Loading...
BCC Minutes 07/29/1997 R REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 29, 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 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the CHAIRMAN: following members present: ALSO PRESENT: Timothy L. Hancock Timothy J. Constantine John C. Norris Pamela S. Hac'Kie Barbara B. Berry Robert Fernandez, County Administrator David Weigel, County Attorney Item #3A AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good morning. I'd like to call to order the Board of County Commissioners' meeting for July 29, 1997. We're pleased this morning to have Reverend Paul Jarrett from the Naples Church of Christ here with us to give our invocation this morning, and in doing so, I think I would like to ask that we give our thoughts and prayers to Tom Olliff. His dad, Gene Olliff, is in the hospital and our wishes -- and best wishes for a healthy recovery go out to him today. Reverend Jarrett. REVEREND JARRETT: Our Heavenly Father, we come before your throne at this time with hearts filled with gratitude for the many blessings that are ours as a result of our living in a nation and a community that gives us so many things in the way of material blessings and spiritual blessings, and we thank you for this governmental process that makes these blessings possible. We thank you for the fact that there are gatherings such as this, where as citizens of this country we can have input into the decisions that are made and we pray that you would bless those who make these decisions, that they might make them in the interest of the largest majority of our citizenry, and that each of us might be supportive of those decisions, having had our say, but most of all we pray there would always be concern with the least in thy kingdom. That there would always be a desire to extend justice and mercy to those who need the protection of our government. That we might in making decisions for the citizens, never lose sight of the individuals. At this time, we ask especially that you would be with Gene Olliff and we pray thy blessings upon him and his recovery and we know that you're concerned about each of us as individuals and we thank you for that concern, and we pray thy blessings upon this process in Jesus' name. Amen. (Thereupon, The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Reverend Jarrett, on behalf of the board, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to be with us this morning. We certainly appreciate it. Good morning, Mr. Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: Good morning. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a list of a few changes already today. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, we do. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let's go through those. MR. FERNANDEZ: The first is item 5(C)(1), presentation by the court administrator regarding the reimbursement from the violent crime council for the Cracker Barrel case. He's requested an opportunity to speak to the board on that issue. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We enjoy receiving money, so that's fine. MR. FERNANDEZ: Another addition is item 8(E)(2), which is a resolution fixing the date, time and place for approving a special assessment against properties within Pelican Bay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: That's a staff request. The third addition is item 10(B), which is a discussion regarding the request for a reconsideration of utility regulation consideration ordinance, requested by Commissioner Constantine. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Can I ask? Do we have any backup on that or -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Today is just to ask us to reconsider. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're not actually doing a reconsideration. MR. FERNANDEZ: It will be brought back at a future meeting. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: We've had a number of requests to continue items. The first is item 12(C)(1), request to continue Petitioner AV-97-013 to vacate all public road rights of way and utility easements and dedications with that portion of Championship Drive, Fiddlers Creek. That's a staff request. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Continue it 'til when? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, I received an indication of a one week continuance. MR. FERNANDEZ: That really is up to the commission. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's either one or four, because of the second half of the vacation schedule. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've talked to people on both sides of that issue and I think one week's fine. MR. FERNANDEZ: Is it one week now? Okay. One week. So that will come up August 5th. The next item to continue, item 12(C)(2), is recommendation to consider the application submitted by Media One Enterprises Incorporated for renewal of a cable franchise. I believe they requested it to be continued one week to August 5th. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. The next is to continue item 12(C)(6) to August 5th. This is Petition CCSL-97-2. The Vanderbilt Beach Motel requesting a coastal construction setback variance to allow for construction to enclose the first floor of an existing structure. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I understand, Mr. Fernandez, the county attorney's office has been asked to render an opinion regarding that, and it was rather late in the schedule when that occurred. Is that the basis for the continuance? MR. FERNANDEZ: I understand that to be a petitioner's request. I don't know if it was based upon the county attorney. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I just -- I met with the petitioners yesterday and had some discussions and that's why I know about a request of your office, Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: The county attorney's office is not requesting the continuance itself. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. Correct. The petitioner is. I just -- oh, Mr. Cautero, you have -- MR. CAUTERO: If I may, Commissioner. Vince Cautero for the record. I'm recommending the request for the continuance due to the petitioner's request late last week that the ordinance -- the -- in particular, the flood plain ordinance doesn't apply in this case and we need some time to, you know, gather a legal opinion. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed. That made sense yesterday. I just wanted to make sure that nothing else had changed in the meantime. Okay. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: The last item is to continue item 13(A)(4) to August 5th. This is a petition, FDPO-97-1, Vanderbilt Beach Motel. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that's related to 12(C)(6)? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, related to that one. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The only thing I have, and I'm sure we've all received this, is to pull 16(B)(2) off the consent agenda which is the Miller Boulevard Extension piece. I received several requests for that, so I'd like to -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you're so inclined, I don't have any objection, but it just seems to me all we're doing is ratifying the board action, we already had full discussion on it, so unless there's something new, I don't -- my recollection is we spent an hour and a half, two hours discussing it last time around, and we came to a decision and all this does is reinforce that decision. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed, I -- you know, we'll hopefully limit this to any new information as opposed to a recitation of what we've already heard, but the requests for the continuance were varied and many, so I felt that just to serve the public that would be a good idea. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: People want to speak on it, so -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: 16(B)(2), Mr. Fernandez, will become -- MR. FERNANDEZ: I believe 8(B)(2) under public works. Probably the most appropriate place to put that one. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Mac'Kie, do you have any changes to the agenda? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing further. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry? COMHISSIONER BERRY: Nothing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll have one item under communications, but no other changes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I, likewise, will have one item under communications. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we approve the agenda and consent agenda as amended. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #5B EHPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED Seeing none, we are to -- we do not have any minutes to approve, proclamations and service awards, which it's my honor this morning to recognize many employees for extended periods of service, and I do it a little bit backwards. I start with young'uns at five years and go to the veterans at 20. First, I would like to recognize from our Parks and Recreation Department, five years' service, Edwin Barroso. Edwin, are you here? Okay. Edwin's so hard at work, he couldn't make it this morning. We'll make sure we get that to him. We also have five years' service in Parks and Recreation, Bruce Sansone. Bruce? (Applause) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And with EMS this morning, we're recognizing Brian Swindale for five years' service. Mr. Swindale? (Applause) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I apologize, that's Swindale. Thank you. Congratulations. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In stormwater management, in the aquatic side, we have Harry Alkire for ten years' service this morning. (Applause) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Congratulations. Thank you. Also with 10 years' service in traffic operations, Willie Bullard. I'm seeing Willie Bullard and I see Aaron, so I don't know how that works, on the shirt. COMHISSIONER BERRY: Thank you very much. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And also ten years' service in Department of Revenue, Evelyn Ferguson. (Applause) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Hard being in a department ten years that's only been around a year and a half or so. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just seems like ten years. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Also for ten year service, we have Patrick Webb. (Applause) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We see a lot of Patrick running around here. Thank you. From Road and Bridge celebrating 15 years is Joseph Chirico. (Applause) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Congratulations. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Appreciate it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And hitting gold medal status today for 20 years' service in Parks and Recreation, James Thomas. (Applause) COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And in the Ochopee Fire Control, also with 20 years' service, Robert Mayberry, and we're not gonna applaud because you're not here, Robert, so we'll make sure we get that to you. Big hiring time. Item #5C1 PRESENTATION BY THECOURT ADMINISTRATOR REGARDING THE REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE VIOLENT CRIME COUNCIL FOR THE CRACKER BARREL CASE - HARK MIDDLEBROOK PRESENTED A CHECK IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,707.10 We are to item 5(C), presentation from Mr. Mark Middlebrook, court administrator. I see Mr. Middlebrook in the room with us. I understand Mark may even be delivering a check and we encourage more employees to do the same. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Mark Middlebrook, Senior Deputy Court Administrator, Twentieth Circuit. Mr. Chairman, good morning. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Morning. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Two years ago the court administrator, Doug Wilkinson, gave me an edict, which was to control costs, seek money wherever it's available to reimburse the county. He's quite aware of the adverse effect article five has on most of governing bodies here in this circuit. Because of that edict, with the assistance of the county attorney and the clerk of courts, we sought reimbursement for the Cracker Barrel monies that were spent during the trial, which was approximately $80,000. Due to a significant amount of agencies seeking money and some requests that we made that were deemed inappropriate, under the public defender's cost, the state doesn't wish to reimburse for those for some reason, we received a check made out to the Board of County Commissioners for $30,707.10, which we'd like to present to you right now. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Middlebrook. Thank you. (Applause) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We appreciate your work and we all know the cost of the Cracker Barrel case was extensive and the result was good for the community and this is very much appreciated, Mark, thank you. Send that on down to Mr. Fernandez, where we can take good care of that. Item #SB1 RECONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION AGREEHENT WITH COHMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (CDC), PREVIOUSLY APPROVED WITH STIPULATION ON JUNE 24, 1997, TO INCORPORATE A REVISED STIPULATION REQUESTED BY THE DEVELOPER - APPROVED We are to 8(B)(1) under public works, request the board consider the Development Contribution Agreement with Commercial Development Corporation, previously approved with stipulations. Mr. Kant, good morning. MR. KANT: Good morning, Commissioners. This item was before you on June 24th at which time the agreement, the Developer Contribution Agreement was tentatively approved. I say tentatively, because the agreement, it is -- it was my understanding it was approved in principle, however, the chairman expressed some concern with respect to one of the clauses in the agreement. At that time, the developer's representative could not commit the developer and had to go back and get agreement from the developer. Since that time, we've had conversations and communications with the developer's representative and they have agreed with a slight change. At the time, the chairman had requested that the credits -- the unrestricted assignable credits be limited to 520,000. The developer is requesting that that figure be 605,970 -- six hundred five thousand nine hundred and seventy dollars. So staff felt that because the stipulation that the developer's requesting was different from the stipulation that had been requested by the board, that we should bring this back to you for further edification before requesting the chairman to sign the agreement. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any questions of Mr. Kant? Any speakers on this item? MR. FERNANDEZ: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, is there a motion? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Mr. Kant, thank you. MR. KANT: Thank you. Thank you. Item #882 BOARD AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED WITH JUDICIAL ACTION FOR PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT RIGHTS FOR COLLIER COUNTY AND THE PUBLIC TO A SEGMENT OF ROADWAY KNOWN AS MILLER BOULEVARD EXTENSION AND STAFF DIRECTED TO APPROACH PROPERTY OWNERS TO DONATE EASEMENT INTERESTS TO COLLIER COUNTY - APPROVED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Next was an item moved from the consent agenda, item 16(B)(2). This is a request regarding the Miller Boulevard Extension and, again, for those members of the public wishing to speak on this item, the board has had a lengthy discussion on this and what we'd like to entertain at this point with the exception of Mr. Muller's statements, is any new information that can be provided that would be pertinent. Mr. Mullet, good morning. MR. MULLER: Good morning. Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Russ Mullet and I'm an engineer with your transportation services department. Item -- agenda item 8(B)(2), formerly 16(B)(2), is regarding Miller Boulevard Extension. A mile and a quarter unpaved road connecting southern Golden Gate Estates with US 41. There are many issues connected with this roadway, but the item before you today seeks approval to go to court and determine if the traveling public has any rights to the road, and at the same time, direct staff to attempt to acquire easements through gift. That's it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Has anything materially changed since we last discussed this? MR. MULLER: No. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Are there any questions of Mr. Mullet? There has been some correspondence in my office that refers to the paving of Miller Boulevard Extension. What we're talking about here, as I understand it, is the minimum grading necessary to make the road passable. Is that -- MR. MULLER: That's what we'd have to go for first. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. MULLER: To see if we have rights in there to go in there and work and then go in there to make it passable and then eventually, I think your direction from last September was to pave it, that may be a permitting impossibility. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. Understanding that there may be -- we may hit some hurdles then. I think the minimum benefit we wanted was, and it came from a public safety standpoint, was to be able to get emergency equipment in there because we know there's service calls in there and we've had trucks stalled out in water. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I suspect you-all got the same letter I did, and that's from the emergency personnel who said it can be a difference of between 8 or 10 minutes and 30 minutes in response time. So, clearly, there is a need for this. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let's go ahead and go to public speakers on this, Mr. Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman, the first speaker I believe had to leave because of jury duty, Nancy Payton, but she asked that her comments on the back of the form be included in the record. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: The next is Clifford Fort. MR. FORT: I'll waive my speaking. Thank you, Commissioners. MR. FERNANDEZ: The next is Rebecca Jetton. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And following Ms. Jetton will be? MR. FERNANDEZ: Nettie Phillips. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ms. Jetton. MS. JETTON: Thank you. I'm here representing the Department of Community Affairs, the Big Cypress Critical Area Program. My supervisor, Mike HcDaniel, from the Critical Area Program has written to you expressing the Department of Community Affairs' strong concern regarding improvement to Miller Boulevard. Several years ago, Governor Chiles wrote to you stating his concern that improvements to Miller Boulevard would lead to increased traffic resulting in higher panther mortality rates and also may continue to make acquisition of southern Golden Gates more difficult. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have written to you in the past regarding the need for permits to fill the wetlands. U.S. Fish and Wildlife have expressed their concern for protection of panther habitat. Federal and state funding as of this year will provide 50 million to complete the acquisition of southern Golden Gate Estates. It's anticipated that a proposed settlement agreement regarding the private lawsuit for inverse condemnation against the state will go to the government and cabinet next month and that will result in new appraisals and should also result in acquisition of the balance of the land in Southern Golden Gate Estates. All these actions will facilitate the restoration of Fakaunion Canal and when that occurs the ground water level should come back and you should have a decrease in wildfires that you're having there. The department is certainly sensitive to your concern about providing public safety to the individuals who live there. From reviewing files over the last 10 years prepared by your staff and from looking at maps that Division of Forestry has prepared, it appears to me that most of these houses are located above 52nd Street. I would request that the board appoint a work group of all the stakeholders to evaluate other access options and come back to the board in the next 30 days with their recommendation. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Do you have any questions? Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next is Nettie Phillips and then Mike Simonik. MS. PHILLIPS: Good morning. My name is Nettie Phillips, for the record. I'm supportive of Miller Boulevard Extension being further expanded, paved, whatever has to be done, so that the users of southern Golden Gate Estates can have the use of their property or the use of that road, a more convenient use of evacuation for health reasons, for life reasons, for the community, and, Commissioner Hancock, I believe it was last Tuesday, I happened to catch some of the commission meeting and I couldn't help but notice that you were addressing Twin Eagles when you told those people -- well, you told some people that had some opposition to Twin Eagles project that you couldn't have the people lose the use of their property and therefore being deprived of the use of their private property rights. Well, I feel that the people in south Golden Gate Estates have the same rights, and for 12 plus years, they have been deprived of those rights. They should be able to use Miller Boulevard Extension and they should have the use of their land, as well. I mean, I'm opposed to what the government has done to them over there. It looks like they're still gonna be in limbo up to the year 2000, possibly longer. I call that the loss of use of your property and the loss of your private property rights, constitutional private property rights. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think you're preaching to the choir on that One. MS. PHILLIPS: Well, okay. The state of -- the county commissioners and the State of Florida do not have to implement federal regulations. They can fight this and I'm really appalled that the communities are not more up on what's going on in our country and our rights and that our state and county governments do have the right to protect the citizenry and we do not have to implement federal rules and regulations in the state, in the county. That's really for Washington, D.C. and it's really for interstate commerce and they do not really have the right to come down and implement these rules on us, especially federal mandates that are unfounded. So, I mean, I'm really upset with our communities, that they don't support our government better, so that our government would support the people to our constitutional property rights and not a legislative democracy. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next is Michael Simonik and Clifford Fort has asked to be reconsidered to speak again. MR. SIMONIK: Good morning Mr. Chairman and commissioners. My name is Michael Simonik. I'm the environmental policy manager for the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. We nearly have 6,000 right now. We are growing by leaps and bounds. I think it's a bull market at the Conservancy in our membership. We have 600 volunteers and 32 member boards and I'm here representing them today. I think there is new information that has been brought to light in the last few months over this issue and some of it was spoken of by Mr. Jetton about the new 50 million dollars that is being put towards the acquisition of the estates and facilitating that process and speeding it up. I think the agreement of the lawsuit is very close at hand and that will also facilitate the rest of the purchase of the property and there's an issue -- it's an issue of timing with Miller Boulevard. We're not gonna stand up here as the Conservancy and say that we oppose Miller Boulevard on the grounds that it's running through environmentally sensitive areas, because maybe in the future that's the best place to have public access for our new safe Picayuane Strand Forest. The issue is timing. It is now not the time to put Miller Boulevard Extension in. This will not help facilitate the completion of the acquisition of southern Golden Gate Estates. So we are not objecting -- we might not object to Miller Boulevard Extension being put in once we have the completion of the acquisition. Another thing and, I guess -- well, I heard of this -- I haven't heard mention today of the alternate -- alternative road, which is the Collier Seminole State Park Road, that has limited access and it's gated and that might be used for fire and safety, too. So I haven't heard from staff on why that would cost more or why that's not a good alternative. I don't know. Maybe I can have that question answered, and then another thought is a twist on the issue, or maybe it's just a twisted thought. The Department of Forestry has been curiously silent in the Miller Boulevard Extension. As far as I know, the division is neutral on it and I don't think they're here today, but I think that they'll want a road there in the future, they just don't want one now. So, I think that's a new issue too, is that they're being silent on this. I guess with Miller Boulevard, one thing else about it is the cost of the road and the litigation and how long is it gonna take throughout all this litigation to get the road and are we gonna have the purchase done by then. So with the Division of Forestry -- another issue with Division of Forestry is, if they want the road when everything's purchased and maybe that will be in three years, about the same time the litigation ends, why is the county going to pay for their road? I guess that's my twist on it. You're gonna put up the money now to build a road that they may want in three years when the acquisition of their state forest is done. So that's all I have on that. Thank you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have a question for you, Michael. You said that the -- that we can delay the improvements to the road because of the acquisition project. My question is, is it the Conservancy's position that improving the road might delay the acquisition process? MR. SIHONIK: At this time, yes. That's our position at this time, is that it won't help facilitate -- it certainly won't help facilitate acquisition in a speedier manner. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. I agreed that it won't do anything to help, but how might it do something to hinder? MR. SIHONIK: It will bring public access into the area. More people may want to move into there and make it more marketable. A VOICE: Which means values go up. MR. SIHONIK: but no one is losing rights right now by not having Miller Boulevard paved. It's not been paved. A VOICE: Not yet. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Folks, folks, folks, folks, there will be no comments from the audience. If you'd like to speak as an individual at the podium, you can register as a speaker if you'd like. Thank you. Any further questions? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I just would like for staff to answer the question too about Collier Seminole as -- that gated access there as an alternative. I'm not familiar enough with the roads out there to know if that's a reasonable alternative. MR. BOBANICK: For the record, Dave Bobanick, Interim Transportation Director. Commissioners, we did make a visual inspection of the State Park Road. Part of my staff went out and took a look at it. Concluded that it did lie relatively low. It needed improvements that we felt were in excess of the -- of a hundred thousand dollars. Well in excess of the $75,000 that we estimate it would take just to fill the holes on the Miller Boulevard Extension. So we did make an inspection of it and felt it would cost significantly more just to bring the road up to make conditions where it was passable for emergency vehicles. MR. SIHONIK: Can I ask one more question? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Quickly. MR. SIHONIK: Is there any litigation involved with using the Collier Seminole State Park? We have to go through that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't understand the -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: At a cost. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Is it a public road easement, is what he's saying. MR. BOBANICK: We've not identified -- it's a road over public lands. It's not a public road -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. BOBANICK: -- as far as we know. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. No, ma'am. No, ma'am. Excuse me. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. We have so many people that charge the microphone after certain speakers, so -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Clifford Fort and then A1 Perkins. MR. FORT: I'm sorry. I wasn't going to speak until I heard Ms. Jetton speak with the DCA. My name is Clifford Fort. I'm president of the southern Golden Gate Utilities Association and Director of Broken Wing Ranches located in sections 1 and 12, township 50 south, range 28 east. It appears to me from the comments that are being made here, it is flagrantly overt the politics that are becoming involved here and you, as commissioners, have been dealing with that for a long time, trying to give us a fair shake out there. Unfortunately, you're kind of put in a tough position because you have all this pressure, but, you know, the health, safety and welfare of the citizens and the residents of southern Golden Gate is a priority. You know, remember when those stop signs went out there and everybody said they're going to be shot down? Well, you know, several people turned up dead and the other day, despite Ms. Jetton's comment regarding anybody living south of 52nd, that is absolutely fallacious. I would invite Ms. Jetton to come out to my ranch. We've got a beautiful home built out there. I've sold five, five acre tracts, and by the way, we're gonna have about three permits for three 3,000 square foot homes coming out there. The utilities have been confirmed, and it's real simple, you know, nobody wants us to be able to get in and out of there, and you-all are gonna be the first ones to bite the bullet when somebody doesn't get rescued in there and there's times when those roads -- when those vehicles are out there, the only way to come in there is Miller. Well, I wish you-all would go out there and take a look at Miller and see if you were in trouble and you had to get out there. We're stuck. One way in and one way out. They open up that access, they're aware of the utilities and this is a flagrant effort by the state and by the environmental groups to drive those values down and it's presumed here this is a done deal, because there's 50 million dollars. Well, I'll be glad to give you newspaper articles where they've been call -- people have been calling going, "Wow, you've got 50 million dollars. I'm ready to sell." Sight unseen they're being offered a thousand dollars an acre and told their land might be appraised lower, if it's appraised. Now, nobody in their right mind would think that that's a square deal, and nobody would think that we're getting a fair shake out there. So I really hope this thing's being sorted out 'cause you-all have heard the same tune. I've heard it for 10 years. For 10 years we've been trying to get an off of Miller, and then they'll have us rotting out there for another 10 years because there's not been one commitment to commend that -- to condemn that area. We have a right to ingress and egress, and we have a right to our safety and I hope that you will remain firm on this. Thank you so much. MR. FERNANDEZ: A1 Perkins and then Mary Dunavan. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I appreciate that Mr. Fort. I should have asked you halfway through, that, you know, again, we -- some things that we've already heard, let's try to curtail those things. MR. PERKINS: Good morning, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen and people at home. You've heard it all before. I'm only going to skim across the top, try to refresh your memory on some of this stuff. I don't know whether I said my name or not. A1 Perkins, Belle Meade Groups. I've been pushing on this because of the fact that we've had fatalities out there due to the negligence of the State of Florida and the DEP, the Department of Internal Plunder. The Conservancy sits up here this morning and tells us all about how wonderful they are. They instigated some of the lands being put on the CARL list, which they in turn are being funded through Natures Conservancy, which goes through the Big Cypress Basin Board. They end up with money. They're getting paid. They are subcontractors. They pick up 14.5 in administrative costs. The Natures Conservancy picks up an additional three percent profit margin. These people are paid lobbyists. I'd like know if they're registered paid lobbyists. They're here getting paid. I'm not getting paid. I'm here on behalf of a bunch of working people who can't get away from their jobs because they're trying to make ends meet. You talk about the fire out there, I heard that this morning. Yeah, right. Division of Forestry took 'em -- almost burnt clear to Sabal Palm Road because they took and started a controlled burn that got away from them. Fire trucks were coming from North Naples and all the way up in Estero, down 75, had no place to go except back up and around and they couldn't get through. We're talking about an hour's worth of time lost. That in distance in a fire, in a heated fire 45 feet high, you just lost a lot of animals, a lot of property, a lot of fences and God knows what else. The time, the labor, the amount of money that was spent to try to control that thing and put it out, you people paid for it. You perpetuated their jobs. The panther, great old panther. They packed them up shipped them off to canned hunts in Texas. That's where you pay to kill a panther for a monument or a -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's remind ourselves of that. We need to come back on -- MR. PERKINS: Right. Okay. Access to the Picayuane Strand State Park. This needs to be addressed, because if you're gonna have a park in there, how the heck do you get to it? At the same time too, and I'm going to drive this home, the evacuation routes from Marco Island, Goodlette, Fiddler's Creek, all along 41, the farmers, and also with the Port of the Islands, how do you get out of there in time? And don't tell me you're gonna use 41. Don't tell me you're gonna use 75 and as far as 951 goes, you're gonna be backed up all the way to the Immokalee Road, and if you have accidents, you are going to have a big problem all over. You're gonna perpetuate the problem. Collier Seminole State Road. Okay. Dead ends on private property and it's also controlled by the DEP, which would put more hurdles in the way. They bought property on Miller Boulevard along with the Wildlife Federation and the Forestry just to hinder the improvement of Miller Boulevard. Now, the next thing they'll want to do is most likely they'll wnat to mitigate it. That's called extortion in my language, and as far as the stipulated settlement went, it's time to take -- totally get rid of that. All it has done is kill some of my friends. With that, water heights. I need to address that. When you take and create enough water out there, you're gonna have panthers dying because there's nothing for it to feed on. You're gonna have all the animals that run across the ground, dead. You're gonna increase the mosquitoes here for encephalitis, and if you don't believe me, if you read the paper about the bear over on Port Royal, what was it doing there? Because it didn't have anyplace to eat, nothing to eat. When you do that out there, you're gonna move all those animals in town and, hopefully, they'll all end up at the Conservancy having lunch. I would like this board to approve this, if for no other reason, to save lives. Save lives. Do the right thing for a change. Save some lives in this community, because that's basically what we're all about. With that, I'll quit. Thank you for your indulgence. MR. FERNANDEZ: Mary Dunavan and then Tina McDonald. MS. DUNAVAN: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Mary Dunavan and I'm speaking for myself and A1 touched a lot of things that I was going to speak on, but I would like to support the fixing up of Miller Boulevard and the fires do burn animals and it does burn their habitat, and if there's no access to fight the fires, then we are not doing right by the animals, let alone the humans that live in that area and the humans are taxpayers in this county, so with that, thank you very much. MR. FERNANDEZ: Tina McDonald and Vilma Cirincione. MS. MCDONALD: Good morning. My name is Tina McDonald. I represent Collier Cattle Corporation and Tropical Ranch Properties. We feel that it is the board's responsibility to address the priorities most prevalent, which is the health and safety and welfare of the citizens and the property owners in the southern Golden Gate area. In the summertime, Jane's Scenic Drive is usually flooded. There was only one way out to the south. Wildfires to the north would trap the residents. We feel that if Miller Boulevard were put in a condition where people could get in and out, and not being trapped in there, would be most beneficial. The wildlife that's there is gonna cross Miller Boulevard, but we need to get our fire safety people in there, our firefighters, our emergency services, that we are entitled to as taxpayers. Thank you very much. MR. FERNANDEZ: Vilma Cirincione and Brad Cornell. MS. CIRINCIONE: I'm Vilma Cirincione. I'm here to represent myself and my neighbors. The funny thing about this is that most of the people that are against making Miller Road passable, don't live there, don't live in the Estates, but yet they're fighting it tooth and nail. Now, animals are important. I'll go with that water flow, but humans are first. I think our welfare is more important. Now, there are people on Everglades Boulevard area in the Estates, you know, north of 1-75, that could use that road to get out. Especially if you wanted to go to Port of the Isles or anyplace to Everglades City. You could use that. It would be a shortcut. I mean, it would save a lot of miles. In the past, I've been to meetings at the transportation department, at Horseshoe, and one of the items that came up at the time and Mr. Archibald spoke of and said that Miller Road was actually important farm to market road. That at the time he felt it should be considered and put in, which as far as I'm concerned, and other people, still goes. And we need this road now. Not in the future. It's been discussed for years and it seems that they keep putting it off and in the past we have seen, or other people that have lived here for years, where these groups take over this property and 10 years down the road they end up building on it. One good example is the area of Davis and 951. Where people were pushed out for environmental reasons and others, they were bought out and you know the construction that's at that area now. That south part there were people in my neighborhood that owned down there and yet they're building like crazy there. All of a sudden it becomes okay. They don't worry about water flow, animals, or anything if there's a profit. So please consider the people that live there, their safety and welfare. Even I could use that road. It would save me a lot of miles, so I thank you for everybody. MR. FERNANDEZ: Last speaker, Brad Cornell. MR. CORNELL: Morning, commissioners. I'm Brad Cornell and I'm here as president of Collier County Audubon Society and I would like to point out I'm not paid to be here and, in fact, I'm taking time off of work to be here. So please know that we have citizens' interests at heart, too. I do want to point out that we are on record as being opposed to the improvement of Miller Boulevard Extension, as you know. I think in this morning's discussion it's pertinent to say that the new situation which warrants looking at this a little more closely is the improved climate of the southern Golden Gate Estates state land acquisition efforts. As you-all know, there is a big lawsuit or actually two lawsuits which are very, very close to being settled and the improvement of Miller Boulevard Extension, I think, would exacerbate the problems involved with that situation, and the priority which the state has now given to this CARL project, I think means that we need to take a second look before improving that road. The situation a year ago, or whenever it was that you had originally given direction to pursue the improvements, I think has changed. So for that reason, I believe it warrants looking at this more closely. In fact, to that end, I would like to respectfully request that you postpone your decision on this from today and actually appoint a task force to look at the issues so that you can consider more fully everyone's concerns, because we acknowledge that they're -- it's a very complicated situation, and it's hard to say that it's all black and white, pave it or don't pave it. While we feel that you shouldn't pave it, we're willing to sit down and discuss with people who disagree with us all the issues concerned, including the Picayuane Strand Forest and the residents in southern Golden Gate Estates, as well as other factors. So I would respectfully ask that you postpone your decision and look at this more closely. Thank you very much. MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman, after I announced the last speaker, we had another one come forward. Bob Schank. MR. SCHANK. Good morning. Bob Schank, fire chief, East Naples Fire Control District and president of Collier County Fire Chiefs' Association. I apologize. I didn't want to get up here and duplicate, if there was already a chief prior to me speaking, but I appreciate the opportunity. I haven't come to you with any statistics and war stories, just with plain old common sense that the emergency services need to get out there, whether there's an acquisition problem or not. We've been battling this thing for 18 years of my career here and it hasn't gotten any better, and there's fires still out there. All you have to do is look east, come around January and February and the story's told to you. I know my department's had apparatus damage trying to get through there, and I know Isles of Capri certainly has, and all the districts that have come through that Miller Boulevard thruway. Presently it is true, I stated Friday that it took a half hour for my department to get out to the south blocks. Well, after a closer review of my run reports, it goes somewhere around 45 minutes to get a brush truck from the station on the East Trail all the way north on 951, all the way east down to Golden Gate Boulevard and all the way south back to Everglades just to get to Miller Boulevard, or anywhere else in that part of the Estates. So I'm here today -- we've talked about it over the last few years. I'm just begging you. Give us some help out there. The emergency service needs -- right now you can't get an ambulance. We may be able to get a brush truck down there right today, but certainly an ambulance can't get there and certainly apparatus. So what I say is -- I come to you with -- basically begging you. Help us out here. Let us get out there to do our best. These are some good people out there. They need the same protection as the people in the city and I appreciate that. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Cathy Myers. MS. MYERS: My name is Cathy Myers. I live -- I have five acres out on Sabal Palm Road Extension. I lost my husband out there three years ago in a car accident because there was no way of getting out there for safety. Excuse me. If they had an ambulance to get out there, my husband might be alive today, but because you people out here fight for transportation, he's dead. He'll never see his grandson. He'll never see his kids grow up and that's because you guys tore the sign down and because you guys won't put those safety things out where people can drive and be safe. But, no, you guys won't have nothing out there, and other people die and get killed. One of my other kids can be killed or something out there because you guys won't give us nothing out there. I'm sorry. I get emotional every time I think about my husband. He laid out there for two hours. Two hours alive and no help for him because -- just because you guys couldn't get out there. If you guys were able to get out there maybe he'd be alive today. But, no, you county people cut out Miller Boulevard, where nobody can get in and out. You cut out Sabal Palm Road where you can't get safety in there. My house almost burned down twice because of fire and because you guys were too lazy, what is water management? I mean, I never get into this stuff. My husband always came down to these meetings and stuff because I always worked and he worked too, but he always made time to come down to these meetings. But, no, you guys -- they had a road going there. You guys dug up the road where there could put fire departments out there. You guys dug it up, water management and everything else, because you said it wasn't done right because maybe they forget something, but I tell you what, if you county people do not do this there will be more people killed out there and there won't be nobody to get there to help them. I mean, my husband will never see his kids grow up, never see his grandson. All because of you lousy people, the courthouse -- the county, whatever. I don't do this. I don't know what I'm talking -- you know, but I'll tell you what, you better put that road in there and you better make sure nobody else gets killed out there, like one of my kids or my grandchild. That's all I got to say. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Further speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, motion to approve the item. COMHISSIONER BERRY: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Motion carries five, zero. Item #8C1 PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOOD PARK OPTIONS FOR TRACT 179 IN GOLDEN GATE - STAFF DIRECTED TO PURSUE PURCHASE & IMPROVEMENTS WITH GENERAL FUND REVENUE BASED ON COUNTY ATTORNEY REVIEW AND TO BE REPAID BY PROPOSED HSTU WITHIN 18 MONTHS OR PROPERTY TO BE SOLD; APPRAISALS WAIVED Next item is 8(C)(1) under public services. Consider the proposed neighborhood park options for tract 179 in Golden Gate. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is the item I brought to you a couple months back, and you all have a handout with a map. If you're not familiar with the property, we'll show you where on Golden Gate it is. It's the -- I'm sorry, I'm covering my own microphone. It should be in yellow. The top sheet is just a description from down at the tax office. It had been set aside in the deed of restrictions by Avatar 30 years ago as a park site and never developed. We have an opportunity to pick it up at about a third, I think, of what its existing value is and our staff has laid out four options here. My suggestion is going to be that we go and purchase the site and at the very least hold it for development as a park in the future, but I'd like to see us go ahead and explore the MSTU option consistent with what we've talked about for neighborhood parks and if we can combine that perhaps with impact fees for any of those, if available, and if not the MSTU pick it up, but I'd like us to get that in the inventory, anyway. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine, do we have any -- any type of commitment regarding an MSTU before we go expending general fund dollars on this site? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We have some of the residents here and they'll get up and speak during the public comment. I mean, we haven't done a straw ballot, if that's what you're looking for, but we certainly have the ability and the authority to do that and that's consistent with the discussion we just had on our parks program a month ago, where we talked about doing neighborhood parks, but asking communities to fund them themselves. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is it anticipated the MSTU would also refund the general fund for the purchase of the land? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I saw it as the county can provide that. The MSTU would develop it and would maintain it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What's the cost of the land? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think 70,000. MS. RAMSEY: Seventy-nine. I'm sorry, Marla Ramsey, Parks and Recreation Director. The appraisal that I got was 77,900. