals prior to a final order. If I might inquire as to the law that -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sure they'll give you a statute citation, and that's why we have a county attorney. But my question is, is it normal to file appeals with absolutely no basis? MR. GROSSO: Well, it certainly depends on the nature of the appeal. To challenge a county's development order that could be very complex on a lot of factual issues, to go into court, you first have to bring a verified complaint which states the grounds. On the context of this case where it's a very narrow appeal to a legal interpretation that's been specifically set out, you know, the grounds are pretty obvious as to what the issue is. It's very obvious to your staff, because they wrote the opinion, what the issues are. There's only one issue, is a PUD allowed in this land use category. In the context of this, when my client, who asked for that opinion very specifically, got a very explicit answer from staff, they filed a notice of appeal. There's no sand-bagging. There's no surprise. It's very clear what the question is, what the issue is. And I'll point out that your staff executive summary does a pretty good job of saying to you guys for your, for your, you know, perusal, what the issues are. So no, it is not a requirement of these kinds of appeals, that I'm aware of, and I have been practicing land use law for eleven years, that you would have to do some sort of elaborate statement of the grounds. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Or a minimal statement of the grounds. MR. GROSSO: That's correct. And the bottom line is, with all due respect, is, the requirements are what the code says they are. And when these people read the code verbatim on the very section that applies here and they did all that was asked, I mean, it's clearly a violation of their due process to now in-graft some other requirement on top of that that's not mentioned in this code, that's not cross-referenced. That's a major due process problem, in my opinion. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any further questions for Mr. Grosso? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Not at all. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to second the motion that's on the floor and I'm going to cite a couple things. First and most importantly is Mr. Weigel's opinion, and, as Commissioner Norris has joked in the past, we pay him an exorbitant amount of money to do the research and inform us on that, and I have a great deal of faith in Mr. Weigel and on this issue, as I always do. Secondarily, I just think we -- as I said before, we need to respect the process. And while I may or, in this case, I do not agree with staff's final interpretation, I think the suggestion that it depends on the nature of a complaint whether or not you have to state the reason for an appeal, just, it doesn't make any sense to me. If, if you're going to appeal something just strictly because you just disagree, it could be on principle, it could be specific facts, it could be any number of things. And -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Because you don't like it. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that's the -- that's the reason there's a special act, is to try to hold down the number of specious complaints. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I think we looked at the situation with the university a year ago and what was referred to as green mail at the time. And it was just a frustrating thing. There were some legitimate concerns, there was a great deal of nonsense in there as well. So, I think there may be a legitimate concern here but unfortunately it was not spelled out in the appeal and, as a result, I'm going to second the motion that we don't hear those, and it leaves the one and Mr. Anderson can decide what he's going to do with the one appeal that's left. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have a motion and a second on the floor. Close the public hearing. Is there discussion on the motion? Seeing none. I'll call the question. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries 4-1. That was on Item 97-4. We have a second appeal out of 97-5 in which their criteria -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I believe the motion was for both. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Was the motion for both? COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's for both of them. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: May I ask, Mr. Weigel asked that we take singular motions on those. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I make the same motion again for 97 -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A97-57 COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- A97-5. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second it for the same reasons. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries 4-1. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman, are we going to take a lunch break following this item or -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think it's noon so now looks like a real good time to me. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we find out what Mr. Anderson's intentions are on 97-3? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We can find that out when we get back. I'm sure he'll be returning. Recess, one hour. (A recess was taken from 12:00 to 1:06 p.m.) Item #12B1 & Item #13A2 ORDINANCE 97-29 RE PETITION PUD-97-3 - ADOPTED AS AMENDED. STAFF DIRECTED TO MEET WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CONSERVANCY TO DISCUSS DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE RURAL AREA TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN/LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. PETITION A-97-3, R. BRUCE ANDERSON REPRESENTING ULTIMATE LAND TRUST, REQUESTING AN APPEAL OF INTERPRETATIONS 1-96-7 AND 1-97-1 TO PRESERVE RIGHTS AND STANDING AS A SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECTED PARTY IN CONSIDERATION OF THE ABIVE ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATIONS - WITHDRAWN BY PETITIONER CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We're going to reconvene the Board of County Commissioners meeting for July 22nd. We are back to an item that was tabled, 12(B)(1), and I need to correct a procedural error. Would all -- and this is for anyone here, members of the public, members of the petitioner, anyone who wishes to speak on this item must be sworn in. This is a quasi-judicial proceeding meaning that your statements are for the record and are attested to be truthful. So could everyone here who is on the item of 12(B)(1) please stand and raise your right hand. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to take this item off the table. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Madam Court Reporter, would you please swear in the witnesses. (Witnesses were sworn). CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I am going to ask for your assistance. You may be seated. I am going to ask for your assistance, also, in that when you come to the microphone, please state whether you were sworn in or not because there may be some people coming in after lunch. We want to make sure we don't have any procedural problems there. So if you would state your name and whether you were sworn in or not as you are asked to come up and speak, that would be helpful. Hr. Nino, we are including your comments previously on 12(B)(1) as a part of sworn testimony, if you would agree with that for the record. MR. NINO: My name is Ron Nino, yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Please continue. MR. NINO: Given that, beginning from where I left off, it is apparent that if at the conclusion of this public hearing you determine to approve this petition, then obviously you're making a statement that it is consistent with the future land use element. I should advise you that the Planning Commission heard this petition at their July 3rd, 1997 meeting and by a vote of 6 to 2 recommended approval of this rezoning action, including all of the alternatives for providing utility services to this property, which is inclusive of the provision that would allow the Orange Tree system to be extended to the property. I should also advice you that the Environmental Advisory Board, which is another advisory board to this board, reviewed this petition and they, too, unanimously recommended approval, with the inclusion of certain stipulations relative to those matters that fall within their purview, namely the conservation element and water -- and the water management element. Relative to consistency provisions with the Growth Management Plan, another issue that staff brought to the attention of the Planning Commission, which is addressed in our staff report, is the issue of consistency with the utility provisions of the Growth Management Plan. In the opinion of staff, at the current time, the only matter by which this development can be served is with on-site septic tanks and wells as their utility system. We're of the opinion that connection to the Orange Tree system is not in keeping with the sewer and water policies which are included in your staff report. I hope you have had an opportunity to peruse them. If you wish additional copies of those goals, objectives, and policies, I have them here. However, you might appreciate that you transfer to -- to the DCA under your EAR report a proposed amendment to the Growth Management Plan which would allow for packaged treatment plants. At this point in time I am of the understanding that that is under appeal and that matter needs to be currently resolved. So itws the opinion of staff that this petition as presented, the PUD as currently drafted, is not consistent with the utility elements of the Growth Management Plan, save for the provision of sewer and water facilities. As you know, staff are required to make certain findings. Those findings have been presented in your staff report. We think that the preponderance of the fezone findings and the PUD findings support a proposition to fezone this property in a manner consistent with density averaging to achieve one dwelling unit per five acres of gross property area. Relative to the golf course, I would remind you that golf courses are authorized uses through the conditional use process within the agricultural district, whether it be the urban or the non-urban area, and as a matter of fact, immediately adjacent to this property is the Bonita Bay Golf Course which was approved by this board not too long ago as a conditional use. With respect to the conservation element, I would remind you that this property conserves all of those -- all of those lands that are jurisdictionally as preserve areas. Therews 305 acres of land or 22 percent of the total area that will be preserved. We believe and the EAB concur that its review of the conservation element reveals that the PUD as structured satisfies the conservation element requirements. Relative to open space, 78 percent of the land area of this PUD will be conserved as open space. That is far in excess of the 60 percent that is required by the Land Development Code. With respect to storm water management, by virtue of stipulations included and development conditions included in the PUD, this proposal is consistent with the storm water management element. And with respect to the traffic circulation element, I am advised by -- by jurisdictional reviewers that this policy -- this plan if approved and as presented by -- by its buildout date will not trip any of the transportation circulation elements of the Growth Management Plan, and it is, therefore, by that analysis consistent with the Growth Management Plan. Staff -- we have advised you that the Planning Commission has recommended approval of this petition. There were two votes against it and those votes indicated that they were concerned about sprawl, that this did not meet the sprawl emphasis in the Growth Management Plan. A number of people spoke in opposition and in favor of the -- of the petition at the Planning Commission meeting. I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Nino, you hit on something in the latter part of your proposal that I think is critical. You and I share certifications of professional land planners, so I have my own feelings about some of the issues of urban sprawl, but as the planner of record on this, the report reads that two dissenting voters cited urban sprawl as a basis for their objection. I have received letters and phone calls asking me not to include this in the urban area, asking -- asking me not to create urban sprawl. And I think the word urban has found its way in here in a rather erroneous manner. By my take, my understanding, one of the key elements of urban versus rural is density. The other is characteristic of development and that is obviously arguable in this case. There is no real -- (Note: Power outage occurred at this time.) COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Forgot to pay the bill. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: To my knowledge there is no specific -- have we lost the microphones, also? I guess the microphones are back on, then. Can everyone hear now? You're hearing it? Okay. The definition of urban sprawl per se doesn't apply to this project in your professional opinion? MR. NINO: No, it doesn't. The -- the Growth Management Plan is not a plan that presents an exclusive agricultural division between urban and agricultural. It provides specifically that non-farm housing is a permitted use, and it requires a minimum of gross acres of one unit per five acres, that can be averaged. We have made a statement, in my opinion, in the Growth Management Plan that that is a distinct difference between what we consider urban, which is the underlying base density of the future land use element, which is four units to the acre in some parts of the urban area and three units to the acre in the more urbanized area, and provides for increased densities at activity nodes. In my opinion, that -- our plan has defined that distinction between urban and agricultural. Urban, i.e. four, three to sixteen units per acre; agricultural, one for every five acres. We have defined that distinction and, in my opinion, we have, therefore, defined the difference between urban sprawl and -- and non-sprawl conditions. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There are a not of remaining issues, but that one issue, I think, is important. The second element to this decision has to do with a little bit of the history of the Growth Management Plan and you were under the employ of the county when the Growth Management Plan was created here; is that correct? MR. NINO: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My understanding of the reason for an urban line had to deal predominantly with the costs and responsibility of infrastructure. The reason we have higher densities in the urban area is because we have provided infrastructure to those areas in a cost effective manner. The reason that everything beyond that is rural is because to extend infrastructure out to that portion of the county at the densities that are in the urban area is impractical. So by not extending the urban utilities and services to that area, that is a significant designation of difference, urban and rural, and that was, in fact, one of the main reasons for the density difference. Am I correct? MR. NINO: Yes, I think or I believe you are correct. We established an urban boundary line. We built in a population expectation that says we can maximize the amount of infrastructure that we are responsible for installing within that boundary, and if we allow that boundary, at this point in time, to extend at the same characteristic, we will lose our ability to maximize our infrastructure. And we're not doing that because we're maintaining the small farms, so to speak, kind of environment through the cjustering option. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Questions for Mr. Nino. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just want to apologize if you answered it already before I came in, but this petition was heard by the Environmental Advisory Board? MR. NINO: Yes, it was. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What -- what were their comments or recommendations? MR. NINO: Their recommendations are included within the development commitments section of the PUD that is in your hands. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What concerns -- MR. NINO: They have to do with -- with enhancement of -- of those areas qualified as preserve areas. They have to do with insuring that development commitments would carry out the provisions of the Land Development Code, in particular, the natural -- the preservation section of the Land Development Code. In other words, their agenda is to insure that there are development commitments within any development order that guarantee that all of the requirements of our Land Development Code can be achieved. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Did they make a recommendation of approval or denial? MR. NINO: They made a recommendation of approval subject to conditions -- all of which conditions are now included in the PUD document that's before you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think one of those -- and I reviewed some of that -- I think that one of those was that this is extensively farm land, former farm land; is that correct? MR. NINO: Yes, it is, extensively. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Further questions for Mr. Nino? Let's go to the presentation by the petitioner and from that we will to go public speakers. And, again, I would ask everyone as you come to the microphone to give your name, identify yourself as either being sworn or not. If you were not sworn in or were not here at that time, we will have to do that when you come up to speak. MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, for the record my name is -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry to interrupt you for a second. We had not had disclosure on this at this point. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Good heavens, I probably have never spent more time on a petition than I have on this one trying to work, frankly, with the Conservancy and other groups to find a way to understand all of the intricacies of this application, but I will make my decision based on the information presented at today's board meeting. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I also have had extensive communication with numerous parties on both sides of this issue, but I intend to make my decision based solely on what I hear in this hearing today. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Ditto. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Likewise, also, I need to enter into the record, and we all should from our individual offices, correspondence pertaining to this matter, but I have a petition that all of you have received signed by residents of the immediate area that was posted at a couple of different locations. We can talk about that in the hearing. I also have letters from the Conservancy and a couple others I will enter into the record today, and we will need to compile the letters that we have received on this to enter for the official record on this matter. Please. MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. For the record my name is Bruce Anderson. I am the attorney for the petitioner. I have been sworn. I am also a petitioner on a separate agenda item, Petition A-97-3. Just to clear up some procedural matters, I hereby withdraw petition A-97-3. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So withdrawn. MR. ANDERSON: I have distributed to each of the commissioners and also to the court reporter, County Attorney's Office, and planning staff an exhibit book that contains reduced copies of most of the exhibits that I will refer to today and also includes relevant portions of law that I will also be referring to. I would like to start with a simple, basic truth about this petition, that a golf course community with 275 single-family homes or 275 mobile homes on this land, on five-acre lots, is permitted under the existing zoning today without any other zoning approval. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would it be possible to fit that on the site? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: The only difference between what's already permitted and this PUD is reduced lot size and the desirable results of reduced lot size, which are reduced roads, increased open space and increased preservation of native habitat areas. A little later in my presentation I will show you an example of what can be permitted under your zoning today. Just to reiterate, the future land use element of your Comprehensive Plan states for the agricultural rural area, quote, residential land uses -- (Note: Power outage occurred at this time.) COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who said that? You know this never happened when Neil was there. MR. FERNANDEZ: I think he flipped a switch when he left. MR. ANDERSON: I don't like the competition. I want to quote a sentence directly from your future land use element about the agricultural rural area. Quote, residential land uses may be allowed at a maximum density of one unit per five gross acres, unquote. If the intent was to require five-acre lots, it would read one unit per five net acres. All density in Collier County is calculated on the basis of gross number of acres. The future land use element also states that cjustered housing in PUDs are permitted uses in order to encourage conservation of open space in environmentally sensitive areas. Twin Eagles PUD meets those criteria in every respect. I'd like to start with where the property is located to give you the big picture so to speak. This is an aerial photograph of northern Collier County, and it is basically 1-75 east to the Orange Tree development. Twin Eagles is located right here (indicating). There is Olde Florida Golf Course to the southwest. Directly south of Twin Eagles, half a section away, is a five-acre-lot residential subdivision that is currently under development. You'll hear more about that later. Next door to Twin Eagles is Bonita Bay East. It's a golf course. To the east of Twin Eagles is Estates. Designated and zoned lands permits twice the density of what we are requesting on Twin Eagles -- one unit per two and a quarter acres in the Estates area. Now, as we proceed west from Twin Eagles, as I mentioned we have the Bonita Bay Golf Course, then we have a large area that's under active mining. Florida Rock Industries owns this property. Right above here (indicating) is a conservation area that is -- was required to be placed in a conservation easement a number of years ago. It's adjacent to CREW lands. CREW lands are also here to the north of the Twin Eagles project. They only abut it on the corner here. My point in showing you this is so that you can see that Twin Eagles isn't an isolated pocket of rural designated lands. It's surrounded on three sides. Here's the urban boundary. Here's the Estates. It's surrounded on three sides, this pocket of ag land, by property that is designated in the comprehensive plan that allows from twice as much density to twenty times as much density. This is to be distinguished from last year's effort to expand the urban area where the issue there was let's expand the urban area and the urban densities so that these properties will be eligible for four units per acre instead of the present one unit per five acres. We are willing to live and only have requested the existing one unit per five acres. This is a 1375-acre project, and it will have only 275 single-family homes on it. It's the lowest density in Collier County. I would -- I would tell you that in looking at the boundaries of the urban area, in the Estates area, and in this isolated pocket, sometimes I refer to it as the hole in the doughnut, because it is surrounded by non-ag lands, that one of the beneficial results of approving Twin Eagles today is that in this hole in the doughnut you will begin hemming in the urban area with the lowest density development because the development pressures are probably going to continue along this segment of Immokalee Road, and I would respectfully suggest to you that it's best to lock in the low density today. That will take -- this project alone will take nearly 1400 acres off the books. Another distinguishing factor about Twin Eagles, it is abutted by non-agricultural lands, developed lands along both it's eastern and western boundaries, the Estates on the east, Bonita Bay East Golf Course on the west. I'd also note that this PUD property is within three-and-a-half miles of public schools, a fire station, an EMS station, and two utility providers, Orange Tree and Collier County. Many people who live in the urban area would be very happy to be that close to that many services. Now I'd ask you to take a look at the aerial photograph of Twin Eagles. As Mr. Nino told you, the project is composed of two parts. This is the pasture land that is north of Immokalee Road. That's the only area where there's going to be homes built. All the homes are concentrating up here. This is an area of wetlands and uplands that may have horse trails in it. It's just going to be used solely for recreation. All the -- all the environmental areas are being preserved. I have here an overlay of our development patterns on an aerial photograph of the Twin Eagles project so that you can visually see that the only place that homes and golf course is going is in abandoned farm fields. We are -- we are impacting less than one percent of the existing native vegetation on this property. In other words, there may not be a whole lot left, but of what's left, 99 percent plus is being left in place. Now, that's a record. I point out to you that the county Land Development Code only requires 60 percent of the area of a residential PUD to be set aside as open space, and that includes golf courses. Twin Eagles exceeds that requirement with approximately 65 percent open space excluding golf courses. Native vegetation, the county Land Development Code only requires 25 percent. As I previously stated, we're retaining 99 percent. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Bruce, if you included the golf course, do you have any idea how much that would total? MR. ANDERSON: In open space? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. MR. ANDERSON: According to Mr. Nino, I believe it's 78 percent. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree with you that we shouldn't, but I just -- I know other communities do, so I want -- MR. ANDERSON: Yes, I think it's about 78 percent. Now, Twin Eagles has also included a stipulation in our PUD to revegetate these abandoned pastures between the homes by creating native landscaping zones on each lot. I have a graphic that will depict that. It -- what these native landscaping zones do is that on each lot a minimum of 50 percent of the side yard setbacks will be required to be revegetated with native vegetation. These dog-bone-shaped native landscape zones would be approximately 17,500 square feet on a typical one-acre lot. And 50 percent of that area has to be planted with native species. We believe that recreation of native plant areas on these old pasture lands will improve the current degraded condition of the property for wildlife habitat. The result will be a series of natural areas that are between 60 and 80 feet in width between the homes, and they will connect with other open space such as preserves, lakes, and golf courses. A minimum of 55 acres of pasture land will be restored with native vegetation solely as a result of this requirement. And in addition to those minimum 55 acres, another 46 acres of pasture land are being restored to wetland status. Now, to really put this issue in the proper context, we don't need to talk about a theoretical project or what could conceivably be built on five-acre lots under the existing agricultural zoning. We don't have to do that. In fact, we don't have to look far from Twin Eagles to find one. A half a section south of the Twin Eagles project there is currently under development a 240-acre equestrian subdivision, and this is an aerial photograph that was submitted with the permit application to the county for an ag clearing permit. The permit was issued March 31, 1997, all in accord with your requirements. On this 240-acre project, the ag clearing permit authorized clearing 45 acres for access easements. That's nearly 20 percent of the entire project area that will be cleared just to provide access. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are those roads? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Now, I would contrast that with Twin Eagles. Twin Eagles is five times the size of this project, and we have less roads. They have 45 acres of clearing that they're doing for access. Twin Eagles only has 41 acres of roads. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're five times the acreage; is that what you said? MR. ANDERSON: That is correct. Five times plus. I would submit to you -- and this clearing permit does not include the clearing that will eventually occur for each of the individual homesites. Now, I would submit to you that that is not the kind of development pattern that -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Anderson, refresh my memory, because it's been a long time since I've been involved in it. A five-acre lot, assuming you don't have any wetlands, how much of it can you clear to build a single-family home? MR. ANDERSON: In the rural area? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. MR. ANDERSON: There are no limits. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: So that's the clearing for roads. And after that it's also going to be clearing for the houses. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Arnold is shaking his head that that's correct, so if someone who owned that parcel and wanted five acres of lawn, they could have it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What kind of process -- Mr. Arnold, what kind of process would -- would -- does that have to come before the county commission, that grid? MR. ARNOLD: No, ma'am. For the record, Wayne Arnold. That project was approved under the agricultural clearing permit provisions that you have. It also qualifies as a rural subdivision that came into being through the Land Development Code a number of years ago. All they have to do is provide legal documents for each of those homesites, and they never come before the county commission. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And its density is the same as what we're considering for Twin Eagles? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct, one unit per five acres. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And they can totally clear the lots -- I assume the permitting agency, would they give them permits to totally clear the lots? MR. ARNOLD: Well, realistically there might be Army Corp or South Florida Water Management District, Fish and Game. Other entities may have some interest, but under our guidelines, for agricultural properties there is no maximum or minimum number per se. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Please continue, Mr. Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: Take a good long look at that because this is the only time you're going to see it. It doesn't have to come before the county commission for any kind of review or approval. I would submit to you that you have got to question the real agenda of someone claiming to be an environmentalist when they say that this typical grid pattern of five acres lots with lots of pavement, no required open space and no requirements to save existing vegetation is preferable to a PUD which does have those requirements. I think not. Now, in contrast to those kinds of environmental groups, the petitioner has met four times with the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. Though they do have concerns about development in the rural area, I believe that they understand that cjustered and PUD zoning can be much better for the environment than the typical grid development pattern that we've just taken a look at. The Conservancy sought my client's commitment to a very rigorous and unprecedented set of standards for rural PUDs, and my client has agreed to incorporate those standards in this PUD document. I will be distributing to you revised pages to the PUD document that include the commitments to the criteria that the Conservancy has promulgated. My client wants me to publicly thank the Conservancy staff for their professional approach and willingness to look beyond simplistic, emotional appeals and take a cold, hard look at the facts. While other environmental groups have sat on the sidelines and thrown rocks, the Conservancy has done the heavy lifting for environmental preservation, and believe me they have leaned heavily on my client. As a result of the Conservancy's input and involvement, my client has agreed that half of this PUD's acreage will remain or be restored with native vegetation, natural areas either on site or off site through purchase and dedication of lands for the CREW program. This is an unprecedented commitment. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let me get that again. Half of the total acreage of the project will either on site or off site be naturally vegetated? MR. ANDERSON: That is correct. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So you can either -- now you're still going to have this requirement of the dogbones, the 55 percent revegetation on site? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, ma'am. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But in addition to that, if you can't get up to a 50 percent coverage of native vegetations, you're going to buy Some '- MR. ANDERSON: CREW land, yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: You know, it's one thing to save existing native vegetation which we are doing. It's quite another to be creating it where none exists today, and we're also doing that. Now, our only area of disagreement with your staff concerns the provision of water and sewer service. Our PUD lists three alternatives for service, well and septic tanks, on site interim water and sewer plants, and an interim connection to the Orange Tree utility water and sewer plants. The 1991 utility agreement between Orange Tree Utility Company and the Board of County Commissioners provides for service outside the Orange Tree project upon the written consent of this board. And that agreement is included in your exhibit booklet as Item No. 7. It's the last sentence of Paragraph No. 2 of that agreement. The Collier County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code are a mass of contradictory and ambiguous language concerning water and sewer service outside the urban areas. Court cases in Florida are clear that because land use regulations infringe on constitutional protection of private property rights, any ambiguity in the regulations must be interpreted in favor of the property owner. For example, the future land use element states that within the agricultural rural designated area utility facilities and essential services as defined in the most recent county zoning ordinance are permitted uses. The Land Development Code defines essential services as allowing water treatment plants and sewage treatment plants as conditional uses, quote, in any zoning district, unquote. The future land use element also provides that within the rural area, industrial PUDs are required to have a central water and sewer system. So it's obvious that the future land use element permits and in some instances requires use of utility services other than wells and septic tanks. The sanitary sewer subelement of your Comprehensive Plan states individual septic systems are permitted inside or outside the urban area only when connection to an existing central system is not readily accessible to render service. And it also states, again without regard to whether you're in the urban or rural area, that existing and new development must connect to a central sanitary sewer system whenever it becomes available. It prohibits existing private-sector package plants from adding customers unless all levels of service standards are met and operations are in conformance with all Department of Environmental Protection permits. The corollary of that is that so long as level of service standards are met and operations are in conformance with Department of Environmental Protection permits, private-sector package plants are permitted to add customers. The potable water subelement contains this same basic language, and it requires connection to the county system whenever it becomes available. And it specifically permits potable water supply systems on an interim basis until county service is available. We would ask you to please follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approve our three alternatives for utility service in order of priority. As required by the 1991 Orange Tree utility agreement, we will attempt to negotiate a three-party agreement with Orange Tree and the county and bring it back to this commission for approval. The agreement would provide that Orange Tree utility would serve Twin Eagles on an interim basis unless and until county service became available at which time Twin Eagles would connect to the county's regional system. The agreement would also provide that the water and sewer lines that Twin Eagles would have to construct between Orange Tree and Twin Eagles would be dedicated to the county. That dedication would save the county upwards of $300,000 in construction costs for if and when you ever want to connect Orange Tree to the county system which you are allowed to do as of the year 2011. I believe it would be a win-win-win agreement for all three parties. Now, in case negotiations on a three-party agreement are not successful, we ask you today to approve on-site interim water and sewer plants on the Twin Eagles property based on the existing language in the future land use element that utility facilities and essential services are permitted in the rural area. Our PUD specifically provides that when and if county service becomes available, Twin Eagles must connect to the county system. Now, the position that your staff is advocating ties your hands very securely. You may not see it, but they've got a rope they're dangling over there, and they're just waiting to slip it over your wrists. If their position is adopted, only septic tanks and wells would be permitted unless the Comprehensive Plan is amended and the Department of Community Affairs blesses that amendment. I would suggest to you that neither of us should subject ourselves to the second-guessing tender mercies of that agency, not when there is an alternative as there is in this case under the existing future land use element language. Now, it does pain me to point out that staff has been inconsistent in their positions on utility service in the rural area right in the neighborhood of Twin Eagles. Yesterday it was okay but today it's not. Staff did not have a problem extending county waterlines to Olde Florida Golf Club just a few hundred feet southwest of Twin Eagles. Nor did staff have a problem with approval of a package sewage treatment plant next door to Twin Eagles at the Bonita Bay East Golf Course. Staff shouldn't have a problem with Twin Eagles utility provisions either. Included in the exhibit book as Item No. 7 is a letter from the Fort Myers Department of Environmental Protection office to our project engineer that discusses the use of septic tanks and wells versus package water and sewer treatment plant. And the letter concludes by stating, quote, the department strongly supports the use of centralized collection and transmission systems and treatment systems for both potable and domestic waste water, unquote. In requesting your approval for alternatives other than septic tanks and wells, we are trying to be as sensitive to the environment below the ground as we are being sensitive to the environment above the ground. We'll be happy to answer any questions that you have. I also have Geza Wass de Czege, an environmental consultant; Dwight HcCan -- Dwight Nadeau, a land planner; and Bill HcAnly, a water and sewer utility engineer. Their resumes are all included at the back of the exhibit book. And we'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Go ahead commissioner Mac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Actually the more I think about it, it's probably not for Bruce. It's more for staff so -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I want to ask Mr. Anderson, what do you anticipate to be the average width of the residential lots inside Twin Eagles? I see a drawing behind you and I'm just, you know, curious what that is. I apologize. I didn't go through the document and pick it out myself, but the thought just occurred to me. MR. NINO: A hundred and fifty feet. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: One hundred and fifty feet. Okay. MR. NINO: The PUD document provides a frontage of a hundred and fifty feet; minimum lot area, thirty-three thousand square feet. I think it's well worth noting a minimum house size of 3,000 square feet. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My question is about what I've been calling the pocket there but the hole in the doughnut that Bruce is referring to. My question -- and you're the guy for it, too, Mr. Nino, since you're here is, how did that happen? How did we come to have -- what was the planning strategy behind having that piece of less dense property between three pieces of higher-density property? How did that happen in the planning process? What was the -- is there a good reason for that? MR. NINO: I don't know if Mr. Anderson is referring to the hole in the dough -- you mean the hole in the rural estates? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, put that if you wouldn't mind -- yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's the air between the urban boundary and the estate zoning north of Immokalee Road -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: In that white square there. MR. NINO: I wouldn't define that as a hole in the doughnut. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, nevertheless -- let me be clear about my question. My question is, it's surrounded by denset land use designations. MR. NINO: Yes, that's true. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Why would that be? MR. NINO: I think it -- I think it goes back to the historical roles of the Golden -- the Estates subdivision which let's face it, it's really an anomaly that -- the Estates subdivision. If we had our druthers, we would rather that it never happened that way. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It looks like we're still doing that. MR. NINO: I think the planners recognized that the Estates subdivision covering the magnitude of area that it does was something we have to live with and establish the density at one and two quarters. I don't know why earlier planners opted for one and two quarters -- one and two quarter acres because the lots were generally subdivided as five-acre tracts. Frankly, I don't know what the rationale for that was, but I don't think that the distance between 951, which is four units per acre and -- and the Estates subdivision because of its historical perspective where it comes from creates a hole in the doughnut. I think that's -- COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: How many square miles or so are we talking about, because it's a mighty big doughnut if that's the hole. MR. NINO: Well, we're talking about 3 miles by 3 miles, 9 square miles of land. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I guess my take on that, Commissioner Hac'Kie, because I looked at that in the private sector, is that you had two choices. You could either down zone more or less the Estates which at that time were subdividing into -- what are they -- a hundred feet wide, acre and a quarter pieces? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which we don't allow any more so there's -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. Which we don't allow. We decided if we wanted to preserve the integrity of that area since it was laid out in a certain manner, the only option was then to down zone, in essence, to ag, to turn all the Estates into just ag, so you had one big huge ag field out there. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But why wouldn't the white be pink? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Because it was not traditionally a part of the Estates zoning. In other words, it's just a land use -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because that would be more intense. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I understand. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You have to understand the urban boundary is where it is and there's the rural line where it is because there was a decision to control density at a much lower rate to east of that. And I think that, quote, unquote, hole in the doughnut is just there because you almost had two choices, urban or estates, and you took even the lesser of those which was ag so -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Could we get back to this petition? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I am -- that satisfies my question. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have questions for Mr. Nino or Mr. Anderson? How many registered speakers do we have, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: We have eight. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Eight. Okay. Again, I'd like to ask, as each person is called to come up and speak, if you'd state your name and state whether you were sworn in or not. If you were not, we'll take care of that up here. Let's go ahead and go to speakers, Mr. Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: First speaker is Karen Acquard. I think I'm pronouncing that correctly. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And on deck we have? MR. FERNANDEZ: On deck we have Sewell Corkran. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Hi, Karen. MS. ACQUARD: Good afternoon. My name is Karen Acquard, and I was sworn. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We all know that. MS. ACQUARD: All right. Okay. My husband and I have a home about three miles east of the proposed site of Twin Eagles. I know you've heard this before, but bear with me. There are enough people in Collier County. We don't need any more. There are enough homes. There is no reason for any more new construction except to replace an existing structure. Hake a lot of people happy and start a reversal process. Anyone who wasn't here, say, 25, 35 years ago, they or their families, pack them up and move them out. Any structure that isn't at least 35 years old, tear it down. These ideas may sound ridiculous and they're meant to be, but they're no more ridiculous than some of the arguments that I've heard against Twin Eagles. To remind you what was here 35 years ago -- because I was -- north of 14th Avenue North, there were no developments. There was no Moorings, Pine Ridge, Pelican Bay, Naples Park; they did not exist. You had some people who lived in the country. East of Goodlette Road, no development. There wasn't even a Golden Gate. Marco Island was not developed at that time. You had some homes but you needed a boat to get there. We didn't worry about how to decorate the medians in the road, because we only had two lanes; that was all that was needed. A lot has happened in 35 years, which is really a relatively short period of time. People are going to keep moving to Collier County. There is nothing we can do about it. We can't stop them. The urban expansion and urban sprawl that we keep hearing about, it really is already out there. The Growth Management Plan may say that the boundary line is at 951. By definition it is actually at 858. It sort of moved there when this county lost a lawsuit. Orange Tree was granted an urban PUD. Now, if you deny Twin Eagles, you're going to deny this county as well and especially that part of the Estates. Instead of collecting fairly sizable taxes that can help widen Immokalee Road, bring in a sheriff substation, and expand the services of EMS and the fire service, something that's needed out in that area, I really foresee this county and it's citizens paying against a lawsuit, and I doubt if we can win because the precedent has already been set by Orange Tree. If for some reason the county should win, we still stand to loose. Remember it is zoned for a trailer park. Now, wouldn't that look great coming down Immokalee Road, Twin Eagles Country Club and Trailer Park, a real asset to the area. And remember trailers pay very little in taxes. I've had an opponent tell me that one of the reasons that they were opposed to having Twin Eagles is because it would raise their property value. Oh, for God's sake, I hope so. I would really like something to offset the landfill that you guys want to give us. Twin Eagles -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You mean the Twin Eagles landfill? MS. ACQUARD: No -- Right -- the Collier County landfill. They want to hook into Orange Tree's facilities, and to me that makes perfect sense rather than taxing the environment with individual wells and septic tanks when you've got a hookup so close to the east that are set to hold both communities. I, myself, realize that development's going to come; that is not going to stay a pasture. I would rather see an upscale community with its landscaping, and it's going to be pleasing to the eye, hopefully kind to the environment, and very definitely more beneficial to this county and to the area than a trailer park that's going to give us nothing. I am asking that you approve Twin Eagles' request. I'd also like to take just a moment to comment on the petitions that you have there. They should have been delivered to you yesterday. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I was going to ask you about those, because I have some results here on them. MS. ACQUARD: Okay. Well, I had been asked to check on them at the two convenience stores where they were located. And I want you to know I was quite disgusted in checking to find that there were about three people that were connected with an environmental group that not only had signed both petitions more than once but had tried to alter other people's -- other signers' positive vote to appear to be negative. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Except they used the wrong color ink, kind of a basic -- MS. ACQUARD: Yeah. And where you had a light signature and a light check, you had real heavy X's. I personally think it's very pathetic and childish that they would have to do -- feel they would have to do something like this in order to get their way. I think honesty is -- from this type of thing appears to be beyond the ability of those that I have heard termed as ecoterrorists, and I think they deserve the name. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And this has been really entered for the record, but there are 168 signatures on these petitions that were located at the Mobil off Randall and at G's. Of the 168, 100 are in favor of the development; 67 against, with 40 of them being duplicates so -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Forty of the sixty-seven signed more than once? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. Some of them as many as four times. But we have 101 that only signed once -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, they felt strongly about it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, apparently. So that will be entered for the record and that explanation -- MS. ACQUARD: The environmental group out there. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And, Ms. Acquard, the explanation is a part of the record also. MS. ACQUARD: Thank you. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wish all our presentations were as entertaining as yours. I said I wish all of our speakers were as entertaining as you are. Thanks. MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Corkran and then Nancy Payton is the next. MR. CORKRAN: For the record, Sewell Corkran, 213 9th Avenue South. Yes, I was sworn in, and I'm not here to be funny. The real issue here is should PUDs and cjustering be allowed in agricultural areas which includes the Big Cypress area of critical state concern? There are at least 60,000 acres not for sale to government owned by large landholders awaiting development, and they're going to love PUDs and cjustering which the state can't prevent if it's part of your adopted approved plan. I think Twin Eagles is probably a beautiful development, but there are hundreds of thousands of acres, and they're going to be dozens or hundreds of developments that can come up under PUD and cjustering, and we can't count on all of them to do the job, let's say, that Twin Eagles is doing. If Twin Eagles is approved, it will be approved on the basis of a misinterpretation of county policy. And I want to read it, and Bruce Anderson did read it correctly, but he twisted it, and I want to explain how he twisted it, because I've been a land planner, and I know a little something about development myself. Policy A-i, LUI 40 in the Comprehensive Plan reads: Residential land uses may be allowed at a maximum density of one unit per five gross acres. Mr. Anderson bounced one over a lot of heads by saying if the county wanted to prevent averaging density in a PUD on the basis of five acres, it would have used five net acres, not gross. What gross means is simply that when you have a five-acre plot, there are certain deductions from that gross which you arrive at a net. What could a deduction be? Right-of-way. Simple as that. It has nothing to do with saying if there are a thousand acres and you have two hundred five-acre plots, you're allowed two hundred homes in cjustering in a PUD; no connection. If you read Webster and analyze the county policy A-i, it clearly says that the per-unit volume is one, such as one home, and the unit area of volume is five gross acres before deductions. This does not entitle the averaging. More important than the statistics that I've given you are these facts. I was on the Planning Commission for years in the 1970s, and everybody knew there was one home per five acres in the agricultural area; absolutely knew it. I would like Mr. Anderson or anybody to show where there has been one PUD allowed any place in an agricultural rural area or in the area of critical state concern; there is not one. There is no competent substantive evidence to back up an interpretation that averaging can be used under county policy A-1. Thank you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have a question for you, sir. MR. CORKRAN: Yes, ma'am. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: This example here on the board-- I don't know the name of the project -- is what is permitted, though, with the five-acre lots. In your opinion, is that preferable? MR. CORKRAN: I can take a five-acre lot and do a beautiful job. I can take a five-acre subdivision and do a terrible job. I can take 1400 acres and come up with a beauty, let's say Twin Eagles. Twin Eagles is a beauty. But everybody that's coming along with three pelicans may have a dog, and we don't want those dogs in the Big Cypress area of critical state concern. Nobody talks about that area. It is the biggest area of expansion for development outside of the urban area. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Arnold, just because of the -- Mr. Corkran's testimony, him proffering himself as a land planner, his definition of gross acreage doesn't even come balipark to what I understand gross acreage to mean. Could you either verify his definition or give us the definition of gross acreage? MR. ARNOLD: Gross acreage or gross density isn't necessarily defined in our plan, but the way that it's interpreted in not only the urban area but throughout the county is in terms of gross acreage, and we do say that. And the way we interpret a dwelling unit per gross acreage is you take the gross acre of the project, divide it by the number of dwelling units, and that is your density. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Regardless of lakes, wetlands -- MR. ARNOLD: It's inclusive of everything within the project boundaries. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And we've been doing that since you've been with the county? MR. ARNOLD: As far as I know, we've been doing that since about 1974. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: A question, too, for Mr. Arnold. The -- the other assertion is about the thousands, I think, of acres in the area of critical state concern that might also be permitted. Do you agree with that assertion that there are thousands? MR. ARNOLD: Well, there are certainly thousands of acres in the area of critical state concern. I think there are significant differences between area of critical state concern regulations. It's a separate overlay within that area. There are standards that we have to adhere to. It limits lot clearing. It limits the amount of area that you can impact on any given site. That in itself my promote the cjustering concept on extremely environmentally sensitive areas. It's never been utilized but I think a large part of that has been that we've had available large tracts of land within our urban areas in the past, it hasn't really been an issue. And we have typically seen five-acre lot development out there. It didn't require zoning change. It merely requires someone -- someone to come in and start selling off access easements. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What concerns me on that, Commissioner Hac'Kie, is if we prohibit PUDs outside of the urban area, that's what happens. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But what if we prohibit PUDs in the areas of critical state concern? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's what happens. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, I know. I don't like that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: See there are two sides to PUDs. When I was on the consulting side, PUDs were the biggest pain in the rear because you knew you opened everything in your project up in a public hearing and that allowed each element of that to be targeted by the public and by people who didn't like it and by the board members themselves. So you'd go straight zoning if you could -- if it got your project done, you would try straight zoning, because the rules are right there, and they couldn't change them. In a PUD you open it up and it was -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You're writing the rules. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's tough. On this side I love PUDs, because when they come in, we have the opportunity to tailor the development criteria to be consistent with or compatible with what's around it. So the idea that PUDs are the worst way to do zoning to me is just ludicrous, because it gives this board and the public every element of that project to review and tinker with. And we aren't given the opportunity of something like that -- I'll tell you how this project can be done creatively is, you go in and you do a minimum width and you extend the balance of each five-acre lot into the lakes, into the golf courses, into the wetlands, and you places easements over them, and you can do the same project. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Without a PUD? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Without a PUD. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My -- I don't know. My -- my concern is that if you permit -- the negative to PUDs from a public perception, it seems to me, is that they promote development, because once there is a PUD, there's also a marketing plan and there's also, you know, somebody trying too sell the lots, whereas with just the grid system, those things -- I have always thought those things had to sort of happen on a lot-by-lot basis, but frankly, that one example there shows me that there's even a marketing plan for a grid system, and that's -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry. I didn't mean to start a whole other conversation, but I just -- the PUD comments Mr. Corkran brought up, I thought was at least something to consider. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Why don't we see if we can hold this particular conversation to the end. I have a suggestion for the board's consideration that we could use for the future. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed. Ms. Payton. MS. PAYTON: Good afternoon. My name is Nancy Payton. I have been sworn in. I am office manager of the Florida Wildlife Federation's southwest Florida office located here in Naples. I am also a member of the Florida Wildlife Federation and a resident of Collier County. Since its founding 60 years ago, the Florida Wildlife Federation has promoted and continues to promote resource-based recreation and the enjoyment of our natural environment. I brought for submission into the record a copy of our bylaws as well as our articles of incorporation and also various information that talks about the programs of the Florida Wildlife Federation. A mission of the Florida Wildlife Federation is protection of our members' interests through advocacy and legislative action, and we've been before the commissioners on a number of occasions dealing with various issues that we feel pertain to the environment. Members use this area of Collier County for recreational activities such as birding, and the federation is concerned about the cumulative impacts this action will have on bird and other wildlife populations members enjoy observing as well as -- we have concerns as well about water quality and water quantity. The Florida Wildlife Federation opposes Petition PUD-97-3, Twin Eagles Golf and Country Club because it seeks a PUD within the agricultural rural designated area of the Collier County future land use map. We believe that the approval of Petition PUD-97-3 violates Collier County's Growth Management Plan. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Miss Payton, repeating Commissioner Mac'Kie's question to Mr. Corkran, do you find the grid system up there that is currently allowed preferable to the specifics that have been offered on the Twin Eagles PUD? MR. PAYTON: Mr. Constantine, there are going to be some speakers speaking a little bit later representing the federation, and they're going to address some of those specific issues, and so I'll -- would prefer to defer answering that question because we do have someone that's going to be speaking to that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is David Guggenheim, and then Ed Carlson. MR. GUGGENHEIM: Good afternoon. My name is Dave Guggenheim, president and CEO of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. I have been sworn in. Urban sprawl seriously jeopardizes our environment and quality of life both here in Collier County and around the nation. In its initial report to the governor and the cabinet, the Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South Florida says the following about urban sprawl: Rapid population growth and sprawling development patterns are leading south Florida down a path toward wall-to-wall suburbanization. The proliferation of urban sprawl is swallowing up undeveloped areas in the region at an alarming rate. Without significant reforms south Florida will continue to grow at the expense of its environment and its economy. Today's decision on the proposed Twin Eagles PUD will in effect establish an important precedent about the future of Collier County. It is for this reason that the Conservancy has devoted several months to intensive study and discussion on this issue, and heartburn I might also add. The Conservancy is on record as opposed to PUDs outside the urban boundary primarily because of our concern that such PUDs would promote urban sprawl. Following exhaustive study of the issue, we remain opposed to PUDs outside the urban boundary unless the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code contain language specifying a rigorous set of criteria that set a high standard for non-urban PUDs. Such criteria must be sensitive to both environmental concerns and the problems of urban sprawl. That the Conservancy would not oppose certain PUDs outside the urban boundary is based on our assessment that over time, growth will continue to occur outside the urban boundary. According to the governor's commission report, again, by 2010, a little more than 12 years from today, the population of Collier County is expected to double what it was in 1990. We're all witness to the fact that that dramatic growth is indeed impacting both our urban and non-urban areas and the question is, exactly what is the fate of our lands outside the urban boundary 10, 20, 40 years and more from now? And I think we're starting to see the answer to that question. A steady stream of ranchettes continues to sprout up. Most disconcerting, however, is the recent ominous appearance of Cypress Creek Farms, which is the development of a little sub -- equestrian subdivision which is carving the land into five-acre plots under existing law. It's, therefore, in our opinion not a question of if growth will occur outside the urban boundary but what kind of growth will occur. We believe our common mission should be focused on how we can best guide growth. Is there an alternative to the type of growth outside the urban boundary that would otherwise occur? Our research tells us that PUDs, by providing for cjustering, can provide better environmental benefits than traditional five-acre ranchettes. Cjuster development is widely cited by planning experts as a mechanism that can help prevent traditional urban sprawl while providing for conservation areas. The governor's commission report discusses the environmental benefits of cjustering. When it discusses Collier County, one quote includes: Unfortunately development outside the urban boundary designated at one dwelling unit per five acres is prohibited from cjustering. Over the past few months, we've been working with other environmental organizations and land-planning experts from around the country and Twin Eagles' developers and consultants. As a result we have established a rigorous set of criteria for PUDs along the defined Immokalee Road corridor outside the urban boundary which we believe are both meaningful and achievable. Our criteria offers significant protection to the environment and water resources, clearly differentiate an urban PUD from a non-urban PUD, are sensitive to human settlement in a wilderness area, and represent a better alternative to what would otherwise occur. I have very little time, but I will run through some of the 10 points, and you have copies of these. Point No. 1 is the designation of a specific Immokalee Road corridor on the future land use map as a rural residential cjustering subdistrict; No. 2, under no circumstances shall a project develop more than 50 percent of existing natural areas, and if any natural areas are impacted, they need to be compensated at a ratio of at least 2-to-1 in the CREW water shed. In addition, at least 50 percent of the gross acreage of each project must consist of natural areas with native vegetation, again projects by purchase in the CREW trust. I will skip over the remaining -- due to lack of time -- the remaining 10 items, but I think you got those in front of you. One point I will stress is that the maximum density of one unit per five acres must be maintained. The Conservancy will not oppose a PUD, including Twin Eagles, that meets these criteria assuming such criteria are incorporated into the comp plan and the Land Development Code. However, please note that the language we've used is meant to convey our general concepts, and final language must be developed by county staff and attorneys to ensure clarity. Whatever the outcome of today's decision, this is an important issue. We would strongly encourage a county workshop to further discuss this issue. We would offer our staff, our facilities, and our resources for such a workshop. And I thank you for your consideration and concerns -- your consideration of our concerns and ideas on this issue. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a comment before you go and that is I applaud what you've done in here because it faces the reality that there is still going to be some growth and tries to make sure that that growth is -- as you said we have some sort of control over it and some sort of quality with it. And I like where you're headed with this. I'm looking forward to heading in this general direction, but I think it faces reality and makes a very, very good situation out of something that a year ago the way it was tossed out was not a very appealing situation and looked like it could go in a bad direction. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have to echo that compliment and tell you that I introduced Mr. Guggenheim and Mr. Anderson, and they were both willing to sit down and talk about this, although with some hesitation maybe on both sides, but not only did they sit down, they sat down multiple times. I spent some of those hours with them. And I think that this is a very, very good sign for our jobs that if the Conservancy and developers will sit down together and work out some criteria that we can use as guidelines. And I just cannot say how much I appreciate all the time that was spent. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Guggenheim, thank you, again, for all your effort. MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Ed Carlson and then Brad Cornell. MR. CARLSON: I'm Ed Carlson. I'm a south Florida area manager for National Audubon and the only one that came in late. Who swears me? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Madam Court Reporter, would you swear this gentlemen in, please. (The speaker was sworn.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Shame on you for being late, Mr. Carlson. MR. CARLSON: It's a long drive. It's all the way past Twin Eagles. Okay. Not very long ago many citizens in Collier County were working very hard to preserve natural lands inside the urban boundary. And I remember clearly Commissioner Norris stating during those hearings the urban area is for people, implying to me that the ag and rural area is not just for people, for something else. Mr. Norris was absolutely right. As it turned out the urban area is for people, but what this development does -- what Twin Eagles does is also make the rural area for people. Let's face it. The wildlife and the natural resource values that exist there today, the wild area where large animals like bears and panthers and deer and bobcat and all those things run around out there now totally free and where other species like large flocks of herons and egrets and my favorite bird, the wood stork, also use that property -- I've been observing them there for many, many years -- will be replaced by -- even though maybe a minimal amount -- roads, homes, cars, rollerbladers, golf course carts, bicyclists, joggers. And the reason the word "urban" keeps coming up in this conversation is we're going to create an urban environment. It's just that simple. The natural system that uses that area now is going to take a hit. The bird population at Corkscrew is down 90 percent from when the sanctuary was formed in 1954, and that's entirely due to regional drainage and development. And this is another hit, and we can't take an unlimited number of hits. There are tens of thousands of acres of these kinds of ag fields out there which do have environmental values just ready and waiting for this kind of development. you know, this is sexy; it's beautiful; it's upscale. And if you're going to ask me the question, well, do you want that, well, you're not going to have the same demand for that. And if you're thinking fifty years -- what's Collier County going to look like in fifty or a hundred years? Okay, you're not going to have all that ag land turned into that. It's my opinion that's not going to happen. All that land for an upscale golf course community could very well happen very quickly. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask you a question, Ed? MR. CARLSON: Sure. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You just said there is a lot of other ag land out there like this, which there is, and you said it has certain environmental values? MR. CARLSON: Sure. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you expound on that a little bit? MR. CARLSON: Well, first of all depending on -- a lot of it's fallow. A lot of it's in pasture. Less and less of it is being farmed, as a matter of fact, so as those fields succeed into other types of planned communities, they have a variety of wildlife values, and I won't worry you with the details. But just strictly space for wildlife to move around and habitat for wildlife. Plus depending on the season and whether those fields are flooded, the woodstorks and wading birds, it's terrific feeding habitat for them. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Question on that point, too. What about the fact that -- heaven sakes, I wrote it down. MR. CARLSON: I wasn't done yet. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Fifty -- well, they'll give you more time. About, yeah, half of the project is going to be revegetated with native landscape. Isn't that a net positive? MR. CARLSON: Let me go on. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. CARLSON: I think it's presumptuous of this applicant to design a wall-to-wall golf course development, and they literally shoehorned this thing in. I mean, there were islands of trees out there which a very small percentage of the project was native tree vegetation. They didn't have to infringe on it. They infringed on it. I mean, they shoehorned this baby in there. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So you're saying that they did -- they are taking out some native vegetation; is that your point? MR. ANDERSON: Six acres. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let the record reflect Mr. Anderson responded with 6 acres, and from now on we're not going to have interaction from the podium to the audience. Mr. Carlson, your time is about to run out but let's extend by one minute because there were some questions asked of Mr. Carlson. MR. CARLSON: Anyway, I just think that it's presumptuous to go through this process without more public input and more work on this. This is a big huge decision. Wetlands were cleared for those pastures, okay. So when you look at that other project and that'll have to be preserved not in those pastures because they're already cleared. So, you know, it's not the big great environmental thing it's made out to be. And I think open space is the heart and soul of Collier County. And I think if you just look at the density tax return you're selling the soul of Collier County. It can be done much better. Questions? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have one. For example, it could be done much better if it's done like this equestrian park? You talk about selling the soul and we could do it better, tell me what you mean we could do it better. How? MR. CARLSON: Well, getting back to Mr. Guggenheim's comments, I think, you know, there could be regulations much, much tougher, a whole quantum level above where we are now. I just don't think those five-acre tracts -- with all the land that's left in Golden Gate Estates, I just don't think there's going to be a significant demand for that kind of development compared to the Twin Eagles kind -- type of development. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are you in general agreement with -- are you in general agreement with what Mr. Guggenheim outlined? I mean, putting in those type of restrictions? MR. CARLSON: I'd go to a higher level. I'd take that to a higher level. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: For example? MR. CARLSON: Oh, much more green space. Look at the site, what was there, restore habitats that were there and wetlands that were there. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Historically you mean? MR. CARLSON: Yes. Look at the site. Be sensitive to what God had there originally, and look at how you could incorporate something back into what was there. This is like take the pasture, wall to wall build. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Carlson, earlier in you comments you said this grid pattern is never going to happen but -- MR. CARLSON: I didn't say never. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You said it wasn't going to happen. MR. CARLSON: I said I didn't envision all of the available rural agricultural land that could eventually be a PUD as being the grid. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Well, the fact is it is happening. This is happening today, and I don't know if you're aware but the Golden Gate Estates, the northern estates, is one of the fastest growing areas in the county. That -- put those two together and it indicates that there is demand for this type of housing. You are aware of that? MR. CARLSON: I'm aware there is some demand for that type of housing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And -- I'm sorry. You hit on something that just -- that always strikes a chord with me and that is we can do a better job with more regulation, increased regulation, higher regulation. Forcing a property owner to go back and restore what was there based on current hydric soil data 50 years ago is something that we should be doing. There is -- there's a point at which the desire -- and you have an extreme fortune of being able to look at this from a dominant side, a side of interest that you hold very near and dear to your heart, and you can really look at this more or less from a one-sided perspective. We don't have that luxury. We have on the other side people who have their hard-earned life savings in property, people that require private property rights to be enforced, and those property rights have become more stringent under the Butt Harris Act in the state of Florida, which may make a lot of the things you're suggesting illegal for us to do. It would be good for the environment, and no one would question that, but what you extract from the property owner for the benefit of the environment has to be commensurate with the development impacts. That's the nexus of the Butt Harris private property rights. There is no historical perspective attached to that. There's nothing that says that you have to restore, and by doing that we would be violating the Private Property Rights Act. We have to consider that. We have to consider those rights and attempt to balance them as best We Ca~. And that's why I think what Mr. Guggenheim and the Conservancy put forward says recognize the existing nature of vegetation on the site and incorporate it to the greatest extent possible. When you start talking about going back and recreating historic wetlands -- which you and I both know island wetlands don't succeed in restoration -- every bit of information we have on that says there's more failures than successes. MR. CARLSON: Well, those hydric soils are still there. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, they are and -- MR. CARLSON: You can work with the environment instead of against it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I think in that we're trying to say the same thing. I just think it's degrees. The degree you want to go to far exceeds what I think we have a right to do under Florida State law on private property rights. And had to -- that is another side that we have to consider that may not be a strong consideration for you. Thank you. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER BERRY: May I make a comment, please? This goes back to this discussion -- this has something to do with what Mr. Carlson said, but basically this grid pattern up here. With my past board experience on another board here in Collier County, as you well know not too long ago we built a new school out on Immokalee Road called Laurel Oak Elementary. The school that basically fed that school was Big Cypress Elementary School, which is located on Golden Gate Boulevard. That school was absolutely bulging at the seams with many portable buildings placed around it, etc. At that point in time, there was a new school built; that was Laurel Oak Elementary on Immokalee Road. Almost -- if you were to look at the numbers today, the school, Big Cypress Elementary School, Laurel Oak Elementary School, are both over 900 students which is far past what is an ideal number for an elementary school. Most of those elementary schools were built to house within their current shell -- 832, I believe, was the optimum number at the time when I served on that board. You can increase those facilities by adding some portable building and doing some other things, but basically those are the numbers. On the books today and proposed are a new elementary school in the Orange Tree area, a new middle school that will be coming on line and eventually down the road there is already discussion -- as you well know we have a new high school coming on line on Immokalee Road, but down the road there is another high school that will be proposed that will be out in that area beyond -- beyond the Orange Tree area somewhere. So to sit here and say -- and right now we're not talking about building up any of this area on the north side of Immokalee Road. Where is this building coming from? And it is being generated in the Estates area. So to say that there is no growth going on in that part of Collier County, I mean somebody is putting their head in the sand, and I'm not saying that some of this other land isn't going to be developed, but I have to agree with the Chairman, too. If I happen to own that land, and I had sat here for years and paid taxes on that land, and I happened to be X number of years old at this point in time, and I have an opportunity to sell that land, I would hate to have five commissioners set up here and say you can't do something to sell this land and realize something that you have devoted your entire life to. I feel that's wrong. I just feel as an ordinary citizen that that is a wrong approach. I am in support of the guidelines. I really want to compliment the Conservancy in working with the Twin Eagles group on this. I don't care whether it was Twin Eagles. I don't care what group it is. I think this was a positive step to bring this all together, but I just -- I feel real strongly about this. MR. CARLSON: I can't help but think that comment was directed at me. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Not really, I'm just talking about the growth. MR. CARLSON: At growth in the Estates. But I am well aware of growth in the Estates. And I don't know what buildout for the Estates is. You guys might know that, but there's an awful lot of open land still left in the Estates, and that growth is going to continue. And I and everybody else in this room is completely aware of that. It's just the relative appeal of this kind of project on new lands compared to the old system I think promotes development. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Ed, I could also say, too, that the people that are able to afford the Twin Eagles project first off would probably impact -- and I'm speaking from a school perspective -- have very little impact on the school system because of the cost of probably the housing that's going to go in there. But I'll tell you what is going to be impacted is going to be this grid over here because this is where families can afford to live. These are the people that take care of the rest of Collier County. This is the place where they can afford to have a nice home and have some place to raise their family and have a little bit of space and what have you. And this is what they're going to be looking at. They can't afford to look at that. I can't afford to look at that. Okay. It sure would be nice, but that isn't going to happen. But this is the kind of thing that's going to generate the things that we're looking at. MR. CARLSON: My sum total concern as you know is future environmental impact. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Yes, sir. I understand that, and I respect that position. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next is Brad Cornell and then Richard Grosso. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And how many after Mr. Grosso? MR. FERNANDEZ: One more. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: One more. Okay. Mr. Cornell. MR. CORNELL: Good afternoon. My name is Brad Cornell, and I have been sworn in -- sworn in, and I'm here speaking as president of the Collier County Audubon Society. I would like to start by first reading from our bylaws and -- under Article Two our purpose. The purpose of this society is to promote an understanding of and interest in wildlife and the environment that supports it and to further the cause of conservation of all natural resources. And I might add that that includes advocacy work. Most of our members regularly enjoy and pursue recreational birding and wildlife observation in the vicinity of the proposed Twin Eagles project. Collier County Audubon Society has field trips every year to this vicinity. We believe this project will adversely effect our members' interests by impacting wildlife habitat for wildlife, which includes, among other things sandhill cranes, bears and burrowing owls. More importantly, in addition to the specific project's potential wildlife impacts, the precedent this project would set would amplify the negative impacts on habitat as more such projects came forward throughout the county. This project sets a dangerous precedent of rural development without the involvement of all in examining such a precedent. Collier County Audubon Society is especially concerned also about any habitat impacts outside the urban boundary since these lands constitute the vast majority of what habitat resources remain. Wading bird populations in Florida have declined over 90 percent since the early part of this century because of disregard for wildlife habitat state wide. Finally, we do not believe these homes would be built any time soon without the use of cjustering or PUD zoning. The issue of rural PUDs deserves closer examination before permitting projects, specific projects. We, therefore, recommend against rezoning ag rural lands to PUD zoning in the Twin Eagles project. Thank you for your consideration of our -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Cornell, I have to ask you a question if you don't mind. MR. CORNELL: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You've talked about the interest of your members, and Ms. Payton with the Wildlife Federation earlier mentioned something about bird watching in this vicinity, and you mentioned activities in this vicinity -- all the activities your members is one of the main reasons your organization exists. Is that statement meant to imply that those interests are equal to or greater than a private property owner and their right to do a -- to perform a reasonable and environmentally sensitive development? MR. CORNELL: Well -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I need to know if you're -- how you're placing those priorities, because I think it's important to your testimony. MR. CORNELL: There was a judgement that you just made about the project specifically in saying that but, no, we're not passing that kind of judgement. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. CORNELL: We're just saying that we're -- you know, as an organization we're authorized to represent our members' interests, and these are -- you know, this affects our members' interest; that was the point -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You said activities in the nearby area. You haven't been on this property bird watching, have you? MR. CORNELL: Well, you can bird watch by going by it, but, no. The wildlife does not stay in one little place. It's not like a zoo. You know, the wildlife in Collier County moves all around and it includes the CREW lands and Corkscrew Swamp, and these are our prime targets for ecotourism in Collier County and our members. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. MR. CORNELL: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Richard Grosso and then Patricia Humphries. MR. GROSSO: Thank you. I am Richard Grosso again. I'm here representing the Collier County Audubon Society and the Florida Wildlife Federation. I've asked Hiss Payton to hand out my legal analysis that demonstrates that this potential rezoning violates both your Comprehensive Plan and your Land Development Code. Before I get to the merits of that, let me address this private property rights issue. No owner of property, no developer of land has the property right to receive an upzoning, to receive any zoning change that they need. It is not a private property right. When they come to the government asking for a change, it is entirely proper for the government to say we would give you this change if you do the following things, be that habitat restoration or be it whatever. Another facet of that question involves economics. Anyone who pays taxes in this county is potentially impacted by a project like this. As your staff notes in their fezone findings, the impact fees that they may pay may not actually pay for everything that the taxpayers need to provide them in terms of facilities and services. And your staff has told you that money will have to be found somewhere else from county coffers. There is typically with residential development in Florida, and it appears to be the same in Collier County, a deficit. Residential development doesn't pay for itself. The existing taxpayers pay -- make up that deficit. That's a public right that is involved. Private property rights are an issue, but public subsidy of development is also an issue that realistically has to be discussed in the mix. If you pay taxes, you're affected by a decision like this -- make no bones about it -- in this county. Now, the question here -- you know, there's a legal interpretation whether or not you can do a PUD in the ag rural land use category. You can't. PUDs might be a good idea. They might be a really smart way if things like what the Conservancy has given you are in a code, are in a plan, and they're stringent enough, and they really do require a quality development, PUD in an ag area might be appropriate. Under your comp plan and your code, it's illegal. It is flatly prohibited -- that prohibits you from approving this rezoning. The purposes of the agricultural rural designation are to prevent urbanization and encourage agriculture. You obviously are not doing that if you approve this development -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I understand, Mr. Grosso, you're entering for the record basically your appeal which was denied earlier today. MR. GROSSO: Well, no, sir. The question is whether or not you should approve this rezoning. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct. MR. GROSSO: State law requires that the rezoning be consistent with your comp plan and your code, so I am addressing those issues. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I've seen end runs before. Mr. Grosso, don't interrupt me. MR. GROSSO: I beg your pardon. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Don't interrupt me. The requirements that we review PUD zoning are listed specifically in our Land Development Code, and I think there's eight of them, eight areas. And those are the areas in which we are required to consider land use fezones. I'd like you to specifically address those eight areas since those are the areas that we are charged by our code to consider in a fezone. That's -- that is my request, not to go back and rehear an appeal that was denied earlier today. MR. GROSSO: In light of this morning's activities, I resent the implication that I'm attempting an end run on anybody. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You can resent that, Mr. Grosso. That's fine. MR. GROSSO: No, you're also incorrect. State law requires this rezoning petition to be consistent with the comp plan as well as the provisions that you just pointed out. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, then go ahead and finish your five minutes. I'm sorry. MR. GROSSO: And specific to one of those provisions, sir, I might point out to you Section 2.2.20.3.1 addresses the density limits in PUDs. And it says the density limit is based on the density rating system; that's what it says. That's how you determine the maximum density. Your comp plan says the density rating system only applies in urban designated areas. I don't know how you get much clearer than that. PUDs are allowed only in urban designated areas. They're not allowed in rural agricultural areas. Yet that is what your staff is telling you to do; that is what you apparently are on the verge of doing, and you're criticizing me and my clients for insisting that the law be followed. Now, the precedent you would set -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No, sir, Mr. Grosso, you are now incorrect. I just want to put that on the record. MR. GROSSO: Well, thank you. I appreciate that we're not being criticized for insisting that the law be followed, and we do appreciate that. Now, when the code says that's where you can do PUDs, you can't do them in the other categories. I mean, that's the law. If you seriously want to address the issue of should we be able to do PUDs in the ag rural area, then have a frank discussion, workshop the issue, and amend your plan and code. But don't approve a rezoning that violates the laws you have on the books today. That can be a good way to develop but not under this code. And the precedent you'd be setting is that PUDs are categorically allowed in the agricultural rural category. The precedent you wouldn't be setting is all of the -- (Timer sounded). And I was responding to questions, so if I could finish my comments. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thirty more seconds. MR. GROSSO: If I can liken this particular development -- if you think this particular development has a lot of real good amenities, don't think that by approving it that's the precedent you've set, that all other approvals that come to you for approval for PUD are going to have to do what they've done, because your code doesn't require that and your comp plan doesn't require that. So you're only setting a precedent that we have to allow PUDs; you're not setting a precedent that everyone has to preserve as much as they are preserving and all of those other things. Now, you know, I've read to you at least one section of your code that clearly says you can't do this in this category. A Comprehensive Plan has to be read in its entirety. You can't just ignore any section of the code particularly when it specifically speaks to the question at issue here. There are several other sections of the comp plan that also apply. The consistency requirement of the Growth Management Act is that you have to be consistent with the plan, not just the Land Development Code. You're going to violate three or four or five provisions of both if you apply -- if you approve this rezoning request. It couldn't be much clearer than that. That's what my clients have asked me to come and say to you. I would be happy to answer any questions. My clients are not categorically opposed to all development. It's simply -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, our staff has made some recommendations. Our Planning Commission has made some recommendations. Are either of those bodies recommending that we break the law? MR. WEIGEL: No, they are not. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MR. GROSSO: Thank you. In closing I will just say that if you have problems, if you don't like what your comp plan and Land Development Code currently will allow, then fix it. That's not an excuse to violate the plan for some other development. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have a question. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I'm sorry. I was on -- I needed to ask Mr. Arnold something. I appreciate Mr. Grosso's interpretations and opinions on what we can and can't do. Mr. Arnold, my understanding of the density rating system as it is placed in the Land Development Code or in our Growth Management Plan to govern predominantly density bonuses. That's what the explanation is. It covers densities of everything in the county but predominantly density bonuses. Are there areas in the rural part of the county that are allowed density bonuses? MR. ARNOLD: I can't recall any specific references or examples off the top of my head, but I will tell you that the density rating system I would argue is not applicable per se, but I don't believe the PUD district is precluded from being utilized elsewhere. We have requirements for industrial PUDs outside the urban boundary as well, another rezoning opportunity. PUD simply is another zoning district under our code promoting flexibility, and I think there's ample language within that definition and section of the planned unit development district to permit it anywhere within Collier County. It's not precluded from being utilized outside the urban boundary. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The irony for me is we've heard a number of people say they want more public input into the process, more public participation and yet they oppose PUDs. I mean, PUDs open it up -- open every little niche, every corner, every screw to this plan to review and -- to public scrutiny and to our scrutiny. There is no way that is more detailed and opens it up more than a PUD. So I don't understand. They're making argument against themselves when they say we want more input, but we don't want PUDs. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I guess I completely disagree with the inference that because the density rating system section does not state the rural portion of the county, that it somehow prohibits PUDs. They may prohibit the use of the density rating system for the purpose of affordable density -- or affordable housing bonuses and so forth from that section of the county, but omission does not automatically imply inclusion. So I just simply disagree with that, and after several years as a land planner and making my living knowing that code, I would assume that I can be proffered in that manner. Any further questions for Mr. Grosso? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have a question for Mr. Weigel that was engendered by Mr. Grosso's comments and also by Mr. Corkran's comments about opening the door and the precedent that we're setting. What Mr. Grosso had said is the door that you're opening if you approve today is that PUDs are allowed, and likewise Mr. Corkran had said if you approve this, you're not necessarily approving something with as high of standards as the Twin Eagles project. You're approving PUDs. And my question for you is, can you please fashion a way or can you give us some advice on how if we approve a PUD today that -- my vote, frankly, will be conditioned on likewise giving direction to staff to amend the code to incorporate these issues developed by the Conservancy. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But I thought we would wait until the end of the conversation, and I will try to help you with that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I appreciate your help, but I want to finish my question with Mr. Weigel, if you don't mind. I'm right about to loose my thought. My question is, what is the methodology for the interim time period between if this project is approved today and as projects come in between now and amendment of the LDC? That's going to be very important to me for my vote. MR. WEIGEL: Well, you have -- you actually have a -- one question before you today and that is consideration of this petition which happens to be a PUD. The direct question before you today is not one of a general policy consideration of are PUDs not allowable, not permitted under our law outside the urban area. If you make that determination in the course of this particular petition today, you need, of course, just as you would in regard to the petition to make a ruling with some findings of your interpretation and competent substantive evidence. But I think that you really may wish to separate that -- that particular question from the one that's before you today, or arguably that question was already answered in the petition coming before you today with the advice of staff and council, and that is that the PUD, in fact, under our Land Development Code comp plan is in fact a potential zoning tool that may be used. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that's not my question. My question is not whether or not PUDs should be permitted, because whether or not they're permitted and whether or not I vote in favor of them are two separate issues. Okay. They're permitted and then we have authority to review the criteria. I am only willing to support PUDs outside the urban boundary with some very stringent guidelines. So I want to create a rural PUD. MR. WEIGEL: Right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I want to know how to do that and what happens in the gap of time. MR. WEIGEL: I would suggest that you not necessarily -- you may choose to do what you wish to do but that the determination that the board collectively makes in regard to this PUD would not have to be linked to the determination that a standard be developed for PUDs outside the urban area in the future, although separately you certainly could make that direction to staff to bring that back in the next cycle. I think concurrently with that we'd look to see if there are any tweaks and informations that need to be provided with our Growth Management Plan and the EAR review and all that kind of thing, too, but, I mean, we certainly can do that. If the standard that you see today that's been provided to you for this one is the standard you wish for us to attempt to bring into the code, I think that that can be done and probably, you know, during and through the next cycle. Looks like I'll get some additional information here, but please be clear to us what you want in regard to the standards that you want, because you may wish to amend or addend or supplement what is provided for this particular project or use it as a model to build upon. I mean, you can let us know in the course of the amendment process and we can achieve that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that and as my comments earlier when I complemented Mr. Guggenheim indicate, I'd like to see us go in that direction. But the item before us is a specific petition under current code and I want to please keep our discussion to that. And I want to address that, but I don't think we need to mix that up with a particular petition. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: For my vote I have to mix it up because I cannot vote in favor of this unless I can see that we're going to give staff direction to only open the door this narrowly. So to me the two are inexplicably tied. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As a matter of process, you may wait until you have all testimony before stating how you're going to vote. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm aware of how to do it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The reason this has come up is because we've had two accusations that this Pandora's box, that if you approve this, everything else is fair game as if we all become deaf, dumb, and blind and can't look at a single application and determine its individual merit. I resent that. I resent it from Mr. Corkran and I resent it from Mr. Grosso that this is a precedent that we are too stupid down the road to look at individual applications and make individual determinations as to what is a benefit to this community and what is not. And that's the inference. It's a scare tactic. It's used all the time. The word "precedent" comes out, and everyone thinks that once you do it once you have to it a hundred times over again. We have heard time and time again from our county attorney that an individual fezone is not in and of itself a precedent-setting measure. Now, it may mean we'll allow PUDs, but it means an individual scrutiny for each, it'll be at its own level based on the merits or lack of merits of that project. That's the purpose of public hearings. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, can we finish hearing from the public? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Please. MR. GROSSO: Thank you for considering our comments thoughtfully. Thank you very much. MR. GROSSO: Thank you, Mr. Grosso. MR. FERNANDEZ: Last speaker is Patricia Humphries. MS. HUMPHRIES: My name is Patricia Humphries, and I have been sworn in. I am a resident of Golden Gate Estates and live approximately four miles east of the Twin Eagles project. I am against this project. With all of the problems that the county has experienced with growth, I respectfully request that the Board of County Commissioners consider the wisdom of restricting growth within the urban boundary until the building projection for the urban boundary is realized and the impact on the county is analyzed. Phase 2 urban area buildout predicts a buildout population of over 500,000 within the urban boundary. This doesn't take the rural areas into consideration. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Miss Humphries, just so you know, the current numbers I think are somewhere around three seventy-nine, not over five hundred thousand. MS. HUMPHRIES: Thank you. Personally I feel that this project will create a higher tax base for myself and my neighbors who are in a middle income bracket because of the resulting demands that evolve from an upscale neighborhood and/or neighborhoods. I think it is a danger to the ecology and our fragile water base. An atmosphere that residents of Golden Gate Estates enjoy would be ruined by overdeveloping. Another concern is when these golf courses have to pump water because of heavy rains, where is that water going to go; Golden Gate Estates. Thank you for your attention. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a comment, and that is you opened up by saying you don't think we should allow extra zoning outside -- or extra units outside the urban area, and this petition as I understand it -- unless I'm completely lost -- isn't asking for anything extra. Right now it's zoned in such a manner that allows one unit per five acres and the PUD would allow one unit per five acres. MS. HUMPHRIES: It's outside the urban boundary; correct? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's right. But that's the way it's zoned now. There's no change. Whether this is approved or not, it's the exact same density. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Were you asking that we not allow growth outside the urban boundary? MS. HUMPHRIES: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So nothing. In the Estates where you are, there should be no new homes. MS. HUMPHRIES: The urban boundary does not include Golden Gate Estates. It's north of Golden Gate Estates if I'm not -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's not accurate. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Actually, no. The -- MS. HUMPHRIES: It's the western coast -- and coastal boundary to roughly one mile east of County Road 951 and from Lee County line to southern coastal boundaries including Marco Island and Goodland. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And all that area including your house is outside of the urban boundary. You're all west of the urban -- or excuse me, east of the urban boundary. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And what you're suggesting is that -- MS. HUMPHRIES: No, I'm one -- I must mean roughly one mile -- I'm sorry. I must be west. No east. I'm not one mile east. I'm further than that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. You're outside the urban boundary. What you're suggesting is that no one could build in those areas of the Estates either. MS. HUMPHRIES: That's -- I was referring to north of Immokalee Road. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh. Just north of Immokalee Road? MS. HUMPHRIES: I was under the impression that that was part of the urban boundary. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's not. And so you would suggest, for example, outside G's General Store or Orange Tree, those Estates roads that are north of Immokalee Road, there shouldn't be any new homes allowed in there. If someone has purchased that property with the intent of building a home, we shouldn't allow that. MS. HUMPHRIES: There's a buildout population of -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm asking you a question, and I'd like a specific answer. MS. HUMPHRIES: I'm sorry. Repeat the question. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm asking if -- you suggested we not allow any new homes outside the urban area. Are you suggesting that that would include Estates property for example on the north side of Immokalee Road -- MS. HUMPHRIES: North side of Immokalee Road. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- across from Orange Tree. If I can finish '- MS. HUHPHRIES: The area -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If I can finish my question. For example, on the north side of Immokalee Road across from Orange Tree there are several estate-zoned streets. They're outside the urban area. If someone -- some young couple out there or some retired couple out there has purchased that land with the intent of building a home and have been saving their money, but haven't built it yet, you're suggesting they should not be able to use that property to build their home on? MS. HUHPHRIES: Is it within the Golden Gate Estates area? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes, but it's outside the urban area. MS. HUHPHRIES: No. I am not referring to that. I'm referring to the area that is now considered rural agricultural area that is undeveloped, totally undeveloped and -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I understand what you're saying. Unfortunately it's illegal. You have to have reasons for telling people they can't build, and typically those are infrastructure based. We can't provide water. We can't provide sewer. We can't provide transportation. Otherwise it's called a taking. You have eliminated their right to use their land, and that's illegal in the state of Florida, and it's illegal in most states. So what you're asking we legally can't do. MS. HUHPHRIES: I see. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that's a misconception. People say why don't we just stop growth. And the answer is legally you can't. People are allowed what's called a minimum beneficial use of their land. This is the lowest density allowed in Collier County. There is none lower. And they're asking to develop at that lowest density, so to even reduce that further, we would probably be in the similar position of what's called a taking. So I understand what you're asking, but we have some legal impediments that we can't just arbitrarily say that's enough for now, let's wait a few years, and then we can start back up then. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That legal impediment is called the Constitution of the United States. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. So I understand what you're asking but we have -- it's illegal to do that. And that's the Private Property Rights Act I was referring to earlier. MS. HUHPHRIES: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Just as a note -- and this for Hiss Humphries and Mr. Grosso made some comments directed towards property taxes and the-- the theory that somehow their property taxes or some other property taxes would go up because of this property, but the argument completely falls apart because of the value -- the expected value of the properties within this project. I mean, assuming that any residential unit gets an average amount of services, those on the lower end are tax or service importers, if you will. And those that are of higher values receiving the same services are, of course, tax exporters. They're paying more than they are receiving back in services, so both of those arguments fall apart when you look at it analytically. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think that's one of the reasons we saw the petition signed by a lot of the people in that area. Ms. Acquard, I don't see her still here, but she -- there she is. She mentioned something, and I met Hiss Acquard through the fire consolidation efforts, and that's when I found out Corkscrew has the highest millage rate of the fire services. And it's not because they have a Cadillac department. You know, Chief Kovarik does a real good job on, you know, shoestrings out there, but it's because the tax base for the population and geographic area is rather low. So these kinds of developments, if they are upscale, actually add to the tax base and take the burden off a lot of the other taxpayers for services such as fire and road and so forth. So Hiss Acquard's argument is to me much more logical then saying if this is built, my taxes or my value will go up, and that's a bad thing. When I weigh those two, I have to side with Ms. Acquard on which of the two makes the most sense to me. Is that it for public speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: That's all we have. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I'm going to close the public hearing. At this point there have been a lot of, I guess, accusations that certain things were done or weren't done. My assumption is that those parties will file whatever necessary appeals they want to file whether they're happy or unhappy with today's decision. Mr. Nino, is there anything staff needs to get on the record based on what I will call information or opinions that were rendered? MR. NINO: No, there isn't. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There is not, okay. On second thought. MR. ILSCHNER: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I'm Ed Ilschner, you're public works administrator, and I'm not used to your procedures, but I'm learning. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Were you sworn in, Ed? MR. ILSCHNER: I was, yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. MR. ILSCHNER: I want to make a comment regarding the utility provisions as proposed by the Planning Commission, one of those proposals, and that was, of course, the Orange Tree provisions for utilities. We have two settlement agreements, one dated Hay 28, 1991, and one dated Hay 14, 1996, the last of which amended the original agreement to allow the takeover if we chose of the Orange Tree utility. I would like to have the record reflect that we would like any agreement that's reached between Orange Tree and Bruce Anderson's development group that would include the provisions that are currently in the Orange Tree agreement. In other words, the Twin Eagle agreement and the amendments thereto would include those provisions to protect the Collier County water sewer district interest and specific language also that might pertain to future impact fees associated with Twin Eagles. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: On that issue, when we discussed a request to extend water and sewer service and it was denied, we had a discussion then and I championed the concept that -- and we have a letter from the DEP which is consistent with 20 years of letters they've sent us that wells and septic tanks are not good, that they are more polluting to the environment. And it was -- it's that basis that I stated at that time that any types of projects such as this should be placed on a centralized system if they're to develop for two purposes. One is that there are -- there is a higher testing criteria they must meet and report to different agencies for the quality and the operation of their system. In other words, if state agencies govern that, if you go drop a well on your property, you're on your own; same with a septic. No one comes out and checks if it's working. The second reason is and particularly in this corridor -- we have heard of some discussion today about this being called the hole in the doughnut or whatnot. We know out to the east is a development that may at some time be on county service, may or may not; we don't know, but that could be an option. So the likelihood that a line is going to run down Immokalee Road I think is probably better than 50 percent. By forcing centralized systems, particularly in this area, that makes the hookup a one-stop shot. You just do a hot tap where you tap into the line that's being constructed. And they already have the internal system. It doesn't require that project to be torn up inside to be refitted for the centralized system. So for those reasons and this, I think the idea of using wells and septic tanks as an option should be removed altogether, and the only options remaining are that of a centralized water and wastewater system or hooking up to an existing utility, but that has already been decided that Collier County would not be that utility. Under that second option that that should be -- that has to be investigated -- it would have to be investigated and brought back to the record anyway. So Mr. Ilschner's recommendations although appropriate today would really be pertinent at that point; so that's my take. And I guess on that one point if this should move forward to an approval today, I'm going to want the wells and septic part removed altogether. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I -- that's the point I would like to talk about a little bit more in depth here. If you look at our grid pattern over here -- our famous grid pattern -- there's no way they're going to centralize that. That's all going to be wells and septics. I mean, that's obvious. It would be far cost prohibitive to go in there and try to centralize that. The problem, of course, everybody should be aware is that that is the worst thing you can do environmentally. That by the way is not that far from our county well fields, the city well fields and -- and leaking into the aquifer is certainly a concern. So to -- what I would like to do is first of all echo my thanks to the Conservancy because of this excellent work they've done here. They've really put some thought into this. I think they have a great list of things that we can certainly work on. The one thing that I don't see here and I'm sorry -- we were just -- we were handed this earlier. I don't see anything that concerns utilities. I would like to see something in there. What I would suggest that we at least consider is that we take the Conservancy up on their kind offer to workshop this with our staff to come up a set of criteria to go into our Growth Management Plan for this particular area of the county. But I think we really need to look heavily at putting in there a statement that hooking up to or having available a central water and sewer system is a requirement in this area. I think that is really a very important aspect of this whole deal. But some of these suggestions that I see in here -- and I'm sorry. We haven't really had time to really go through this in depth, but some of it looks very good, and I'm sure that we can come up with some very fine restrictions. But for today we're back again to the -- to the same thing we've talked about a couple of times today. We have on the books today a set of laws that we need to adhere to during this discussion today, but if we're not completely satisfied with that, we have an opportunity to change those for the future, and I think that's exactly what we ought to do in conjunction with the Conservancy. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think that suggestion goes hand in hand with the Pandora's box argument, because even the folks that are here representing environmental agencies had a tough time taking issue with what's going on at Twin Eagles. And that's because I think the representatives of Twin Eagles did a very, very good job in heeding the warning signs that were being cast about. So, you know, I heard a lot of -- today I heard some concern over this, but the real concern is the Pandora's box over PUD zoning and how it's addressed. We need to commit today to do that and I likewise would join in that. Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, the rest of the board knows that I have a real problem with cjustering and have, but it appears we've gotten past that issue with the appeal decision this morning. Mr. Corkran had tried to define what the real question was today, but I think simplified the real question is what's in the best interest of the public, and what's in the best interest of the environment. And Mr. Guggen -- or Dr. Guggenheim, I think, went a long way in just saying how do we best control growth. I think we have to know there is going to be some in the county in the future and how do we best address that. I find it very persuasive that the Conservancy doesn't oppose the project. Again, I -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Nor do they endorse it. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I know, but that's a big step. And the idea that they've come up with some specific things for this and then we could look at doing the same or similar things county wide. I think we're all saying we agree that that should be done. But while I think they've taken a big leap in that recognition, I've got to compliment the petitioner -- I mean, this is a lot of stuff here -- and for accepting these items, and saying, yeah, we'll do that, because there's some pretty strong requirements there. The one thing a couple of folks said that I just thought was misleading and I don't want anyone who's not here today to misunderstand, and that is we're not allowing extra density in the rural area. Right now one to five. It's one-twentieth of what's allowed in the urban area, and the plan that's being proposed is one-twentieth of what's allowed in the urban area. There's no increase at all. And the only increase in what I can see in what's been -- what's in our packet and what's been presented is the manner in which we're trying to deal with a conservation element and the fact that we're essentially not disturbing any of what remains of what's natural area. The fact that they're going to revegetate, the fact that they're willing to buy if they can't provide it on site, to buy in the CREW Trust area. Those all seem like positive things. They seem like better than having a barren field. And so I know if you look at it simply as the big picture of do we want 240 more homes, no. But if we can have 240 more homes and have more conservation and certain areas restricted forever and certain areas in CREW Trust bought up and held forever, those are all good things. And so I think in sum we're looking at a plus there. Reality is if you look at the grid system which is allowed and Ed -- Ed Carlson had said, gosh, I don't think there's a demand for that. And I think that was the point Barb Berry made when she said the growth in the Estates is happening. There is a demand for that. That's what most people can afford and where most people are going. There are more single-family individual permits being pulled in the eastern Estates than anywhere else in the county, so there clearly is the demand for that. And I would prefer not to see more of 43 miles of roads on that area. And just finally this is a very unique area. It does have land that's already been flattened and at this point isn't nearly as environmentally productive as it might have been years ago when Ed was first here, I guess. But it's that uniqueness that makes sure this is not opening Pandora's box. It is not setting the precedent, because every piece of property isn't this vague. And, also, in the meantime we have the opportunity to address it through our Growth Management Plan through these things the Conservancy has done. So I just think we're looking at a net positive. And I've had a problem with the cjustering all the way along. But when I look at what the Conservancy has put together and convinced the developer to go along with and looked at the alternative, I'm not sure how you can really argue that the other is better. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We need to get a motion on the floor one way or another. Does anyone have one crafted at this point? I will try and summarize to make a motion to approve the Twin Eagles PUD with the following stipulation: One, that the wells-and-septic-tank option be removed as a source of water and wastewater; that -- that with this approval also goes direction to our staff to begin working with the Conservancy on their criteria to address future projects in the rural area and how they can best be assimilated with sensitivity toward the environment. And with that appro -- or with that motion also comes the understanding that -- and the findings that this request is consistent with the elements of the Land Development Code and future land use element as written and discussed here today. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second that. MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Mr. Anderson handed out certain handouts that presumably are amendments -- would be amendments to the PUD documents that you have that reflect many of The Conservancy's development criteria. I assume you're incorporating those. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll incorporate those into my motion if you'll provide a copy of that to the court reporter, please. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could I ask a question? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think I heard the petitioner say earlier that their amended pages represent complete compliance with all of the 10 criteria set forth by The Conservancy; is that correct? Because I'd like for the motion to say that the petition is approved subject to compliance with all of those criteria. MR. ANDERSON: What I said was that we had agreed to those criteria, and we have agreed and incorporated into the PUD all of the criteria over which we have control. We do not have control over this commission to amend the Land Development Code or the Growth Management Plan, but all things that are within our power to do we have incorporated into those pages that I handed out. And I also provided a copy to Dr. Guggenheim earlier today. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The tent -- the tenth of their ten conditions is that the Collier County comprehensive Land Development Code be amended. Is that the only one that you're not under control of or can you comply with the first nine? MR. ANDERSON: We also have no control over item number one. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Pause a second for me, please. Okay, because that's the same. That has to do with amending the code so that we can create a district. Okay. MR. ANDERSON: Number one and number ten. Everything else on his those three pages that I handed out to you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You said one and two. You mean one and ten. MR. ANDERSON: One and ten, yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: In your motion, Mr. Hancock, did you -- I know you said we were going to workshop that item with -- COHMISSIONER BERRY: Staff is going to. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Staff is going to workshop the item with the Conservancy. Should we read into that that this is direction to the staff to create some restrictions for PUDs outside the urban boundary? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. What I'd like to do is I incorporated that here because of your comments, but I think we need to give specific direction to staff on a separate item or immediately following this to do that. But I incorporated it so it's a part of this record because, again, the concern over, you know, Pandora's box and precedence and all of that business, I think it needed to be entertained in the motion. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There's a motion and a second. Is there further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) Motion carries five zero. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's take a -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let's give that direction to staff. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. With the motion what we would like staff to do, and I'll give this direction, ask if I have consensus on this, is for the appropriate members of our staff to begin meeting with Mr. Guggenheim and his representatives of the Conservancy with the intent on developing a set of criteria to be adopted in the Growth Management Plan and subsequently in the Land Development Code, or whatever is the best mix, to address the question of development in the rural area. MR. ARNOLD: Not specific to the Immokalee Road corridor, but large into the rural area? Because I think that's also going to potentially address the issue of the five-acre ranchettes and the impact that those also create, so we'd like to also try to address that issue as well. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think to say just Immokalee Road corridor would be shortsighted of us. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, yes. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. MR. CAUTERO: Mr. Chairman-- for the record, Vince Cautero -- do you have any objection to me including other organizations other than the Conservancy. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Not at all as long as the Conservancy agrees to them being at the table, certainly. I don't -- the Conservancy made recommendations to us that we should make those changes; so as long as the Conservancy doesn't mind them being at the table, fine by me. I don't care. You know, the more the merrier. MR. CAUTERO: Are you looking for an ultimate product to be a product from the Conservancy refined or a product from your staff? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A product from our staff with input from the Conservancy and hopefully full agreement; that's the goal. Is that acceptable to the board? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That sounds right to me. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So done. Let's take a little seven-minute break here. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thanks for your work, guys, seriously. (Break was taken.) Item #12B2 ORDINANCE 97-30 RE PETITION R-97-1, ROBERT SELF REQUESTING A REZONE FROM 'A' AGRICULTURAL TO 'HH' MOBILE HOME FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF CARSON ROAD AND CURRY ROAD IN IHMOKALEE - ADOPTED WITH STIPULATIONS CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good afternoon. We're going to reconvene the Board of County Commissioners meeting. We are to item -- let me get this correct here -- 12(B)(2), did you say? Okay. I don't know why I don't have that page. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Petition R-97-1. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Yes, 12(B)(2), petition R-97-1, Robert Self requesting a fezone from ag to mobile home. Good morning, Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: Good afternoon. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Boy, is that wishful thinking or what? This is -- do we have to everyone sworn in on this one, Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Would all the petitioners, staff, and members of the public here to speak on that item please stand and raise your right hand. Madam Court Reporter. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Mr. Bellows, good afternoon. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. This petition seeks to fezone 3.10 acres of land from agriculture to mobile home. The HH zoning district will provide the development standards that will allow for the five mobile home lots. The petitioner has left out an outparcel -- outparcel No. 6 for possible future expansion of the church or for additional mobile home lots. As you can see, the lots are -- the subject site is located on the southwest corner of Curry Road and Carson Road in Immokalee. Property to the north is zoned VR and has existing mobile home subdivisions. To the northeast is the Timber Ridge PUD; it's an affordable housing project. To the east is agricultural, mobile home overlay. To the south is the church and Immokalee water and sewer facility; some commercial here at the intersection of Lake Trafford Road and Carson Road. The property is located within the urban high residential area as depicted on the Immokalee future land use map. It allows for a density of eight units per acre. Subject site is consistent with this density. The traffic impact review indicates the site will not exceed the significance test for any county road within the radius of development influence. Collier County Planning Commission reviewed this during the public hearing on July 3, 1997, and voted to approve with the -- by five to two with one abstention. The two votes in opposition concerned the proposed fezone was not consistent with the Immokalee Master Plan. One person spoke in opposition to this petition; his concern was that there may have been a private agreement with the property owner and the adjacent landowners that would limit the site for use only for church expansion. No other persons spoke for or against this petition, therefore, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve Petition R-97-1. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Bellows, is there any-- has there been any follow-up on that contention that this land was supposed to be used only for church expansion? MR. BELLOWS: The property -- I had discussions with the pastor, and he has assured me that -- that whatever agreements there were, it's not affecting their use to apply for a rezoning. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Is there anything in the Collier County records that would indicate that? MR. BELLOWS: Not that I found. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: There's no legal record of that? MR. BELLOWS: Not that I found. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Further questions for Mr. Bellows? COHMISSIONER BERRY: What about the consistency with the Immokalee Master Plan? MR. BELLOWS: They listed no specific instance why it was not consistent. Staff's reviews indicates everything is consistent with the Growth Management Plan and the Immokalee Master Plan. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. No further questions? Is the petitioner here? Ask if you have anything to add to Mr. Bellows presentation on this matter. MR. SELF: I'm Robert Self. I've been sworn in. The only thing I can add is that we have checked both the agreement and the deed, and there are no restrictions on how the church can use this property. The Immokalee water and sewer district needed a piece of land behind their water plant that the church owned. The Immokalee water and sewer district purchased this piece of property and then traded tracts with the church, and there are no agreements that I can find anywhere. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: You have two speakers, Mr. Chairman. The first is Joseph Matthews, and the second is Lee Treadwell. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Matthews, if I could ask you to come forward, sir, if you would state your name for the record, and if you have a letter from Mr. Matthews to read into the record, that would be fine. MR. TREADWELL: My name is Lee Treadwell. I'm with the Barton Collier Partnership. The Barton Collier Partnership owns the land adjacent and abutting the church property as well as the three point acres that they're trying to fezone. Up until January 31st of 1997, the partnership owned the 3.1 acres in -- that is the subject of this petition. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Up until what date? I'm sorry. MR. TREADWELL: January of this year, January 31st. A brief history, if I could, of how the church, Lake Trafford Baptist Church, acquired the property. Over a year ago, the Immokalee water and sewer district came to us with a problem. In order to expand the district's facility on Carson Road, they were required to take a portion of approximately one acre of the church's property. The church told the district the taking would severely impact their plans to build and expand the church. And as a result of their discussions with the church, the district was lead to believe that the mitigation of the impacts would be costly. The church told the district that if they could get the 3.1 acres of the Collier's property at the corner of Carson and Curry, that would give them enough room to expand the church and buffer the church from the mobile home park across the street. The district came to the Colliers with this problem, and in the spirit of good faith and cooperation sold the property to the district who in turn conveyed the property to the church. Now, less than six months after the trade, the Colliers pro -- the church proposes a mobile home park on the 3.1 acre site. The Colliers feel they were misled. Had the church disclosed to either the district or the Colliers their plans to develop the property in such a fashion, the Colliers would not have sold the property to the district. For that reason I urge the Commission to deny this petition for rezoning. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have to say God bless them, but nobody's got more lawyers than the Colliers. And if they intended that, they should have put it in the deed or in some other way made it a legal restriction. MR. TREADWELL: In Immokalee things are handled a little -- a little friendlier than that. If I could read the letter from Joseph Matthews, the chairman of the Immokalee water and sewer district, would that be all right? Would you like copies of that? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We need one entered for the record anyway. MR. TREADWELL: Dear Commissioners, a few years ago the Immokalee water and sewer district realized the need for additional lands adjacent to its Carson Road water treatment facility. This land was necessary for future expansion. The only adjacent land available was directly behind our facility and was owned by the Lake Trafford Baptist Church. The district entered into negotiations with the church for outright purchase. At some point the church hired a counsel to represent them, and negotiations between the district and the church had come to a stalemate leaving only one possible option, the district would purchase land from the Barton Collier companies and swap it with the church and acquire the parcel we needed. The church indicated they needed the whole 3.1 acre parcel on the corner of Carson and Curry. This would provide a buffer for the trailer park across Curry Road. It would be -- it would also provide enough area for the church's expansion. No mention was made about developing a mobile home lot on this parcel. In a show of community involvement and in order to help solve the above-mentioned needs, Mr. Treadwell and the Barton Collier companies agreed to sell the district the parcel of the land for the land swap. I, as chairman of the Immokalee water and sewer district of commissioners, feel that we and Barton Collier companies were misled by the church, and also petition the Collier County Board of County Commissioners to deny their request for rezoning as presented by the Lake Trafford Baptist Church. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My next question is, is the man who's presently the pastor or otherwise the, you know, CEO of this church, the same person who held that position when the transfer was made? MR. TREADWELL: I believe it was, yeah. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Is he here? Does anybody know? I donlt know if youlre a registered speaker, but I had a question for you. PASTOR HOLBROOKS: Iim not. Iim not registered to speak, but I will speak. CHAIRNLAN HANCOCK: If you would, sir. Thatls okay. Come on up to the microphone. If yould give your name for the record, please. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: And be sworn. CHAIRNLAN HANCOCK: And we ask that you be sworn in. PASTOR HOLBROOKS: My name is Hoyt Holbrook, pastor of Lake Trafford Baptist Church, and I am not sworn. CHAIRNLAN HANCOCK: Okay. Would you go ahead and swear this gentleman in, please. (The speaker was sworn.) COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Did you make a deal -- are they correctly representing -- PASTOR HOLBROOKS: There was no agreement as far as the church and the water department was concerned as far as any future use of the property. The property -- we are proposing to fezone the property to mobile home use so that we may develop five lots on the front of it. We will remain to hold two-point-some-odd acres in the future. That is for the future development of the church, which is still remaining two acres, which we swapped one acre for. We still have more than double the property for developing the church after we develop this. The problem and the reason for developing these lots is to reimburse the church for the property -- or for the use -- or for the expenses that we incurred in the swap from the water department to reimburse the church for this expense that they had which was more than $40,000, and there was no agreement at all. None signed, none that was ever spoken of. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You say that youlre going to do five lots and that covered -- what did you say -- one-point-something acres? PASTOR HOLBROOKS: That covers about one acre, approximately that, maybe a point or two over, but approximately that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And the rest of the property, then, youlre going to use for church expansion -- PASTOR HOLBROOKS: That is proposed for church expansion which is right now proposed for a playground for the church and the community. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. So that would be 2.1 acres? PASTOR HOLBROOKS: Thatls about correct, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So if youlre not going to use those 2.1 acres for a mobile home site, why are you rezoning it to mobile home? PASTOR HOLBROOKS: Well, the reason is to keep from doing two zonings at one time really because of the fact that to do this -- itls agricultural now. Weld either have to do two zonings for two different purposes at this time, or we would have to come back in the future to fezone the additional two acres. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that because the church use is an accessory use under mobile home designation? MR. BELLOWS: A church is a conditional use in the MH district, also, so they would have to get a conditional use under both. Iim not sure where he got the impression that this would do away with any conditional use -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So with 2.1 acres, under mobile home you still have to come back before this board for a conditional use which is -- PASTOR HOLBROOKS: A conditional use for the church, yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But it would be one step toward the way by having the zoning -- MR. BELLOWS: It doesn't matter. Either way they'd have to come in for a conditional use, whether it's MH or remained "A" agricultural. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A church is also a conditional use in ag? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So it doesn't get you anywhere. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Now that you know that, would you amend your request to just fezone that one acre? PASTOR HOLBROOKS: Well, the problem is this: Should we decide that the church needed for its own purpose to put one mobile home on that piece of property, we would have to come back for a rezoning to even put one mobile home on that for our church purpose if we needed to do that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So you might even just have a mobile home on there that you're using for Sunday school rooms or who knows what? PASTOR HOLBROOKS: Possibly even a parsonage. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think there's a -- I think there's a way to accomplish what we're looking for here without getting too difficult and that is you have -- you're dividing that one section into five lots; is that correct? PASTOR HOLBROOKS: Yes, sir. May I add that the remainder of that is only consisting of one lot which would only allow one dwelling. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. I was just going to say a stipulation that says no more than six mobile home units on the total parcel. And if that's agreeable, then that means the balance of that piece isn't going to be turned into a bunch more mobile homes sitting on there. Is that where you were trying to get, Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, just the -- the gentleman there representing Barton Collier companies was making the case that this was not to be mobile homes, but church expansion. And since the pastor doesn't want but five mobile homes at this point on one acre, I thought maybe, well, that's what maybe we should do. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or maybe six, the possibility for six. I'm satisfied that if -- if it's no more than six, nobody's going to be harmed by that. With that six lots, no more than six mobile homes can go there. PASTOR HOLBROOKS: If I may interject, we do not desire to have any more. We don't want a mobile home park. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And they've got $40,000 worth of expenses to try to make up for. That seems to be a logical explanation for how the confusion happened so -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are there any further questions of the pastor or staff on this matter? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: With the stipulation? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, yes, because I think the net effect is the same. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But just a statement on the record. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No more than six mobile homes on the parcel. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Parcels. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Cels. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) Item #12C1 ORDINANCE 97-31 REGARDING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 96-6 THE UTILITY REGULATION ORDINANCE BY AMENDING SUBSECTIONS 1-3 (E) (1) AND (2) TO MODIFY CRITERIA REQUIRED AND PREFERRED FOR APPOINTMENT OF APPLICANTS TO BECOME MEMBERS OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER AUTHORITY - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. We're up to item 12(C)(1), request for board to consider adoption of an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 96-6, the utility regulation ordinance. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve, or does it need discussion? Public hearing? MR. WEIGEL: You have to close the public hearing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have any speakers on this? MR. FERNANDEZ: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Wallace, thank you for that presentation. Item #12C2 ORDINANCE 97-32 REGARDING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 96-83 THE COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATIVE CODE - ADOPTED Item 12(C)(2), recommendation to BCC adopting an ordinance amending 96-83, the Collier County Building Constructive Administrative Code. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Same thing. I got a motion to approve if nobody's got comments. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have speakers on this, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We do not. Can you give me a quick -- just a 30 second overview on this to make sure I didn't miss anything, because I have the general gist of it. MR. CAUTERO: Sure. Vince Cautero for the record. Language is being recommended for change in the design professional requirements. The original language if construed literally would have made all design professionals, most notably engineers and architects, responsible for all construction even if they did not sign a contract with the particular property owner; this clarifies that language. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: It, frankly, makes the ordinance match our current procedures anyway. MR. CAUTERO: That's absolutely correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. That's fine. I'm sorry. Do we have a motion? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And there's a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) Item #12C3 RESOLUTION 97-295/DEVELOPHENT ORDER 97-3 RE PETITION DOA-97-1, WILLIAM VINES REPRESENTING PELICAN STRNAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT ORDER 90-1 AS PREVIOUSLY AMENDED FOR PELICAN STRAND - ADOPTED. PETITION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, the next item is Petition DOA -- which does not mean dead on arrival -- 97-1. I always want to change that every time I see it, because it doesn't look right. What I'd like to ask is that all members of the staff, members of the public, and the petitioner stand and raise your right hand and be sworn in on this item. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Ron Nino for the record. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me, Ron, real quick. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm going to abstain on this issue, because I may potentially have a voting conflict. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Nino, continue. MR. NINO: Yes. Petition DOA-97-1 seeks to amend the Pelican Strand development order. You may recall that only a couple of months ago we amended the PUD to increase the density and intensity -- well, change the distribution of commercial land uses. The development order amendment in terms of how it addresses -- in terms of its addressing land uses merely brings the development order up to date with what you've already done with respect to the PUD. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're not adding any acres or any units? MR. NINO: We're not adding any acres or any units. The substance of this amendment in addition to catching up on the land uses with the PUD is to readdress the transportation element, because increasing the number of dwelling units from 680 to 1280 -- 1200 units and changing the rest of the commercial composition triggered an additional development of regional impact review process. In our preapplication meeting, of all the questions that are normally required to be addressed, the region said the only impact here is to transportation and, therefore, your review only need to take into account transportation issues. Consequently the region reviewed the transportation requirements and approved the development order amendment with recommendations for those transportation conditions that would need to be reflected in the amended development order for them not to launch an appeal. And I am here to tell you that the amended development order includes in its entirety all of the recommendations of the Regional Planning Council relative to the issues of transportation, plus the region decided that we needed to revisit the issues of solid waste and hazardous waste, and they included some conditions that they recommended be included in the development order relative to that subject matter. And I'm here to tell you that those conditions are included in the development order. The Planning Commission heard this petition on July the 3rd, unanimously recommended its approval to you. Staff is here to assure you that the amended development order entirely executes the decision of the Regional Planning Council with respect to those issues that would trigger a rereview, and we recommend your approval. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are there questions of Mr. Nino? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Two just sort of technical. One is the process feels a little backwards to me. I mean, how often have we done this where we -- I just feel like the procedures were out of order. Is that normal? Unusual? Common? MR. NINO: Commissioner, what procedure is it you're -- is it the procedure of dealing with the PUD and then the developer ? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. MR. NINO: You remember -- you may recall that we did discuss that. We did discuss why isn't the development order amended here at the same time as the PUD, and we indicated to you that we had contacted the Department of Community Affairs, and we contacted the regional planning staff, and said, hey, can we do this? And they said, well, there's nothing in the law that says you can't do it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why did we want to do it that way? MR. NINO: We wanted to do that to convenience the developers' comfort level that -- that they would -- they had some comfort that they were going to get the 1200 units. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see. MR. NINO: And it was merely an exercise in amending the development order because they were dealing with some financing requirements that required them to have that comfort level. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So before they spent all the money on this, they wanted the comfort that the board -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It just felt a little out of order and I couldn't remember how it got there. MR. NINO: Normally, we deal with them concurrently. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. And my other technical question is just on that application for the public hearing you have disclosed the ownership, and we have here that it's a limited partnership with two 50/50 partners, and I hadn't looked at a partnership in a while, but don't you have to have a general partner to have a limited partner, so shouldn't there be three partners? How can there be a limited partnership with only two 50/50 partners? Is one of them the general and one the limited or -- am I right that there has to be a general partner in a limited partnership? I think so. MR. WEIGEL: I've been delving a little more into partnership law lately, but I can't say absolutely that there is that requirement. I would have to get back to you to determine that. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: My only point is since we do make this requirement of disclosure about ownership, we need to be sure that the answers make sense, and this one seems to me to be missing an element, probably something very simple, but -- MR. WEIGEL: Maybe. I think your question is well taken. I just can't respond affirmatively. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is -- maybe the petitioner can answer the partner question, possibly. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I was hoping so. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Vines, I assume you're here as the -- on behalf of the petitioner. Is there anything you want to add to Mr. Nino's presentation, first of all? MR. VINES: I have no problem with anything that Ron Nino said. This is -- I'm William Vines, the agent for the applicant. This is a housekeeping function primarily. We're simply recording the changes to the development order made necessary by previously approved expansion of the project and adjustment of the contents of the project. But as far as the ownership is concerned, I don't know any -- you know, that -- the application contains information that was provided by the development office, and I didn't question it, but then I'm not familiar with how the partnership law works. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There's a tall guy behind you that I bet can answer the question. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Here's the answer coming now. MR. DORRILL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For your record, my name is Neil Dotrill, and I'll answer both of your questions. You may recall there was one prior amendment to this PUD that allowed this particular project to build a total of 27 or 9 additional golf holes. And as a condition of our loan with Huntington National Bank of Columbus, Ohio, they put a condition on us that they would not advance any construction money for the expansion of the project and specifically the 9 holes unless they had reason to believe that the overall density allowed for the project which was eligible for 2300 units, that we would at least get the 1200 that we were requesting. The PUD amendment was ready to go early, and we needed the money to advance ourselves for construction to meet the obligation of our lender, and so we let that go. And we made sure that your staff under -- understood that. The answer to your second question; there are three partners of the parent company who are David Hobley, who's the equity partner; Paul Hardy, and then Rene Tolson. We have one additional partner on this particular project and they're the original owners of the property and old Regency PUD that is about 12 or 13 years old. And the family's name is Tavilla. It's my understanding that they're the original owners, and they're from Boston, Massachusetts. I cannot tell you whether it's Mr. Tavilla, Senior, or a family trust, but the Tavilla family from Boston, Massachusetts, who are owners of the land, would be the final limited partner in this particular PUD. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Which party is the general partner? MR. DORRILL: We're the general partner. Haricopa-Hardy Development Group of which there are those three individuals that I just mentioned. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I see. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any further questions on this? COHMISSIONER BERRY: I'd like to move for approval of Petition DOA-97-1. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm going to close the public hearing. And we have a motion on the floor to approve. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And there's a second. Any discussion? MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman, we also need a motion declaring that this amendment is an insubstantial change. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: MR. NINO: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: motion. COMHISSIONER BERRY: CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Are those two separate motions? Okay. Let's ask that we table the first Okay. So done. And we need a motion to declare this is an insubstantial change. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So moved. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So moved. COMHISSIONER BERRY: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries four zero. I need a motion to untable. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So moved. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And we'll just streamline that and say it's been untabled. We have a motion and I believe a second, Commissioner Hac'Kie, to approve the item. Any discussion? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor signify my saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries four zero. That gets us through that one. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We may make five o'clock. Item #12C5 RESOLUTIONS 97-296/CWS-97-3, 97-297/CWS-97-4, AND 97-298/CWS-97-5 APROVING THE 201 FACILITIES PLAN UPDATE FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR A STATE REVOLVING FUND LOAN, AND APPROVE A PROCESS FOR RESOLVING DISPUTES RESPECTIVELY - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We're at Item 12(C)(4) -- you probably just jinxed it with that statement -- funding of the Collier County Wastewater Management Program. MR. BOYER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Karl Boyer, and I work for your office of capital projects management. We have a team with us today. We'll be setting up some easels. We'll also be setting up a projector to show on that wall. Mr. Gonzalez is passing out a handout for you, so we'll ask for your indulgence for just a couple of minutes while we get set up. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the jinx comes through. Sorry. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: They didn't have easels until you mentioned that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know. My fault. MR. BOYER: I have one -- one item I need to present to the chairman's attention. It's a procedural matter. These items are 12(C)(4) and 12(C)(5) are companion items. They are public hearings. They need to be heard one at a time, however, we wish to reverse the order. We'd like you to hear 12(C)(5) first and then 12(C)(4) following that one. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any objection by the board? Seeing none, we'll go to 12(C)(5) then. MR. BOYER: Thank you. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, if I'd known it was computer slides, I wouldn't mind. Power point; right? MR. BOYER: Yes. Is it possible to turn the lights off or down? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And again, anyone who is going to speak on the record, make sure you state your name for the court reporter. Okay. Let's proceed. MR. BOYER: I believe we're ready to proceed. Thank you. We have a team of consultants with us today. They represent Camp Dresser & McKee in conjunction with Johnson Engineering Incorporated and Missimer International. This is a team of consultants that the board hired as far back as February, 1996, to put together a 10-year wastewater master plan, tell us what we need to build in the next 10 years. As we got into the plan, we discovered that there was a better way to pay for the proposed improvements that we anticipate as part of the capital plan, and that is to pursue a low interest loan through the state revolving fund program. To qualify for this the state revolving fund program, we needed to transform the 10-year master plan into a 20-year master plan, also known as a 201 plan update. So what you will hear today is our wastewater master plan as well as a capital financing plan associated with it to satisfy the 201 plan. At this point I'd like to introduce our team. Richard Moore will be heading it off, and he'll be handing off to different member of his team for a presentation for you, at which time we'll close it for your hearing and your action. I ask you to approve the three resolutions associated with adopting this plan and authorizing staff to proceed with the SRF loan application. Richard. MR. MOORE: Thank you, Karl. Good afternoon. I'm Richard Moore with CDH, for the record. And I have with me today the folks who've done most of the work on the wastewater planning effort, Jim Haggetty and Marie Hayham, behind the easel here, and Diane Kemp. We're going to briefly review the highlights of the 201 facilities plan. This first slide kind of summarizes some of the historical. It was originally completed in 1978 and there has been several updates to it. The most recent was just a year ago in 1996. We came before you just about a year ago and partitioned the service area into the north and south service area. And then today we're back before you specifically presenting the north -- the update to the north service area. Last year we specifically addressed the south service area. The 201 facilities plan provides a 20-year master plan for wastewater facilities, and so it incorporates the time from 1997 to the year 2017. This 201 facilities plan and today's public hearing are required for the county to qualify for the state revolving fund low interest loan program. Last year the county received a low interest loan for approximately 14 million dollars for the upgrades to the south county plant. We're going to be asking for 23 million dollars from the state in the form of a low interest loan for the expansion to the north treatment plant, and that's specifically what we're going to be talking about today. This facilities plan is consistent with the county Comprehensive Plan. It's been reviewed, and we've coordinated closely with the planning department, specifically, with respect to population projections, flow projections, and level of service issues. And this document that we're highlighting today has been available for public review since June of 1997, June 19th. This slide -- thanks, Joe. This slide summarizes the existing conditions in the county in the two service areas. As you know, you have a north regional wastewater facility, a treatment plant which is rated at 8-1/2 HGD. You also have the Pelican Bay wastewater plant rated at one million gallons per day. Primary means of effluent disposal is tense with the percolation ponds as backup. Within the service area, you have four package wastewater plants as well as approximately 300 septic tank systems. Similarly, in the south, you have the south county regional plant rated at eight million gallons a day. Effluent disposal, again, is primarily tense and you have six package plants in private utilities in that area, and about 600 septic tanks. With that I'm going to ask Jim to go over the flow projections. MR. HAGGERTY: Thank you, Richard. My name is Jim Haggetty with Camp Dresser & HcKee. One of the first items we did in the planning was to project flows for the north and south service area over the 20 year planning period. We did a detailed analysis in conjunction with your planning department. Specifically for the 10-year period, we did the more detailed analysis looking at developments and future growth in your community planning areas and specifically on your -- by traffic analysis zone. In the north service area, we're looking at expansion of wastewater flows to the north treatment plant to a level of 12.7 million gallons per day by the year 2017; and in the south to approximately 10 HGD. Your wastewater service area will be combined flows of approximately 23 HGD by the year 2017. These are -- flow projections are just for your utility service area that you're looking to serve over this 20 year planning period. It doesn't incorporate all the population within the district planning area. The master plan that we've developed will provide the road map for meeting the flows for treating and disposing of these flows. One of the main items that needed to be developed was what are we going to do with the 23 MGD after we treat it in your wastewater treatment plants. Effluent disposal or effluent management was one of the major items of the master plan. We prepared approximately -- we prepared 6 options for effluent management, starting with option 1 which shows a reuse option of about 63 percent of your water going towards reuse. This option is basically based on the existing customers that you have connected to your wastewater system today for reuse and proposes no expansion of that system. And then we went down the full gamut to Item 4-B which is showing a hun -- almost 100 percent of reuse. We looked at the options, how they impacted your system. One category, looking at new deep wells, the number of new deep wells with the existing reuse option or just expanding with no new customers, the need for three new deep wells to service your facilities down to one new deep well to provide wet weather management. We looked at the impact on storage ponds needing additional storage to provide water to your reuse customers with a low of 140 million gallons of storage up to a maximum of 500 million gallons of new storage necessary. The other items we looked at how we met -- either met policy guidelines of the county and of the regulatory agencies. The county guidelines were based on providing additional reuse more economically feasible. DEP guidelines are basically looking at the use of reuse as your primary mode of disposal going up to a capacity of approximately 75 percent reuse. And then your water management district policy looks at disposal at approximately 85 percent of your reuse or your average day flows as a basis for allowing you to get a 20-year water consumptive use permit for your well water supplies. Typically your permits are issued for a period of six years. All the items -- all the reuse options with the exception of one met these policies. Option 2, which provided only 76 percent reuse, did not meet the water management district policy guidelines. The next thing we looked at was the cost, the capital and operating costs of the system. These options ranged in capital cost from a low of 12.1 million dollars over the 20 year planning period to the high of 26 million dollars for that. Based on the capital costs and the operation costs as well as meeting the goals of the policy, we looked at option 2 as the recommended option for planning for effluent disposal. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that the one with three new deep wells? MR. HAGGERTY: No, ma'am. This is with one new deep well. It provides approximately 76 percent of your average annual flow will be going to reuse. We'll need approximately 140 million gallons of new storage. It provides an interconnect between the two treatment plants, reuse interconnects, and that interconnect will provide the capacity to transfer flow from the facilities to meet the needs of your reuse customers and also connect the reuse -- connect customers along that interconnect between the two facilities. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The 3-B option is a hundred percent reuse, but it's with the ASR, is that what that says? MR. HAGGERTY: Yes. We looked at option 3-A, which looked at -- now, when we say a hundred percent -- this is the water management definition of a hundred percent reuse which is approximately 85 percent of your annual average flow. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. MR. HAGGERTY: And we looked at two options; one going for surface storage, ponds, which increase the costs significantly over using ASR as a storage methodology. We used -- we continued with the wastewater evaluations based on planning around Option No. 2 which provided the tense at 76 percent. With that I'm going to let Marie Hayham go into some more detail on the options. MS. HAYHAM: Three wastewater alternatives -- oh, I'm sorry -- Marie Hayham with CDH. Three wastewater management alternatives were considered. These management alternatives considered treatment, effluent disposal, and transmission. The first alternative, alternative number one, is a required alternative for 201 reports, and that's the no action alternative. This alternative does not include any expansion of the wastewater treatment facilities, and thus any wastewater treatment would be provided by either package plants or by septic tanks. Alternative number 2. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before you go on, how much -- what would the cost of alternative one be? MS. HAYHAM: Well, I was going to add as I went all three of them that that's not really considered a viable option. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You mean after we buy all the land? MS. HAYHAM: So -- then alternative 2 is the two regional treatments plants, the north plant and the south plant. And alternative number 3 is two regional interconnected treatment plants, and that would be with a raw wastewater interconnect pipeline between the two plants. We looked at that alternative to allow you to utilize capacity from either of the plants in hopes that you could defer capital costs of expanding the plants, but you also had the capital cost of constructing the interconnect. Both 2 and 3 considered removing package plants from service as well. The next slide shows that the present worth cost analysis that we went into for alternatives 2 and 3 only since alternative 1 was not considered viable. The costs show on a present worth about 91 million for alternative 2 and approximately 94 million for alternative 3. On the planning level basis, these are considered approximately even capital costs for the 20-year evaluation. So I considered other factors. The next matrix shows a consideration of economic, environmental, implementation, and social factors. This shows the ranking of the two different alternatives for those factors with a one being the best ranking. So alternative 2 ended up being the recommended alternative. Alternative 2 has a slightly lower cost, and it also has less complications in operational matters, less construction and those kind of items. So we proceeded with alternative 2, which is the two treatment plants that are not interconnected. Phase one of the selected plan covers years 1998 to 2002. We basically broke the 20 years up into four phases, four five-year phases. This first phase includes -- you need to expand the north regional wastewater treatment facility to 13-1/2 HGD. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me. Let me interrupt for a second. Back on page 3 we have flow projections that the north plant's flow projection by 2017 is 12.7 million gallons a day; is that correct? MS. HAYHAM: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Why would we expand it to 13.5 capacity by the year 2002? Is -- are we spending money before we need to? Am I talking about two -- I mean, this is all wastewater, so if the flow projection goes out to 2017 at 12.7, why are we expanding to 13.5 by 2002? MR. HAGGERTY: I thin -- what it came down to was incremental expansion and utilizing your existing property. Right now you'll be eliminating some of the percolation ponds, and you wanted to look at configurations that allowed you to optimize operation of the facility in future expansion. And at 5 million gallon trains, I think from your other consultant, was the optimal option for expanding incremental com -- phases of the project. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So in a nutshell one shot to maximum capacity is a lot more cost effective than doing it two or three times? MR. HAGGERTY: Well, it's not going to maximum capacity. There are, I think, space for at least two more expansions of the facility at the plant. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But maximum needed in the 20-year plan. MR. HAGGERTY: Yes, yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. MS. MAYHAM: The reclaimed water system improvements include extending a reuse line from the north wastewater treatment facility to the existing deep injection wells at the north water plant, reuse interconnect, reuse storage, and reuse transmission mains. Wastewater transmission improvements include a required wastewater master pump station, 1.02, that's in the north part of the service area -- I mean, in the north part of the north service area. And then the transmission system improvements are required to remove package plants from service and to provide system reliability. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question. Why would we extend reuse lines to the existing deep wells when I'm told that we could sell all the reuse water we got, that the demand, the market for reuse water is much higher than the supply? Why we would extend the line -- MS. MAYHAM: The deep wells are used for wet weather management. Basically when, you know, you have a lot of rain, your reuse customers aren't using water, so you have the deep wells at the water plant and it sends the water out there for disposal. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I thought I was told that we were selling it all all the time. No? MR. BOYER: Commissioner Mac'Kie, let me try to answer that. Karl Boyer. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's feast or famine. In the wet season we got more than we need; and in the dry season, we don't have enough. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Gotcha. That'll work. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: How's that. Thank you. Just cutting to the chase. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. MS. MAYHAM: Better than I did. Thanks. The next slide shows the phases 2 through 4 of the selected plan. And phase 2 is for the year 2007. There would be expansion of the south wastewater treatment plant, deep injection well at the north water plant, constructing transmission system improvements to remove package plants from service, and extending sewer service to unsewered area in the north service area. Phase 3, which is for year 2012, requires that you construct three master pump stations in the north service area, construct additional reclaim water mains, and construct improvements to the reclaim water pump stations at your north and south wastewater treatment facilities. The phase 4, which are the 20-year improvements, are expansion of the north wastewater facility to 18-1/2 MGD, expansion of the south to 13 MGD. Those provide treatment past the 20-year horizon. I am going to go ahead and turn it over to Diane whows going to go through the financing plan for the SRF project. MS. KEMP: For the record my name is Diane Kemp with Camp Dresser & McKee. This pretty much sums up why wewre here today. This is a financing plan that shows the disparity between the SRF funding approach versus traditional revenue bonds. The 23.9 million dollars represents all of the costs for construction, engineering, and contingency. Adding on finance costs for the SRF option is approximately 25.7 million dollars and approximately 27.7 million dollars for revenue bond financing. The annual debt service for the SRF option is approximately 1.8 million dollars and for traditional revenue bonds 2.3 million dollars with a differential between the annual payments of approximately 537,000 or over 20 years -- just simply multiplying that by 20, over 10 million dollars worth of savings, which is not an inconsiderable sum. The 1.8 million dollars presented here is based on 3.42 percent interest over a 20-year period, which represents an annualized cost per equivalent residential unit of $28.66; thatws annual, so itws just over $2 a month. However, what wewre not trying to say is that this is the rate impact. This is simply a cost impact. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Because we use impact fees and other things, so wewre not talking about doing this -- MS. KEMP: Thatws correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- just as a rate-based financing? MS. KEMP: Correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MS. KEMP: In addition, we also have the revenue bond approach. The 2.3 million dollars represents interest of 5.6 percent over a 20-year period or on a cost annual per ERU of $37.23 or a price differential of $8.57 per ERU per year. The implementation schedule is being presented. We have a fairly aggressive time schedule here. What wewre trying to do is wewre trying to get this project qualified for funding at the tail end of the Department of Environmental Protectionws fiscal year w98 funding. As you can see, there are quite a few July 22nd dates which wewre accomplishing today. One of the most critical items on here is actually the Item No. 8 for construction permits of September 2nd. And that date relies upon passage of a document actually next week for backflow prevention and a reuse ordinance. That is a very critical item. And with that I would like to turn it back over to Karl. MR. BOYER: Commissioners, that completes our presentation at this point. We do ask that you take action to adopt those three resolutions, and then we can hear the other hearing after that so -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Boyer, I have a question regarding -- wewve seen the breakdown and why one makes more sense than the other, but letws talk about actual funding sources. The total dollars wewve seen required here, how much of that would be funded out of impact fees versus rate -- ratepayers actually paying into the capital projects? MR. BOYER: Iwm going to read it right from the fiscal impact statement of the executive summary. It reads: The annual debt service on the loan will be supported by pledged general utility operating revenues with sewer impact fees being the actual planned funding course. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So it's anticipated that a hundred percent of these costs will be supported by impact fees, but the pledge is through revenues from the wastewater department? MR. BOYER: Yes, that's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that's because we can't get a real good deal if we try to do it on impact fees; is that about right? MR. BOYER: I can't say that, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Can anyone else say that? If we try to pledge against impact fees, we'll have a tough time getting a good rate, is that -- MS. KEMP: You actually have a tough time just getting it approved, because most lending sources won't count it as a hundred percent pledge. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I heard that somewhere before on another issue, so I guess it's appropriate. Okay. Mr. Boyer, if you'd take us to the three resolutions. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Actually, I'll make a motion to approve -- can I do all three in one motion? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just a second. Mr. Fernandez, do we have any speakers on this item? MR. FERNANDEZ: No, you have none. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I'll close the public hearing then. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I make a motion to adopt the three resolutions in Item 12(C)(5)? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I believe we need to do each one individually. Or can we do them together? Mr. Weigel is out there. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think we can do all three of them together. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll reiterate on the record. MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney. We generally take resolutions individually with individual motions. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let's go ahead and do that to be consistent. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I move resolution -- we don't have numbers, but to approve the 201 facilities plan update. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have a second? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have a motion on No. 27 COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Resolution to authorize application for a state revolving fund loan. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. None opposed. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Next. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Resolution to approve a process for resolving disputes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Where were you earlier today? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor signify by saying aye. Being none, those three resolutions are complete. And I do want to say before we go to the next one, this is one of the few times one of these presentations has made sense to me. So to CDM, congratulations and thank you. Job well done. Mr. Boyer, thank you. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And also thank you for including those placards so that the public can see what you're showing us. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. I think you're the first folks who've actually done that. Item #12C4 FUNDING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM - APPROVED We have Item No. 12(C)(4) that is a related item. Hr. Boyer, on this one -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'll make a motion to approve the capital financing plan that's contained in Appendix D of 201 facilities plan update and request that the Clerk of Court's office issue a letter of financial certification. MR. BOYER: I believe we have to read certain things into the record, which the minutes are then forwarded to DEP to prove that we've stated these things aloud in a public meeting. So if I could ask -- Diane is ready. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And what is read into the record will be made a part of any motion. So that being said, the motion maker may wish to -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I withdraw my motion. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. MS. KEMP: For the record my name is Diane Kemp with Camp Dresser & HcKee. What we have here is the estimated project cost for the north county regional wastewater treatment facility of approximately 19.5 million dollars. Including engineering and contingency, it's 23.9 million dollars. Including finance charges, it's 25.7 million dollars with approximately 1.8 million dollars in annual debt service. This is for the expansion of the plant from 8.5 HGD to 13.5 HGD. As stated earlier, there is also an expansion estimated for phase 2 of the south county regional wastewater treatment facility. This at this time is estimated to be coming from revenue bonds. The estimated cost of 7-1/2 million. Including engineering and contingency, it's 9.7 million dollars. Including financing costs, it's approximately eleven point -- 11 million dollars or an annualized debt service amount of a million dollars. Now, this is the last you'll see that figure because that is beyond the five-year planning horizon of this facility capital finance plan. The 201 is a 20 year. This, however, is a 5 year with one full year of the impact of the SRF project, which would be the year 2001. What we're showing here are the revenue and expenditures of the sewer system. The revenues do exceed the expenditures in the year 2001 with approximately 24.3 million dollars in revenues and approximately 22 dollar -- 22 million dollars in expenditures. Now, the revenue item is based on a combination of a 5 percent customer growth factor as well as the anticipation that the rate structure that is being presented will be approved. It is not a rate increase; it is only a structural change. In the next example that we'll see is the ability of your revenue to meet your debt service coverage both on your existing revenue bonds, existing SRF loans, and projected SRF loans with no rate increase shown, only the rate structural change shown with debt service coverage on your revenue bonds of 2.7 without your system development fees, and 3.73 with your system development fees. We're showing as far as your revenue sources for this a pledge of net revenues, system development fees, and special assessments for both your water and your sewer system. As far as the financial impact on your residential sewer customers, we're showing a split here between your residential and your commercial customers with a cost in the 2001 per residential customer of $23.41 versus the revenue charges of $21.80. The differential would be your system development fees, your special assessments, your interest, and any other ancillary charges. In other words, that clearly shows that the impact on the rates as presented really are nil. With that I would like to conclude the presentation. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Close the public hearing. Do we have a motion on this matter? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I already turned the page. Somebody else make the motion. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You turned the page. I never even saw it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. I move that the Board of County Commissioners approve the capital financing plan as outlined in Appendix D of 201 facilities plan update, and I request that the Clerk of Courts issue a letter of financial certification. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Second it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Appreciate your crafting that motion. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Wasn't that carefully and well done? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, again, to Mr. Boyer and Camp Dresser, thank you for your time and effort on this. MR. BOYER: Thank you very much. Item #13A1 RESOLUTION 97-299 RE PETITION V-97-5, ANTHONY PIRES OF WOODWARD, PIRES & LOHBARDO, P.A., REPRESENTING NICHOLAS J. AND GAETANE C. DESANTE REQUESTING AN AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE OF 3.2 FEET FROM THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 30 FEET TO 26.8 FEET FOR AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 571 CARICA ROAD IN PINE RIDGE EXTENSION SUBDIVISION - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: With that, we're to Item 13(A)(1), Petition V-97-5. This is a variance which does require that all staff members, petitioners, and members of the public here to speak on this matter please stand and raise your right hand and be sworn in. Madam Court Reporter. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. With that, Mr. Badamtchian. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners, Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. This is an after-the-fact variance. Mr. Tony Pires representing Mr. and Mrs. Desante requesting this after-the-fact variance of 2.2 feet from the required side yard setback of 30 to 26.8 feet. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Chahram, I'm going to interrupt you for just a second. I met with Mr. Pires on this item, and I need to disclose that for this matter. I've had no other communication on it. Has anyone else had any communication? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have not had any communication. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: None. COHMISSIONER BERRY: None. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Because of that meeting with Mr. Pires, I think I can kind of streamline this a little. This was an owner-build that occurred -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The owner built this garage, this addition, 10 years ago. The property has changed ownership three times and the latest owner discovered the encroachment and is requesting this variance. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have any letters of opposition from the neighbors? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. I have received two letters in favor of this variance from neighbors. And I also have a couple of phone calls from neighbors supporting the variance. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We all know my distaste with variances when they can be helped, but this is a case where I think the variance is required for the property owner, and it's rather inoffensive. Staff does recommend approval? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Staff recommends and the Planning Commission heard this petition and unanimously recommended approval. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Are there any other questions for Chahram? Seeing none, Mr. Pires, do you wish to add anything to the presentation? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: He's indicated no. I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. 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: Thank you very much, Chahram. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good job, Tony. Item #13B1 RESOLUTION 97-300 RE PETITION CU-95-1, TERRANCE L. KEPPLE REPRESENTING THE SOUTHEASTERN CONFERENCE ASSOCIATION OF THE SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH REQUESTING AN EXTENSION OF CONDITIONAL USES "7" AND "10" OF THE "A" AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR A CHURCH AND SCHOOL FACILITY THAT HAS PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SABAL PALM ROAD - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Item 13(A)(2) was withdrawn. 13(A)(3) and (4) have been heard. We're at Item 13(B)(1), Petition CU-95-1. This is a conditional use, and again, Mr. Weigel, this requires swearing in of witnesses; is that correct? MR. WEIGEL: This is an extension. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, it's an extension. Okay. That's why it doesn't require it. That's why I didn't have a note. Okay. This is just an extension. Mr. Bellows, is this the first extension? MR. BELLOWS: Second extension. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Second extension. They're allowed under the code and then the third -- MR. BELLOWS: Three in the code and then after that -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Nothing's changed since it was initially granted? MR. BELLOWS: Nothing's changed. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have any speakers on this? MR. FERNANDEZ: None. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I just want to ask -- Mr. Kepple, do you have anything to add? Okay. Then I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) Item #14A STATEMENT BY COMMISSIONER NORRIS REGARDING NAPLES STADIUM CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We're to BCC communications. What I'd like to do -- I know Commissioner Norris has one point. I'd like to ask for any other commissioners that have any communications at this time to go ahead and do that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have one. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mine is just to remind you all that Saturday is Davis Triangle Clean-up Day. Be there or be square. We're going to start at eight o'clock. We're going to work for four hours, and hopefully we're going to have a lot -- I expect that we're going to have a really good turn out for that cleanup. I wanted to let you know that I got a message today the City of Naples is sending a dozen or so workers to help. And we've just gotten a tremendous amount of cooperation all over the county. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that the city and county working together in harmony? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The reason why I wanted to mention that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There's rumors that doesn't happen. I just wanted to clarify that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It happened. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Well, good luck, and thanks for your work on that. Commissioner Berry. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Nothing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't need it now, but will you give us an update on whatever's going on with the -- or what's going to go on with Army Corp next week, then? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. Next week I have scheduled meetings with them when they're in town. I think it's later this week. It's on my schedule; this week or early next week at which point I think that committee will be identified and we'll go from there. So, yes. Sue, if you'd place on the agenda an update from me on that matter for next week's agenda. I don't have anything in particular. Mr. Weigel and Mr. Fernandez, did you have anything this afternoon? MR. FERNANDEZ: Oh, no. MR. WEIGEL: No, thank you. Other than the fact that, yes, I do expect a report on the hospital site on Marco this next Tuesday. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Norris, did you have a communication? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a little statement that I want to read into the record dated today, July 22, 1997. The purpose of this statement is to clear up some misinformation and misconceptions concerning my participation in Stadium Naples and to set the record straight. One prominent bit of misinformation is that I somehow used the influence of my office to obtain an interest in the project. This is simply not the case. The genesis of this project came during a casual conversation that I had with Mr. William Rasmussen shortly after the Senior PGA golf tournament held in Naples in February 1996. During that conversation we discussed the potential to find someone to build a new public golf course on which to permanently host this tournament. Within a few weeks, we had formed a plan of action that would allow us each to retain some ownership in any proposed golf course. Around the end of March 1996, Mr. Rasmussen presented his idea of a golf stadium unlike anything existing in the world. At this point we worked together to generate a marketable proposal that could be presented to prospective investors. Once this marketable proposal was achieved, the next step was to find someone to finance, plan, and construct the project. Following more than a year of difficult negotiations, a process in which I was very instrumental, the Stadium Naples Limited Partnership was finally organized, agreed to, and signed by all parties on May 13, 1997. My participation as well as Mr. Rasmussen's, who split his interest with his son Glen, was secured through the negotiation process. The partnership documents clearly state that none of the Class B limited partners, which include myself plus William and Glen Rasmussen through our respective corporations, will make a capital contribution. These are the facts concerning this matter, and they clearly demonstrate that the Class B limited partners acquired their respective interest by formulating and controlling the concept and through the negotiation process. These facts also clearly demonstrate that I obtained my interest through my efforts as a private citizen and just as clearly that my elected position was not a factor. Another element of misinformation and misconception concerns voting conflicts. It is important to note that nothing concerning Stadium Naples has yet been before this board. When items concerning Stadium Naples do come before this board, I will obviously abstain from voting on those items. Since May 13, 1997, when the partnership was formed, I have carefully abstained from voting on any items that involve any of the other partners because they may or may not be considered business associates under Florida law. I have asked the Florida Commission on Ethics to clarify this point so that I can fully comply with the law without error. I have also received criticism for voting on items in the past which involve people who are now associated with Stadium Naples. One example cited was a vote taken on May 23, 1995. This is a full two years before the partnership was formed and almost a full year before the idea was even conceived. It is extremely important to recognize when a voting conflict exists, but is also important to recognize when one does not exist. This new concept of retroactive voting conflicts is patently absurd. I have been open and aboveboard concerning my involvement in Stadium Naples. My interest is clearly disclosed in the partnership documents. I was the one who disclosed my interest in the project to the newspaper. I contacted the Florida Commission on Ethics to ask for a determination on what will or will not constitute a voting conflict in the future. I am as much or more concerned as anyone else about proper ethics associated with my duties and responsibilities as an elected official and intend to exercise full caution and compliance with the law. To put it all into perspective, I have a financial interest in a golf course project. Albeit it a large one, it is a private business, nothing more, nothing less. Last year I was reelected with 74.2 percent of the vote. The reason is that people are apparently happy with my performance as a commissioner. Other than the occasional abstention from voting on matters that relate to the Stadium Naples project, I will execute my commission duties and responsibilities as faithfully as I always have done. There may be people who disagree with my political stance or may not care for my personal style, but never in my career have I given anyone reason to question my integrity, and I certainly have no intention of doing so now. John C. Norris, Commissioner, District 1. That's the end of the statement, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. I just want to add that I welcome any and all inquires at any time, and I'm certainly available to answer any questions that anybody has about this matter at any time. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Commissioner Norris. There being no further business, meeting is 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 #16A1 RESOLUTION 97-287 RE FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "QUEENS PARK AT LAGO VERDE, PHASE SEVEN" Item #16A2 TERMINATE CONTRACT #94-2271 FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXECUTING A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE AGREEMENT AND A MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT AGREEMENT BETWEEN PERCONTI DATA SYSTEMS, INC., AND COLLIER COUNTY Item #16B1 RESOLUTION 97-288 AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF PERMANENT DRAINAGE EASEMENTS BY GIFT IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO S.R. 92 - IHMOKALEE DRAINAGE CANAL Item #1682 APPROVAL OF A STIPULATED ORDER FOR DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS, COLLIER COUNTY AND THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT VS. KINSLEY, ET AL, CASE NO. 96-1315-CA-01-DRH, PARCEL NUMBERS 901A, 706A, 906A, 706B, 906B, 706C, 906C, 706D AND 906D, OLDE FLORIDA GOLF CLUB, INC. AND OFC OF NAPLES, INC., NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION (WELLFIELD) EMINENT DOMAIN CASE - IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,220.00 Item #1683 APPROVAL OF WORK ORDER #VC-97 WITH THE VARIAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR THE TIGERTAIL PARK FACILITY - IN THE AMOUNT OF $111,356.00 Item #16B4 APPROVAL OF A REIMBURSEMENT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,000.00, TO THE REGENT PARK MASTER ASSOCIATION FOR DAMAGES TO THE FONT ENTRANCE OF THE REGENT PARK SUBDIVISION DURING CONSTRUCTION OF THE IHMOKALEE ROAD 4-LANING PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,000 Item #1685 APPROVAL OF A FINAL NEGOTIATED BID QUOTE FOR ROADSIDE IHPROVEHENTS ALONG VANDERBILT DRIVE BETWEEN VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD AND lllTH AVENUE - CONTRACT WITH SHALLWOOD LANDSCAPING, INC., IN THE A_MOUNT OF $187,170.00; ALTERNATE CONTRACT WITH SHALLWOOD LANDSCAPING, INC., IN THE A_MOUNT OF $148,170.00 AND GREEN HERON LANDSCAPES, INC., IN THE A_MOUNT OF $39,000.00; NEW TOTAL BUDGET OF $399,249.00; NEW CONTRACTS WITH BUTLER ENGINEERING, INC., IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $3,500.00 AND VANASSE, DAYLOR AND BOTNER, LLP, IN THE MAXIMUM A_MOUNT OF $9,500.00 Item #1686 AWARD A CONTRACT TO HIGH POINT GENERAL CONTRACTING, INC., FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF PARK PAVILIONS FOR SUGDEN PARK AT LAKE AVALON, BID NO. 97-2677 - IN THE AMOUNT OF $242,554.00 Item #1687 APPROVAL AND EXECUTION OF A JOINT INTERLOCAL SUPPLEHENTAL AGREEHENT WITH LEE COUNTY FOR PERPETUAL MAINTENANCE OF MEDIAN LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS ALONG THE BONITA BEACH ROAD FOUR LANE CORRIDOR, CIE PROJECT NO. 031 - ANNUAL PAYMENT TO LEE COUNTY IN THE AMOUNT OF $35,000.00 PLUS CONTINGENCY COSTS Item #1688 APPROVAL OF A STIPULATED ORDER FOR APPRAISAL FEES REGARDING THE ACQUISITION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY PARCEL NO. l17A FOR THE VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD FOUR LANING PROJECT TO PELICAN RIDGE OF NAPLES ASSOCIATION, INC. IN THE A_MOUNT OF $672.50 Item #16C1 - This item has been deleted Item #16C2 APPROVAL OF A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,151 RECOGNIZING FUNDS RECEIVED FROMS INSURANCE CLAIM FOR A THEFT AT THE HEADQUARTERS LIBRARY Item #16C3 APPROVAL OF AN EXTENSION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE SOUTHEASTERN LIBRARY NETWORK (SOLINET) FOR THE PROVISION OF ON-LINE LIBRARY CATALOGING AND PERMISSION FOR THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT Item #16C4 APPROVAL OF A LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND LEE CYPRESS WATER AND SEWER CO-OP, INC. FOR PARK PROPERTY IN COPELAND Item #16C5 RECOHMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS NAME THE SOON-TO-BE COMPLETED MEDICAL EXA_MINER'S FACILITY, THE DAVID A. ENGSTRAND, M.D. MEMORIAL BUILDING Item #16C6 RESOLUTION 97-289 RE THE EXECUTION OF HEDICAID WAIVER REFERRAL AGREEMENTS FOR THE SERVICES FOR SENIORS PROGRAM Item #16C7 APPROVAL OF THE RECOHMENDATION OF KEITH LARSON AS THE GOLDEN GATE COHMUNITY CENTER SUPERVISOR Item #16C8 APPROVAL OF A CONTRACT WITH BIG WAVE INTERNATIONAL, INC., FOR SERVICES ON AUGUST 2, 1997, AT YOUTH NIGHT AT THE GOLDEN GATE COHMUNITY PARK FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT - IN THE A_MOUNT OF $2,500.00 Item #16C9 APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO ALIGN PARKS CAPITAL PROJECT BUDGETS WITH FY-97 FORECAST EXPENDITURES Item #16C10 APPROVAL OF A CONTINUUM OF CARE PLAN DEVELOPED REGARDING THE PROVISION OF HOMELESS SERVICES THROUGHOUT COLLIER COUNTY Item #16Cll - Continued to July 29, 1997 Item #16D1 APPROVAL OF A LIMITED USE LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND OCTAGON SEQUENCE OF EIGHT, INC. FOR AN ARTS AND CRAFTS SHOWS ON DECEMBER 76 AND DECEMBER 7, 1997 AT THE COLLIER COUNTY MUSEUM Item #16D2 APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE OF A DRAINAGE EASEHENT LOCATED IN CONNER'S VANDERBILT BEACH ESTATES, UNIT NO. 3, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 89 Item #16El ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA ITEMS APPROVED BY THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR DURING THE BOARD'S RECESS: Item #16Ela AWARD BID NO. 97-2678 TO VARIOUS VENDORS FOR THE PURCHASE OF EXPENDABLE MEDICAL SUPPLIES FOR THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT IN THE APPROXIMATE A_MOUNT OF $80,000.00 Item #16Elb APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES HATCHING GRANT FUNDS AWARDED FOR SOFTWARE AND HARDWARE FOR EHD QUALITY ASSURANCE - IN THE A_MOUNT OF $26,962.50 Item #16Elc APPROVAL FOR THE INSTALLATION OF ELECTRIC CIRCULATING FANS AND PAINTING THE SKYLIGHTS IN THE MAIN COUNTY JAIL - IN THE TOTAL A_MOUNT OF $26,375.00 Item #16Eld APPROVAL TO ENHANCE THE SECURITY OF THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING BY INSTALLING CARD ACCESS IN BOTH ELEVATORS - IN THE TOTAL A_MOUNT OF $9,850.00 Item #16Ele ENDORSEMENT OF THE COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE FINAL CATEGORICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRESS REPORT ON THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CHURCH ARSON PREVENTION GRANT PROGRAM AWARD Item #16Elf APPROVAL FOR THE WAIVER OF TIPPING FEES FOR THE CLEANUP OF THE EAST NAPLES TRIANGLE Item #16Elg APPROVAL OF A BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF EQUIPMENT TO CONNECT THE SOLID WASTE DEPARTMENT TO THE COUNTY COMPUTER NETWORK - IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,800.00 Item #16Elh BUDGET AMENDMENTS 97-298, 97-302, 97-308, 97-309 AND 97-311 Item #16Eli APPROVAL TO DECLARE COUNTY-OWNED PROPERTY AS SURPLUS AND ACCEPT THE OFFER RECEIVED OF $3,500 FROM GLADES COUNTY FOR THE SALE OF SURPLUS AIS HARDWARE UNDER BID #597-2664 Item #16Elj APPROVAL OF A BUDGET AMENDMENT, REDUCING REVENUES IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,000.00, IN THE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT BUDGET Item #16Elk APPROVAL TO REJECT BID #96-2590 AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO RE-BID THE PERSONAL COMPUTER REPAIR SERVICES CONTRACT Item #16Ell APPROVAL OF A BUDGET AMENDMENT, IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $11,202.00, FOR THE MULTIPLE AIR CONDITION REPAIRS PERTAINING TO THE IHMOKALEE JAIL, IHMOKALEE FITNESS CENTER AND THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, SEVENTH FLOOR Item #16Elm BUDGET AMENDMENTS 97-319, 97-321 AND 97-330 Item #16Eln PETITION AV-96-030, LELAND DYSART AS AGENT FOR OWNER, HARBELLA AT PELICAN BAY, INC., REQUESTING VACATION OF A PORTION OF THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 790, PAGE 1803 AND O.R. BOOK 1419, PAGE 234 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND SHOWN ON THE PELICAN BAY BEND, PLAT BOOK 28, PAGES 16 THROUGH 18, INCLUSIVE OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Item #16Elo APPROPRIATE REVENUES IN EXCESS OF THE BUDGET FOR ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE, FUND (144), TRANSFER FUNDS FROM RESERVES Item #16E1p A_MEND A CONTRACT WITH THE MARCO ISLAND CHAMBER OF COHMERCE, INC., TO PERMIT PAYMENT OF INVOICES FROM PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONTRACT BROUGHT FORWARD TO THE 1997 CONTRACT AND REDUCE THE BUDGET BY $46,752.51 FOR PAYMENTS MADE FROM THE 1996 CONTRACT, TOURIST DEVELOPMENT CATEGORY B FUNDS Item #16Elq APPROVAL FROM THE BCC TO TRANSFER FUNDS FROM 301 RESERVES TO THE 800 HHZ PROJECT BUDGET IN ORDER TO FUND A REQUEST FOR 800 HHZ RADIOS FROM THE OFFICE OF THE STATE ATTORNEY Item #16Elf AWARD BID NO. 97-2681 "AS 350 B2 HELICOPTER SPARE PARTS" TO AZZHAC HELICOPTER CENTER, INC. - IN THE ESTIMATED A_MOUNT OF $40,000.00 Item #16E2 BUDGET AMENDMENT 97-335 Item #16G1 SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER Item #1662 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: There being no further business for the good of the County· the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:55 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 presented or as corrected · as TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE· INC. BY ELIZABETH M. BROOKS· RPR and DEBRA PETERSON