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Have we done anything like this anywhere else, Marla, to date or is this a new animal based on the recent policy that the board adopted for neighborhood parks saying pretty much what you have, that they'll be constructed and maintained by an association or some entity? MS. RAMSEY: Since the adoption of that capital plan a month ago, this is the first one, yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any questions? Yes, Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Was it anticipated in the MSTU program that we discussed or was it -- have we anticipated how we would acquire the properties? I thought as we were going through the MSTU process for neighborhood parks, adopting those policies, that all of the expenses of a neighborhood park would be funded by the neighborhood. Is that addressed in the policy? MS. RAMSEY: That's a good question. I think that it was kind of -- the plan that I brought before -- if you remember the supplement. Do you need another copy of this? I do have those, if you wish. The example that I gave in the back had looked at it as being donated land. That's on the top in the example, so -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess, as much as I support this idea, 'cause I think neighborhood parks are just a wonderful part of the program and commend you for coming up with a way to bring them back into our system. My idea of neighborhood parks is that the entire cost is born by the neighborhood, so I would think that the acquisition money would likewise be included in the MSTU funds. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Can I ask what the zoning on the property is? Do we know? MS. RAMSEY: All I know is that it was designed for a park. I don't know what the exact zoning is. She said it's multi-family. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What I'm curious about is the 79,000 -- or 77,900. Is that based on an overall evaluation of multi-family zoning, because if it's been designated as a park site the value per acre is far less than a multi-family piece. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're correct. Actually, the initial one was set at 229,000, or something like that, that's from Avatar and I said to them, "No, that's not gonna happen," and I think we came back with a couple different numbers. They came back and had offered to do it, purchase -- or sale at roughly half that, and we've done the appraisal putting the park site designation on that and came up with the number you have. Ms. TAYLOR: Sandy Taylor from your Real Property Management Department. It's based on replacement. If the county were to buy a park site, the $77,900 is what the county would pay to purchase a park site. So it's based on substitution. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Further questions of staff? Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think that it's a great idea to get MSTU's together to do this sort of thing, but I -- here we're once again, it looks like we're trying to mix general county funds with MSTU funds if we go ahead with this project. I think the MSTU should pick up all the costs of -- of this type of proposal. I know there's several others around there. There's at least two proposals down on Marco Island that would be similar at this time, and I don't think that we're anticipating funding those or purchasing the property through the general fund and then coming up with an MSTU to do the construction. That's not what's been proposed. So in the interest of fairness and evenhandedness, I think we ought to ask the HSTU, if there is one, to fund the entire thing. MS. RAMSEY: If I may. I think one of the reasons that you don't have a complete plan of HSTD in front of you is that this land was put up for auction back in April or Hay and we asked them to hold it with some time to consider a park situation. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's what we're trying to accomplish today to see within that framework if there's a way we can accomplish this. If there's no objection, we'll go to public speakers on this. Mr. Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: First is Mr. Michael Dearson, then Beth Kiedrowski. MR. DEARSON: Good morning. Mike Dearson, the record. Thank you, commissioners, for letting me speak this morning. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Feel free to pull that mike up, if that makes it easier. MR. DEARSON: Thank you. I'm a little nervous here. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's okay. MR. DEARSON: That's almost a five acre tract of land. I live across the street from that and I have two small children, six and eight. My next door neighbor, Beth Kiedrowski, who's gonna speak next, has four small children. This is a working class neighborhood. We don't make great funds of money. So when you talk about Marco Island and they're going to develop a park down there, they've got a lot more money and deeper pockets than the people working in the northwest part of the city. Now, I understand that this changed a month ago, so I've been pushing this for two years, believe it or not, and spoken to people about this and it just came to a head when they realized that Avatar was going to put it up for auction. I do not want a multi-family housing built across the street from my home and Avatar should have developed this property years ago when it was proposed as a park site. Now, the plat -- I issued -- I made those maps myself this morning. That is the original property card from the appraiser's office that shows that that was a proposed park site in the original Master Plan of Golden Gate City itself. Now, I'm going to say that my tax dollars that I pay as a homeowner in Golden Gate have gone to support the Lutz Park, have gone to support the other facilities, including the Golden Gate Community Park where the pool is. I find it a terrible burden to put on the people who work hard for their money to expect us to spend $335,000, or something of that nature, to develop this park when everybody else in the city can use it. That's not fair. Now, I understand your points on this, but it seems like -- I've been pushing this for two years and talking to people about it and all of a sudden now, a month ago, the laws have changed and the rules have changed and now you're expecting us to carry the load and we can't do it. We don't possibly have that kind of money. Even if you're talking, $10 a year or 15 or $20 a year, you're talking years of taxation on us. That's not fair, that the whole community can use. That's a large enough tract of land. You can put a nice soccer field there. You're always looking --my daughters play soccer. They're stacked like core wood at Vineyards Park. Every Saturday, there's thousands of people out there. Well, why not have a little relief on those fields and use this one. You can have scheduled games on one big park. You can have a football field there, for Pee-Wee leagues. You can possibly, if it's big enough, and it may be, to put a lighted ballpark there, if the commission desired to do that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Actually, you're making the case for the regional park concept. MR. DEARSON: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: When we do single ballparks here or there, or whatever, the efficiency and the maintenance cost of maintaining a single park here and there, is what has caused us to go to the community park idea, where we can put six fields in, instead of one, and serve more people's dollars. MR. DEARSON: I understand that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So you're kind of -- you're kind of making the other case, actually. MR. DEARSON: I don't see it that way, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. DEARSON: I see that this could be a beneficial park to the whole community. Though it's a smaller scale park, it still can be used as a park. Downtown Naples has the baseball park that -- Cambier Park's been there for years. I played ball when I was six years old there. I've been here since '59. So I've grown up in this community. So I don't see why our dollars -- the community's dollars can't go to support a community area. Though it's a smaller community park, it could have -- it could have tennis courts. It can have basketball courts. It could have a small diamond for Little League. It can be a very functional park, and that part of the city, of Golden Gate city has nothing for the children. I can't expect -- I highlighted the school from my home. It's across the street from the lot. There's a canal and a bridge. There's no sidewalks for the children to ride. I'm not going to expect my six year old and my eight year old to ride their bicycles over to play at the park that's almost a mile and a half away. That would be a very unresponsible parent to let their children out of their sight, to go play a mile and a half away at a school yard. It's too far. So this is what that was designed for in the original Master Plan in Golden Gate city, and I don't see why it can't be fulfilled as the original idea set forth in the Mater Plan in the city. Thank you very much for your time. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Questions? Commissioner? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's lot 171, that's also shown on this map? Is it currently developed? Do you know? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know. Sandy may be able to help us out. I know there was a couple of extra -- I don't think that was one of them. There were a couple extra sites that got -- MS. TAYLOR: I'm sorry. I missed the question. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- put up for auction COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There's also on this map, there's site 171, that looks like multi-family. MS. TAYLOR: Yeah, all the major tracts were put up for auction. However, just tract 179 was of interest to the community. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So 171 has been put up for auction and is zoned multi-family? MS. TAYLOR: All the ones that have restrictions as to civic purposes were taken off the auction list because the only person that can purchase it are also other civic organizations, such as the Elk's Club, et cetera. It's more of a community use, so they took all those off. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you know if 171 is on or off the auction list? MS. TAYLOR: The auction was held in April or May. I believe they were all taken off and they are still currently on inventory by Avatar. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm working from recollection, but I think 213, which you see down below, was one of those that was taken off as well. I'm not sure that 171 was taken off. There was a five acre site on 50th or 51st or one of those maybe south on 100th and there was 213 and 179. I don't think 171 was one of those that was taken off. I don't even know if that was part of Avatar's property. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I was just curious if that was slated for multi-family in the future. That's what my concern was. MS. TAYLOR: I can look it up and get back with you in just a second. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to know. Same thing with 213, if you're looking. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two hundred thirteen I know was one of those on the auction list and yanked, yeah. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Our last speaker was discussing a community park, but the proposal here in front of us is a neighborhood park; is that -- we're not considering a community park in this process, are we? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're putting in six soccer fields on that site. Really, really small soccer fields. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Next speaker. MR. FERNANDEZ: Beth Kiedrowski and then Larissa and Avia Kiedrowski. MS. KIEDROWSKI: Morning, Commissioners. My name's Beth Kiedrowski, and when my husband and I bought our home, we were told that it was on a prepared park site and that's the main reason we bought our home. I'm nervous. I do not allow my children to go to the school because of all the strange incidents at our school in Golden Gate. The closest park for them to play at is Aaron Lutz Park and that would mean crossing Sunshine Boulevard, a main road to get there. I took an informal survey of the neighbors, just the roads -- the four roads surrounding the park and the roads behind them, and there's over a hundred small children under the age of 12 in our neighborhood alone and they need a place to play. A lot of people couldn't come today because we are working class and they're in day care centers and stuff, and there are some families that do home day care in their home, which would be a wonderful place for them to bring their kids that they watch to play. If it went to multi-family, our property values would go down and we'd all move and then you'd have a real mess out there and that's all I want to say. I think Larissa wanted to talk. MS. KIEDROWSKI: Hi, my name is Larissa Keidrowski and I wanted to play at the park, but it's too far away for me to ride my bike to all the way, like to one mile or something, and please make a park for us closer to my house. MS. KEIDROWSKI: Thank you. We're done. MR. FERNANDEZ: That completes the speakers, Mr. Chairman. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I can appreciate the board's desire to make sure we, funding-wise act responsibly, but I think a couple of things set this apart and one is the cost and time factor. We have an opportunity to pick up a piece of property at a very reasonable cost. The time issue is one that Avatar did this at our request to pull it off. It may very well disappear if we don't take advantage of it. An HSTU wouldn't happen until, you know, we put it in place, we couldn't have funding until the following fiscal year, and really what I've tried to do is come up with -- I probably should have explained this better, is come up with a way to make this a reality. Your average home around this park and in the general neighborhood is a 70 or $75,000 home, and so a taxable value is if your homestead is -- 4,500 thousand bucks, and so the kind of improvements and the kind of maintenance that we expect is a burden, but it's a burden they're willing to carry. I just think in order to make it a reality, $77,900 isn't a lot of money in the big picture. I look at how much we spend on medians, how much we just estimated we'll spend on the Naplescape -- Collier Naplescape program, and I don't object to that, but just as I look at this and look at the need, if we can partner up, I'm not suggesting that we maintain it forever or do any of that. I think they need to take care of it themselves, but I'm concerned that it won't become a reality at all, if we don't participate in purchasing the property. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm just concerned it won't become a reality. I mean, we heard from two residents -- three residents today. One slightly smaller than the other two versions, but -- and the first gentleman basically said, "We don't have the money to do this. We don't have the money to pay for this as a park," and here's a gentleman who lives directly across the street with children saying, "We can't afford another tax to do a park." We haven't even talked about the acquisition price and so forth, and I guess, I haven't heard or felt a groundswell of support from the people who would be taxed to do these improvements that gives me any confidence in the purchase or acquisition of the site. Had I heard that, maybe I would feel a little differently. I also happen to agree with Commissioners Hac'Kie and Norris, in that I think we need to separate, if we're gonna have a neighborhood park concept, we need to separate it entirely, and that includes acquisition cost of property. Otherwise, we don't really have a measuring stick to go by. A community could want us to go out and buy a 30 acre park for a really nice neighborhood park and I think we get into a little bit of a difficult area. There has been a lot of capital dollars expended in and around the Golden Gate area and more recently with Hax's Park and I think you have done a very good job on this board of pointing out the fact that the number of children in this area is very, very high, and I think the board in the past in turn has responded with the development of several parks that may not be within bicycle distance, but I'm afraid to get in that zone that if we try and provide a park where everyone can get on their bike and ride there, we're gonna be back in the same position we were, that the maintenance of all these small parks is just tremendous. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'm certainly not suggesting we should try to do that. I'm saying this is a unique situation. We've got a four acre parcel in the middle of a community that was -- many of these people, when they built their homes were told would be a park site. We have no sidewalks, which is unique to Golden Gate community -- throughout most of Golden Gate. The closest park -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In my neighborhood, we don't have them, either. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The closest park is two, four lanes away, a bridge and couple of canals and I'm sorry you haven't heard a groundswell. I certainly have, but apparently they don't call all five commissioners. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I'm certainly sympathetic with the people who live in that particular neighborhood. I think it's unfortunate Avatar, knowing this would probably be a family community, did not take it upon themselves to donate this land on behalf of its citizenry that would be out there and donate this to the citizens of this area for a park, and I think at this point in time, rules do change and the rules have changed on the commission, in terms of the park designations for regional park and separating community parks. It was my understanding that any future parks in areas, in little communities, would certainly be the community aspect, and that the HSTU would cover that cost, and I thought that was from acquisition to the upkeep and so on. So that was my understanding. I think this is probably a fair deal price-wise, but I don't think that that's the direction and the current rules that we have in place for this kind of place for this kind of a park situation. So I -- as nice as it would be to have for all these children, I think that we, you know, we have the rules and we've got to kind of play by them. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Did you have the answer to the question on 1717 MS. TAYLOR: Yes, ma'am. Block 171 was part of the original auction properties and it has been retained. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: One hundred seventy-one? MS. TAYLOR: Uh-huh. Is that what you said before, 1717 COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yep. MS. TAYLOR: In the same unit. Unit five, Golden Gate city. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If it was designated park site in the original plan, how can they now be used for multi-family? MS. TAYLOR: Well, they couldn't be under the current restrictions for civic purposes, but Avatar is under the opinion that they can have those restrictions removed and therefore sell to the current zoning, which is multi-family. Our county attorney's office says they cannot do that. Again, it's just a difference of a legal opinion. I'm assuming that if the county doesn't pursue the acquisition of this site, Avatar will probably do what it takes to try to fezone that property and take that restriction off. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Does the county have any standing, Mr. Weigel, in blocking them from doing that? I think the answer's no, but I need to ask. MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think the answer's no, but I need to ask again of our staff that's reviewed that because typically it looks like we're talking about private property rights and restrictions that don't fall under zoning or some of the regulatory functions we have. MS. TAYLOR: It's just the restrictive uses that are currently on the property. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess it's just kind of ironic that a year ago, at this time, we were having a discussion on greenspace, and now we're saying, well, we really can't afford to do that and if they go ahead and do multi-family and pack in 24 more residencies on this four acres, oh well, and I'm just disappointed. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine, the voters said don't spend my tax money on greenspace. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's correct. I don't disagree with you there. I said we should have a greenspace plan and a new tax wasn't the way to do it. I was the loudest proponent of that direction, so you don't need to tell me. Thanks. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there any possibility of, I don't know, acquiring the property and having the MSTU. repay the general fund? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There's one problem is that there is no MSTU and that would be very speculative whether there is ever going to be one, but -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The only way out here to find out if the community truly is supportive is to -- if we wanted to acquire the property with a caveat that there is an 18 month period in which an MSTU must be formed for the purpose of repaying the general fund acquisition cost of land and any improvements that they as a board make recommendations to include in the MSTU. If that doesn't happen -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then we sell the property as surplus. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- then we sell the property as surplus at the end of that 18 months. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I could go there. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think that puts it on the table to say we're committed to the neighborhood park concept, but we require the communities to support it, and if they cannot support or choose not to support it, then we don't want to be on the hook with a piece of property. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I can go there for a couple of reasons. One, I think the community will choose to support it, but two, if they didn't, we would have an opportunity to make a change from multi-family. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, do you need a motion? I make a motion that we acquire the property with general fund revenues, with the caveat that within 18 months there must be an MSTU in place to repay the general fund for the acquisition cost and to support the improvements and operations of the neighborhood park, and in the event that that's not in place in 18 months, that we declare the property surplus and sell it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel has a comment. MR. WEIGEL: Just further information and that is, bear in mind that we, the county, as a potential purchaser, will take the property as we find it, in regard to any restrictive covenants that's there and I'd reserve, in fact, the opportunity, not changing the direction the board may be taking here, that we would come back and report to you what we find with that property, as we do in initial title review. COMHISSIONER BERRY: I think that's important. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think that's important, yeah, particularly with the statement that you made that I considered earlier about trying to protect the residents. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But I do think what's unusual about this situation is that the piece of property is available ahead of the curve of the MSTU so, you know, if the community's willing to pay for it, it seems reasonable to me. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Not just available, but on the auction block. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: On the auction block. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Which is different from a parcel that is just listed for sale. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. COHMISSIONER BERRY: That makes sense. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is that a second? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I will second the motion. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second it. MS. TAYLOR: Can I also just interject a couple other motions that I need? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, Ms. Taylor. MS. TAYLOR: I need you-all to waive the requirement for formal appraisal based on the fact that the value is less than a hundred thousand and that according to Avatar they did need the agreement for sale and purchase executed by August 5th. What I'd like to do is, if you can approve it contingent upon the county attorney's office approval and their findings, I think Avatar would be happy with that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I can include both of those in my motion. MS. TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Second amends. Ms. Ramsey? MS. RAMSEY: Could I also get a budget amendment for that, as well? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Is that a part of our package today? MS. RAMSEY: Approval. Approval for that so that I can purchase because it's on a time limit. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I intended that budget amendment process to be a part of my motion. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Since you identified the general fund -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: General funds. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- reserves as the source. Was it reserves? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, general fund reserves, 001. COHMISSIONER BERRY: That's good to me. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any further questions on the motion? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I appreciate the board's willingness to get a little creative here. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just for you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, for the community. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just for the Gate. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor signify by saying aye, Opposed? Seeing none, we are approaching 10:30, let's go ahead and take about the next seven minutes and reconvene at 10:30. (Whereupon, a break was taken from 10:17 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.) Item #8C2 RESOLUTION 97-301, AMENDING THE COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES LICENSE AND FEE POLICY AND SUPERSEDING RESOLUTOINS 96-364, 96-467 AND 96-556 - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm going to reconvene the Board of County Commissioners on July 29th. Our next item on the agenda is item 8(C)(2). This was a continuation from last week regarding fees for youth sports activity and, Ms. Ramsey, do you have a presentation for us this morning? MS. RAMSEY: I've just given you -- I'm sorry, I'm Harla Ramsey. I just gave to you a youth sports cost comparison. Hy objective in the fee policy was to try to be equitable to all groups and every group is doing type of season, a different length of season and the only way I could really come up with something that was equitable is to do something on a per week basis, and I tried not to raise the fees for them as you can probably see with the cost comparison that you have in front of you underneath the North Naples Little League girls. They have about 200 youths there, and last year they paid about $.68 per week, when you divide it out. They actually have two seasons. One of them is 8 weeks, one of them is 14 weeks, and then they have about a four week all-star season after that. When you add that up it's about 26 weeks and it comes out to $.68 per week. With the $.70 per week that we've got projected in the fee policy, and adding the fact that they have four weeks of post season play there, the fee is really pretty much the same. One of the concerns that comes into it is the Naples Youth Soccer, which has a long season. It's about seven months in length and so it's about 28 weeks and they were being an charged $8 per for that 28 week period and the per cost for that came out last year at $.28 per week. So there was a discrepancy between the weekly fees that we were charging one youth sports group versus what was being charged to another. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I ask a question? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Please. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is there -- are the maintenance costs associated with soccer, for example, less or more or the same as the maintenance costs associated with softball? MS. RAMSEY: Well, North Naples Little League girls are using two fields, currently, right now. The cost -- I don't have a costs breakdown specifically on it, but they're using those two fields. We line the foul lines and we line the field. The Naples Youth Soccer is using four fields at Vineyards and, of course, we're using paint to line the fields there on a weekly basis. I would guesstimate this would be pretty much the same cost-wise when you compare those because you may want more paint on that field, and you're cutting the grass on a regular basis as well. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What about the wear and tear? Because I know that when I was a kid, either the football field or the soccer field by about halfway through the season, the mid part was a mud hole. Our fields look exceptional for the use that they get, but is the fact that it's a grass surface, cleats and so forth, is there more wear on the soccer field that causes more maintenance? And that's an assumption I'm making. I don't know if it's correct or not. MS. RAMSEY: I would think that there's a concentrated usage in the area of the goals, which is an area that we usually have to sod quite often. We just did a resod of three of the fields at Vineyards this year to be ready for the fall season, and I'm looking and talking with the people that play soccer as to how we can alleviate some of that wear and tear in goal areas, so we won't have that problem in the future. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: By locating the goals to either the side position for practice and so forth? MS. RAMSEY: Correct. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So basically soccer -- the cost -- I care a lot about making the fees as fair as possible and it would be nice if the fee for everything could be equal, but if the maintenance cost of soccer is even higher than the maintenance cost of Little League, then those fees might ought to be higher, but they certainly ought to be the same. Thanks. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any further questions of Ms. Ramsey? COHMISSIONER BERRY: I do have a question. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, Commissioner Berry. COHMISSIONER BERRY: What do they do in other counties with regard to fees? Do you have any information on that? MS. RAMSEY: It depends on which county you're talking about. I did some research and some of them are doing similar 8, $10 per cosponsor a child. Others are doing a cost of maintaining the field. So if, for example, a rental fee for a field plus so much to line it, according to which type of field you're looking at. I prepared a comparison with Lee County versus what we're doing and it's real similar when you look at the cost that they're using per field and the rental fee as well. I think it was actually, maybe, $400 per week, say at Naples Youth League, it would be $400 more if you were in Lee County. COHMISSIONER BERRY: So what you're proposing is what? I mean, what do they pay now? MS. RAMSEY: The Naples Youth Soccer? COHMISSIONER BERRY: Right. MS. RAMSEY: Right now they're paying $8 for a 28 week season. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. MS. RAMSEY: And Naples Little League girls play -- paid $16 for a 26 week season last year. COHMISSIONER BERRY: And the proposal is you want to change it to what? MS. RAMSEY: I want it to go to a $.70 per week, per child, and then what that also does is it gives the leagues flexibility. They can determine what their cost is going to be by how long their seasons are. If they think the fee's too high and they want to go to all eight week seasons instead of 8's and 14's, then they can do that. that gives them some options there as well, rather than a straight fee. COHMISSIONER BERRY: But to just kind of get to, you know, so we're talking apples and apples here, instead of about -- let's say you take the Naples Youth Soccer, if you're -- which one did I do here? Well, about 28 weeks, I guess would be the soccer season, if you take that times $.70 a week, is that what you're proposing? MS. RAMSEY: Right, if you look at the bottom of that. COHMISSIONER BERRY: So you're looking at about, instead of $8, you're looking at $20; is that correct, that that child's gonna be paying? MS. RAMSEY: Yes, it would go up, I'm sure. I don't know. I think it might have been $18. The fees as listed -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: It comes out to $19.60 or something like that, but I just -- MS. RAMSEY: Right. COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's a better part of a $20 bill. MS. RAMSEY: The other thing to note, is that Naples Youth Soccer does have different seasons, as far as their high school season may only go 10 weeks in the fall, but that's it for them, but their younger kids might go for 28 weeks or longer depending on how long they're in their playoff season as well. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I know my parents would have gone crazy if I had a seven month season for anything. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My kid made the team for this soccer and, God, I was glad he didn't try out the next year. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman, my point in this is that, you know, there may have to be some adjustment and I'm not disagreeing with you on this, but I do think that going from $8 to almost $20 and I don't know if you've got multiple children playing and some of the kids that you want to get involved in this, is there -- is there some help or how does this work. MR. OLLIFF: Well, I think -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: I need some education here. MR. OLLIFF: The majority of leagues that we deal with have a league very similar to what Marla's North Naples Little League shows and, so, I think the fee was very inequitable in terms of the youth soccer all this time. If you look at what a child was charged to participate in Naples Youth Soccer it's $365 per child. Of that fee, historically, $8 was your cost. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is a three percent net increase in their total charge to the child. I mean, if you look at it in the overview of 300 -- and that's something that I saw that obviously they recognized the length of the season and they do a great job. I mean, you know, they've got a lot of staff that does -- I mean, they just really do a super job, but it shows up in the fee. So this is not something that I think the difference of $12 prices a child out of a $365 program, whereas a difference of $12 may price some kids out of a 20 or $30 program. I think it's a little -- it's somewhat relative when you look at that, and I don't mean that in any way as a criticism to the Naples Youth Soccer, because let's face it, trying to keep parents and coaches and people involved for that long of a season is a feat in itself. MR. OLLIFF: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I mean, it's done very well, but I do look at that relative to the overall cost of the program, and I think that that could be or should be part of our consideration. COMMISSIONER BERRY: How do they pay this $365? How is that done? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mortgages. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Personal check. MS. RAMSEY: Personal experience on that is that they do give them 200 raffle tickets and they're allowed at $1 per to reimburse that 365. So it would cost them 165 if they sold all the raffle tickets. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So first you buy the raffle tickets and then you pay the 165. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And you never win the raffle, do you, Pam? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, I don't know how that happens. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Again, I don't want to get into the Naples Youth Program because I think that it's operated very well, run well, and they probably couldn't do nearly as good, you know, it probably would cost more in other places to do that good a job. there's a lot of volunteer effort, but I have to look at the relative increase. It's really not that much, but we do have some speakers. MR. FERNANDEZ: We have one speaker, Jerry Berry. MR. BERRY: Morning. Jerry Berry. I'm here as president of the Naples Youth Soccer Club, and Commissioner Hancock, I appreciate your comments about the club. It's probably not necessary but let me go ahead and explain a little bit about the 365. First of all, there's never been a child, there never will be a child that's been turned down because they can't afford to pay the 365. There is the raffle tickets. Our season is seven months long. As you said, we considered that as part of it. It costs well over $500 per child to put on the program, so through fund-raising efforts and so forth, by a variety of people, we do that. Volunteer hours, there's at least 100,000 hours that go into the program. Our program -- we're doing in comparison to the program, we're doing an apple and an orange. This is basically an all-star program, where you have the select kids from the county that are competing against select programs throughout the state. There's traveling involved. We need rather than just parent coaches, there's nothing wrong with parent coaches, but you have to have people that are high level coaches to get to that level we want to. I'm pleased to announce we've just -- we've had kids going to the Olympic Development Program. We had seven kids make the State Olympic Development Team. Two kids, just last week, made it to the regional team. If they make it they go to the USA National Team. So we're producing some of the best soccer players, literally in the country, and it's because of the efforts. Now we get to the usage. The comparison here probably isn't fair. You're using the North Naples Little League Soft -- you're using a softball field compared to a soccer field. Commissioner Hac'Kie brought up what's the cost of maintaining a soccer field and park staff, which do a great job. Juggling all these sport programs is an impossible task and so far they've managed to keep all of us happy. I've seen Jim Thomas out in the twilight hours lining fields, which isn't even his job, but every time we've needed anything they've done it, but the difference is when they start comparing the cost. They've left out the fact that we're not the only ones who use the soccer field. For that $.70 per week or $22 per year, we're getting about a half a field for a team. We compete against teams that have a full soccer field for every single one of their practices. We don't have that. We use half a field. Sometimes, as Harla knows, there's sometimes we're using a corner of not even a field to practice because there's not enough fields. As the other speaker said they're stacked like -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Cord wood. MR. BERRY: Cord wood at the Vineyards, and that's true, but not only is our program using it, but the Optimist Program uses it. They have a thousand kids in their program. They have two seasons. The Y has a thousand kids. The Hen's Soccer League used it. There's pick up games. After every one of our practices, there's pick up games on almost every two or three fields, and those people aren't paying anything. I don't want them to pay, but when we started going through all of this, what we're asking when we started figuring out the cost of maintaining the soccer field, you have to divide the 2,000 kids, rather than the 200 kids who are using it and it's a lot less expensive to mow a soccer field. It's got to be mowed whether or not we're playing on it or not. It only gets lined a few times a year. Yes, it gets re-sodded, but that's generally only -- I think this is the first time in three or four years that any of the fields and that's only four of the fields that were being re-sodded, and a lot of areas there are just patchwork each year in front of goals and so forth, and we're gonna try to do that. We're gonna try to have the goals switch positions and so forth to help that, but I don't think it's fair to do the apple and orange, but when you start talking about a 250 percent increase for our budget, regardless where the money comes from, whether it comes out of a child's pocket or parent's pocket or people out there getting money for the club, it hurts. It's an -- I'm not sure about the figures. We figured it cost us an additional $2,500 by the increase for our team and, frankly, we can't afford it. That's money we would be using for something else. We're about to the limit that we can ask parents to contribute. We're asking -- we realize there should be increase, but I don't think it should be a 250 percent increase. Going from $8 a year to $10 a year is a 25 percent increase, which is a large increase in itself and that's something we can live with. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I guess, you know, today we just seem to be dealing with issues of kids and safety and all the stuff that's hard to say no or hard to make a decision on because you want to do what you can. I appreciate your explanation, and I know you have a fine developmental program. I mean, I would say the upper tier of kids gravitate to the NYS Program, and that's fantastic. It kind of makes the argument the other way, though. You know when we think about providing parks -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's your standard line today. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, you're arguing for the other side. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Don't say anything today because I'm going to turn it around on you. When we think of parks, I think of pick up games and Pee-Wee leagues. You know, the kids that may not be the superstars, but just want to be involved in active sports and I know the YHCA Soccer League, and Harla has experience with that, and the Optimist, tend to serve that group a little more and what we're talking about here is a developmental league and what I would call an advanced league, really, in my opinion. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So the 250 percent increase, I understand, and if there's a way that we can look at a two year phase in, fine, but I do think we have to be at least consistent with field usage and length of season has to be factored into that, somehow. Shorter seasons shouldn't be paying the same per child as longer seasons. That's just a logical approach to, you know, assigning fees. So the length of season is key, and there are things you can do. You could split your season into two seasons or other things, but I can't see continuing to charge the same amount for short seasons that we do for long seasons because logically these cost more money and, particularly, and I would say in the developmental league situation where it's not a casual, you know, mom and pop type of a thing, the opportunity to recoup those funds is a little -- a little better than it may be in other situations. So, I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying. I just -- I think we need to be fair and I think this is a good approach in fairness, even if it takes a year or two. MR. BERRY: If I can respond. The argument about the usage of the fields and longer you -- that makes sense, but we also have to look at how much it's costing the county for a soccer team to use the field. The point of the thousand kids using it, that a thousand kids in a short period of time are probably destroying the fields more than we are because they're using it, a thousand kids on that field all the time from eight a.m. 'til four o'clock on Saturdays and on their practice and so forth, are doing as much or equal damage, regardless of the time in the season, and you can't compare it to the softball teams or the baseball teams and so forth, because the cost of maintaining a baseball field is going to be more for the amount of usage on it than there is on a soccer field. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But then doesn't that make the $.70 per kid per week the ultimate fair way to do it? I mean -- MR. BERRY: No, because -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- it seems to me that's as fair as you can possibly get. MR. BERRY: Because you're comparing the soccer to the softball, and you're getting more in revenue out of the soccer, on the soccer field, and if you divide it per kid, it's not costing them -- the fact is when the Y's using it or the Optimist's using it, that's $700 per week that the county is getting to maintain a -- to mow a field. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, I think that's a little simplification. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Parks and Rec staff would tell you that mowing isn't all we do. We just heard about the sod replacement we had to do. MR. BERRY: But that's every few years. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But we're still talking about a fair -- what could be more fair than per kid, per week, whatever the number turns out to be. MR. BERRY: I don't have any problems with per kid, per week, but $.70 per week for us is having us pay more than our fair share. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Berry, really, I mean, if you're charging them $365 and you're saying we don't want to go from $372 to $385 because then we can't operate our program, I mean that's just really -- MR. BERRY: I never said we wouldn't be able to operate the program. The question is whether or not -- philosophically, I don't know if there should be user fees on youth sports to begin with, that's a whole other argument that we'd spend time on, but, I mean, the fact that we're out there providing a service and the fact that we're having to pay the county to provide that service doesn't seem appropriate, but if we're going to pay, it shouldn't be more than what it's costing the county to do that and I think it is more than what it's costing the county. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Berry, I was born and raised in Florida, and this is the only time I've ever been somewhere that the Little Leagues didn't have to own the fields. I mean, when I grew up in Little League whatever it was, soccer, whatever, the Little Leagues owned the field. I mean, it was a situation where the county wasn't even providing field space. So I think, this board has done and previous boards have done an excellent job in providing the space and making space available. We're just saying that for anything other than pick up games and family recreation, that organized leagues, instead of having to provide your space for those organized leagues, we'll provide the space, but you're gonna have to pay a small share of the cost, and if you look at the total maintenance budget those fields go in and what $.70 a week per kid does to that overall budget, you're not exactly subsidizing the whole -- the whole thing so -- COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Are there other speakers? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. I understand your point, but I think we recognize what we do have, rather than what we don't have. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Other speakers? Motion to approve staff recommendation. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have a second? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor -- I'm sorry, go ahead, I didn't mean to cut you off. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not going to support the motion just because I think -- I mean, you can do a comparison of the amount of dollars collected or has to be raised through the year and all, but the bottom line is what's our participation in that and the percentage increase of what we're doing just seems to be a lot. I think it's a matter of priority for me. I appreciate the fiscal conservativeness, but if we're gonna try to spend our money only in a few places, youth programs is one of the places I want to spend it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any other discussion on the motion? Seeing none, I'll call the question, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Motion carries three, two. Ms. Ramsey, thank you very much. Mr. Berry, thank you. MR. BERRY: Thank you. Item #SD1 REVISION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY FIRE CONTROL CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENTS - APPROVED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Item 8(D)(1) -- am I in the right place? Yes, I am. Revision of the Collier County Fire Control Contractual Agreements. Who's our lucky staff recipient on this one today? Nobody's coming forward. MR. FERNANDEZ: Diane Flagg is coming. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Diane Flagg. Diane's coming. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, there she is. Okay. Get 'em jogging up here. MS. FLAGG: Good morning, Commissioners. Diane Flagg, Emergency Services Department. Just a quick background. Pursuant to County Ordinance 84-84, the county created the Collier County Fire Control District to provide for fire protection services outside of existing fire district boundaries. Our protection has historically been achieved by the contractual agreements with the two county fire departments and three independent fire districts. The need to cancel the current agreements and develop revised agreements was based upon North Naples incorporating the portion of the Collier County Fire Control District into their district and also a request by the Isles of Capri Advisory Board for a review of the resources and services being provided to the Collier County Fire Control District. The fire chiefs have reached a tentative agreement pending approval of their commissioners for reallocation of the funds based upon the review that was done looking at the services provided to the fire control district. The current agreements will remain in effect through September 30, 1997. The new agreements, based upon the new allocations agreed upon, will be processed for implementation on October 1, 1997. So there will be no lapse in service for the fire protection to the Collier County Fire Control District. Per the -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So we get to see the reallocation? MS. FLAGG: The reallocation that they've -- they'll come in the form of the actual agreements. You-all will have to approve the new agreements, but the reallocation that they've agreed upon is, I believe it's 12 percent to Isles of Capri and then the remaining balance to be shared equally amongst Ochopee, East Naples and Golden Gate. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, I'm sorry, Commissioner Constantine had something and then Commissioner Berry. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did you say the fire chiefs are in general agreement, but that the fire commissioners have yet to approve these items? MS. FLAGG: The fire commissioners have not yet been presented the information. The chiefs just recently reached the agreement. So we're in the process of developing the new agreement based upon -- the new contractual agreement, based upon the agreement reached so that the fire commissioners will have something to approve. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If the fire commissioners have yet to take any action or haven't even seen it yet, isn't it premature to cancel the existing agreement? MS. FLAGG: Well, cancellation of the current agreement is necessary due to the fact that North Naples will no longer be participating and also the allocations will be revised under the current agreements, so '- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did I misunderstand or did you say the current agreement would stay in place through September 30th? MS. FLAGG: Right, but the termination clause in the current agreement provides that we have to give a minimum of 30 days' notice and also cancel it prior to the end of their quarter, which -- next quarter which will be September 1st. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What happens if the fire commissions don't agree? MS. FLAGG: Ultimately, it will be the board's decision, the Board of County Commissioners is responsible for this area. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know. My concern is they haven't even it seen yet, it would just seem like we're kind of ahead of the curve here, are getting ourselves ahead, and I hate to do that. Go ahead and cancel and have them not agree and then we end up going 90 days or six months or something without an agreement, or one that we implement without them being happy with. It just doesn't seem like a good situation. MS. FLAGG: Okay. In order to remain compliant with the current agreement, we need to provide cancellation of this agreement. In other words, if we don't cancel this agreement now, then the agreement will go for another year and they've already concluded that the allocations primarily of the three departments, which are East Naples, Golden Gate and Ochopee, those numbers need to be revised based upon the services that the Isle of Capri Fire Department is providing. The Isle of Capri Fire Department is providing a significant number of services and are receiving a minimal reimbursement from the fire control district. So the chiefs have gotten together and acknowledged that -- that Isle of Capri should be appropriately provided additional funds from the fire district, which then reduces by a portion the amount that they're receiving. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But if I understand you correctly, if we don't -- according to the contract, we either terminate now or there's an automatic extension of the contract? MS. FLAGG: Correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And it's already been determined by the fire chiefs and by action from the North Naples Fire Control and Rescue District that that contract is not acceptable? MS. FLAGG: North Naples will not be participating, so that's why we're canceling. They've taken it into their district. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MS. FLAGG: It's part of their district now, and the fire chiefs have met and agreed upon the new allocation amounts. So by not canceling today, we're unable to cancel in effect. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. That's fine. I thought it was an automatic extension. I'm sorry, Commissioner Berry, did you have something? COMMISSIONER BERRY: My first question when I read this, is if this only affects, which it appears to really affect North Naples and the Isle of Capri, why is the entire -- why is this canceled? MS. FLAGG: Because the allocation amounts will change for East Naples and Golden Gate also. In their current agreement, those allocation amounts are going to be revised in the new agreement. The way that the agreements are currently written, we have to revise that language, because the dollar amounts in the current agreements are going to be revised. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Further questions of Ms. Flagg? Yes, Commissioner Mac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have some real fundamental questions. I just don't understand how this works overall, forgive me, but in 1984 the board created a countywide HSTU? MS. FLAGG: No, this is an HSTU for those areas -- they're paying two mills for those people that are not currently located within an existing fire direct. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that's basically Ochopee? MS. FLAGG: And the south estates. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd love -- when we get this back '- MS. FLAGG: I'm going to bring you a map. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. Because I'd like to know who's paying the tax that we are now allocating or we are going to allocate among the four districts instead of five? MS. FLAGG: Okay. Let me show you who is paying this tax. The -- where the 11 is, this is the Collier County Fire Control District. This area here has now been incorporated into the North Naples District, which is a four. Okay. So it's this area here, and this area out here. That's the -- these -- the taxpayers who live in these areas are paying the two mills to the county for the Collier County Fire Control District. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And then the money that's collected, the $265,000 that's collected, is spent by, presently by all five districts? MS. FLAGG: Currently, under the current agreement, it's the money that is collected from these individuals, is 10,000 goes to the North Naples District, which will now not be appropriate because this is within their district. Six thousand goes to Isle of Capri and the balance is equally divided amongst East Naples, Golden Gate and Ochopee. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that's because those districts then provide service to the areas that are taxed? MS. FLAGG: Correct. Those areas are providing service to these areas based upon the proximity of their stations to those areas. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that's under the Mutual Aid Agreement, basically. MS. FLAGG: Well, actually, it's under this agreement. There are also Mutual Aid Agreements, but under this agreement, unlike Mutual Aid Agreements, when you provide mutual aid you are not reimbursed for your services. Under this agreement, they're actually receiving reimbursement for providing the service. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And so what's been recognized is that the Isle of Capri District -- the Isle of Capri -- is it a district? The Isle of Capri Advisory Board has told the North Naples people we need more of the money because we're providing a service that we're not adequately compensated for? MS. FLAGG: No. The North Naples issue is that they eliminated -- they have taken in the Collier County Fire Control District into their district. That's why we have to cancel that agreement. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And then it says something about '- MS. FLAGG: And then -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- that the Isle of Capri Advisory Board has requested a review of the apportionment of funds and preliminary it shows that they're providing more service. MS. FLAGG: Right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tell me about that. MS. FLAGG: The Isle of Capri Advisory Board indicated that the service levels that they are providing to the Collier County Fire Control District are in excess of the reimbursement they're receiving to provide that service. When they looked at the NIFRS report, which are the fire incident reports which allocates the service provided, Ochopee provided 181 service calls. Golden Gate provided 103. Isle of Capri provided 49, and East Naples provided 13. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So the split -- the future split of money, what we're gonna see when we get the new contracts is going to be an allocation of 265, based on these calls for service? MS. FLAGG: What you'll see in the next contract, based upon the consensus that's been reached among the chiefs, is that Isle of Capri will receive 12 percent of the total dollars and then Ochopee, East Naples, and Golden Gate will receive 29.33 percent. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why would Ochopee with 181 calls get the same amount of money as East Naples with 13 calls? MS. FLAGG: East Naples felt that because they had to have resources available and because they were there and ready to provide protection, and they didn't feel that they could continue to stand ready to provide protection, unless they received similar dollars to what they had received in the past. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess the one thing that's important to remember here is we're basing those on what the chiefs have approved and, while I have the utmost respect to our chiefs, commissioners have to agree to that and it's no different then our staff trying to come up with an agreement, but ultimately the board has to decide and, again, I'm just worried that if they haven't -- if none of the fire commissioners have even seen this yet, we can back ourselves in the corner. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'm troubled -- I don't understand why they would agree, frankly. Why would the Ochopee Department agree to give the same amount to East Naples when they're doing 181 versus 137 I mean, I bet there is some scale, but not even. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Have they objected to you on that number? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. That's the first time I understood this number. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Yeah, I would leave it to them that if they're unhappy with the funding amount that we will hear that in the negotiations for a new contract, but you know, unless I'm -- unless Ms. Flagg is misrepresenting something -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of course not. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- we have two choices here today. One is to take no action, which extends the existing contract, which already has been changed by North Naples' decision to include areas into its service area. The second option is to not renew and begin working on a new contract, which we have to do. So I'm not sure we have a lot of choices before us here. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How long has the discussion been going on? MS. FLAGG: Three months, give or take. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just one of the things I find frustrating is whenever we come to the board and say, "We're asking you to do this and you don't have any choice." COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Unannounced. MS. FLAGG: Well, I didn't want to come to you until we had reached an agreement at least with the chiefs, and it's my understanding that the fire commissioners speak very highly of their chiefs and are likely to follow their recommendation. MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Smykowski has reminded me that this issue was discussed with the commission during your budget deliberations and, in fact, the budget that's presently being considered reflects this change. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: So it's something you've already had before you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Constantine, I mean, I hear your frustration and so forth, what I'd like to do -- do we have registered speakers on this? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, we do. We have one. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Including Mr. McNees? MR. MCNEES: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, if I may, Mike McNees from the administrator's office. Just so you understand the staff's position here, we're not really -- it may appear we're putting you in a box, but the situation is, there's existing contracts out there based on a given parcel of property and five participating districts. That's changed now. There are only four participating districts. There's a different parcel of property that represents a different revenue. In order to craft a new arrangement to deal with the new situation, we have to get rid of the old arrangement. That's all we're asking you for today. None of the other dollars are you committing to and the other districts will have the opportunity, and as you will have the opportunity, to approve whatever the new allocation is. Now, there are some numbers on the table, but those haven't been approved yet. In order to get to that point, you have to cancel the old agreements, which has to be done because North Naples is now out of it, and we have to get rid of the old structure. That's really -- it's as simple as that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I agree, and I think there really isn't much choice about the votes today, but what my question is, what if we cancel these agreements and we can't come to a meeting of the minds on a new agreement? MR. MCNEES: Then you can keep all the money, if you want. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, what happens to fire service? What happens --who provides the service? MR. HCNEES: Well, you would then be in a position where you're responsible as the governing board for Fire District One of taking that money and finding a way to provide that service within the district. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We can hire Wackenhut. MR. HCNEES: We'd have to come back to you with an option. Frankly, I don't think that's a realistic scenario. We will come to an agreement with the other fire districts -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So we're not '- MR. HCNEES: -- and pretty much already have. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll tell you what, let's try a novel concept, let's listen to the speakers on this, which I think might have something to do with the operation of the fire districts. I know I'm kind of going out on a limb here. MR. FERNANDEZ: The speaker is Mr. Don Peterson. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: He's got a shiny badge and a white shirt. My guess is Don works for the service. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which one? MR. PETERSON: Golden Gate. Good morning, commissioners. For the record, my name is Don Peterson, fire chief, Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District. This morning my only intent of being here is to share with you, so you have a choice. We've run into this situation in the past and the county has not had to notice us in the past that they're terminating an agreement with us or any other district. Our concern was also of the situation had we not reached an agreement, I can assure you that it is fully the intent of both districts involved here, East Naples and Golden Gate, that that protection will continue to be provided out there, regardless of whether there's an agreement or not. We've worked through, over the last years, through many issues of not receiving payments to whatever, and we've never let that affect the people out there. Predominantly, the biggest area we're talking about is south block area. However, District One does cover a lot of the parameter coastline, that is not in any particular fire district. There have been in the past two other fire districts that have opted out of this. We don't see the need to terminate -- notice us of terminating the agreement. We can work through this. We've got -- staff of both agencies have exchanged agreements on this. We do need legal review by both the county attorney's office and the fire district's attorneys. That process in itself can be -- sometimes take longer than all parties desire. So, our intent, we do need to know though as districts, hopefully prior to September 1 we reach this agreement, because we -- as both agencies need to report funding in our budgets for next year. That's our biggest obstacle that I see at this point, if there is one, is that both entities can properly do that and do it for our public workshops, when we do budgets for everybody. So, other than that, I can share with you that we have always worked through the obstacles. There is an issue with Isle of Capri. We've attempted to try to work through that, but I have no doubt we're going to be able to reach agreement on it. Our concern, though, is just the noticing of the termination of that agreement, that you-all understand that the fire districts involved here still have the intent of reaching an agreement, providing the services out there for the folks and that there are no concerns out there. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Chief. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've never -- I just want to be clear. I've never had any concern that you guys would not respond appropriately because you do and you do that regardless of whether, you know, all the i's are dotted and we appreciate that. My only question is as the collector of two and a -- a quarter million dollars, are we allocating that money appropriately and I guess the question -- that question is for another day. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think for someone other than us, like the recipients. They're, you know -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, but we're the collector. So I think we also have responsibility to be sure that the money is appropriately spent. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I tend not to get into an argument with parties that agree on how the money should be spent. I guess I disagree with you there. Another speaker, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: No, that's all we have. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve staff recommendation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Motion carries five, zero. Item #BE1 CONTRACT WITH VISIT NAPLES, INC. FOR A HAXIHUH OF $1,047,358 ECONOHIC DISASTER RECOVERY PROGRAM, TOURIST DEVELOPMENT FUNDS AND EXPENDITURES OF $6,850 FOR ANNUAL PREPARATION WORK - APPROVED We are to item 8(E)(1), request to approve a contract with Visit Naples, Inc. This is the disaster recovery program. The annual expenditures to keep the program current. Have I missed anything, Ms. Gansel? MS. GANSEL: Good morning, commissioners. Jean Gansel from the budget office. In February, you had reviewed the economic disaster recovery plan for tourism and what we're asking today is approval of the contract with Visit Naples. I did want to point out that there were two items. The advertising that would be required for the maximum amount of money has increased since that February item which I brought forward and it's approximately $84,000 more for the level one of advertising, and also, during that discussion, the board had requested that the annual update work that needed to be done would be put out for competitive bid. Visit Naples had made some initial attempts to do that informally. There was no response from anyone to do that. So that the annual update work was being done with the, excuse me, the original contractor. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How do you define, and maybe John can help with this, but how do you define informally seeing if there was any interest in the -- MS. GANSEL: I'd prefer for Mr. Ayres to go over that. MR. AYRES: I knew you'd ask me that question. I'm John Ayres, I'm the president of Visit Naples, Inc. Informally, as Commissioner Norris and I chatted a little bit earlier, this is kind of a unique situation and we've touched on this situation before. Generally speaking, when you go to an ad agency and you have a specific project, they'll design a creative, which we already did, and then they will go ahead and put together the advertising schedule that accommodates that creative and that plan. We've got a very unique animal here in that we've paid for the creative on one hand and we've not had to update that and we've reviewed it and it continues to look as good as it did when we did it, but media changes and so now we have to come back and update the insertion orders, insertion schedules for this plan, and the problem that we had with Tweed (phonetic), who does some work for Marco, the Zimmerman agency, which does PR for Marco, but are also in the advertising business, and a gentleman who's an acquaintance of mine up in Orlando, Anson Stoner (phonetic), which is another pretty good size firm in the state. The problem they all have is that they didn't do the creative, and so when you suggest to them that they're going to then go out and put together the insertion schedule for this plan, well, because they didn't do the plan, they don't really know what they should be buying. So it's a convoluted kind of a problem. What I was explaining to Commissioner Norris is that we really have four years where we didn't do much, but kind of just dusted off the old insertion orders, and this year we took a bigger look at it and, therefore, it cost us more than it probably might on a normal basis. We are endeavoring to come up with some kind of a plan that it may be every four years or every five years, that we have to really kind of rebuild it, but other than that, maybe what we can do is if there's a publication that was on the schedule that's gone out of business, we need to replace it. If there's a new publication that comes along that might be good for us, we might add it, but try to get ourselves down to, you know, spending as little on rebuilding this thing as we can, but it's like starting over every year, and I'm not sure -- I don't know that I have the answer for you, but I'm not sure that rebuilding every year is what we need to do, but on the other hand, we don't want to have a plan that we don't have ready to go in the event we have a hurricane. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The reason for -- and I'm sorry, were you -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I'm fine. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The reason for an $83,000 increase and what was identified in February 1997, is that a result of looking at new rates of insertions, such as air time, media coverage, et cetera? MR. AYRES: Again, those real dollars hadn't been increased or improved since we did this in the beginning. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But the parameters for the insertion schedule, in other words the number of ads run, the maximum stayed the same, it was just the cost of buying that time or that space that changed or did you increase -- MR. AYRES: I think there's some new publications in there and some better opportunities that are in that plan because it's an entirely new plan, and we never went into this saying, "Well, we'll spend a million dollars, let's see how much we can get." We went into this saying, "If we have a catastrophe, what is our best professional guesstimate that it's going to cost us to get the job done," and in doing it this year, it was more. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Further questions for Mr. Ayres or staff? Do we have any speakers on this? MR. FERNANDEZ: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We do not. I'll close the hearing. Do we have a motion? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve staff recommendation. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Motion carries five, zero. MS. GANSEL: Thank you, Commissioners. Item #8E2 RESOLUTION 97-302, SETTING TUESDAY, SEPTEHBER 9, 1997 AT 6:00 P.H. AT PELICAN BAY FOR A PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPROVING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AGAINST PROPERTIES WITHIN PELICAN BAY - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We are to item 8(E)(2), which was an add on. Resolution for Pelican Bay budget. Every year we -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. WARD: I need a date. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, there's -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Several dates. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, there's several proposed but I do have a memo here that I asked Ms. Filson to perform and looking at what is free on everyone's schedules and it narrows it down to one date. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yep. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Tuesday, September 9th at 6 p.m. Now, understanding Tuesday is a regular, we can, of course, ask Mr. Fernandez to keep the agenda on the lighter side to ensure that we are done to make a six o'clock meeting for this HSTU, but that's the only date that everyone's schedule had opened. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve Tuesday, the 9th of September. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: At 6 p.m. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: 6 p.m. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Is there any discussion on the motion? COHMISSIONER BERRY: Where is this held? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is held at Hammock Park in Pelican Bay just south of Vanderbilt Beach. It's where the new fire station is. Right back there. MR. WARD: We'll get you directions. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And a map. THE COURT REPORTER: Your name, please? MR. WARD: Jim Ward, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing no discussion, I'll call the question, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Motion carries five, zero. Mr. Ward, thank you. Something just came to mind I need to -- I'll do it on communications with Mr. Fernandez, so -- I'm sorry, I'm thinking out loud, my apologies. Item #10A UPDATE REGARDING ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (PEIS) BY CHAIRMAN TIMOTHY L. HANCOCK - FINAL REPORT TO BE BROUGHT BACK AUGUST 5, 1997 Next item is item 10(A),update regarding Army Corps of Engineers PEIS Study. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, I thought last week that we were going to have an update by our county attorney on the Marco Health Care Property issue. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. As a matter of fact, I expected thats too. It was not on the agenda nor was it added on this morning. MR. WEIGEL: No. I stated last week that I'd be bringing on board communications -- I'd be bringing it up under board communications, but I'm happy to break out and do it at any time as far as that goes. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine, just as long as we do it today. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you for picking that up. What fI want to do is give the board an update on the developments with the proposed PEIS by the Army Corps of Engineers. I'm going to start off with what I think are some positives. We adopted, or basically emphasized, 10 points that were arrived at by the EDC Chamber Coalition that were from a business standpoint parameters by which any PEIS must follow. We as a board then added three specific parameters to that. In the very first draft that I received from the Army Corps of Engineers, made no bones about including all 13 of that criteria in their plan. So I think on the positive side, my meetings with them and what we've seen on paper to date, shows an extreme willingness to include what this board has requested as necessary elements of any study. There are some things that need significant work. I think, like anyone else, you know, we -- I'm into this very wearily. There is a study called an ADID that was done down on the Rookery Bay area, that if you've ever seen it, it came in with the very similar premise of, "We just want to provide a tool. This is not gonna increase regulation. This tool will help things go a lot better, and go a lot faster," and if you look at it, basically everything on the east side of Airport Road and south of 41 is all wetland, and it's what they called category one wetland, which is not to be disturbed with the exception of a handful of farm fields. That ADID, which was never supposed regulatory, has popped up in a review and has been referenced as a tool for determination by a state agency. Those kinds of histories with state or federal agencies, I think we are showing as a reluctance to believe that the result of this could be better for our community than what is currently in place. Nonetheless, a study is going to occur, and I believe we have the opportunity here by being defined by the Corps as what is indicated as a principal in this study to do two things. One is to have some level of authority on the content and appointments that dictate the direction of the study. The second should be that we have the ability as a principal to put a stop to forward progress at a point when any of the principles that are agreed upon are not being met, are being jeopardized, and the third is that the principals be limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, the Lee County Commission, the Collier County Commission, for the purpose of receiving or achieving a balance on what are the two standing committees that are being proposed in this study. If you read the initial proposal, this study will have two standing committees that really do the yeoman's work and the incorporation of information into the study. Those standing committees, if they are not balanced, and by balanced, I mean you have an environmentalist, you throw in a developer. You have a concerned citizen, you throw in someone from the business community. What you don't -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You throw in someone who doesn't care. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. The key being that what the Corps is trying to achieve is a consensus and we know how difficult that is and if we do not ensure -- have the authority to ensure that these standing committees are balanced, what we are gonna end up with is another ADID study, which, quite frankly, embarrassed some permitting agencies when they saw it, because it was so lopsided and one-sided that it was not workable, manageable, and actually, I think if you try to put in a court of law it would get laughed out. It has not even been approved, yet is being referenced in this state. So, we want to make sure that doesn't happen. I think the Corps' intentions here and the people I've dealt with, Mr. Pike, Mr. Hall, Colonel Rice and others, their intentions, I think, are honest and straightforward. The problem is in the devils and the details. How does it materialize, unless we have authority in determining how it materializes, then I think we are turning the study over in an area that is not in the best interest of our citizens. What I will do, and there's -- there is one other thing I wanted to point out. The initial draft had a comment in here that -- two comments that seem to conflict. One is that the growth management plan of each county will be used as the basis for information in which to conduct the study. Yet later it says that at the conclusion of the study, each government shall amend it's comp plan to reflect the study results. The idea of comprehensive planning is local governments and their constituents know best what is in the interest of their community. We will not and should not give up that ability or commit, at any point, to amend our comprehensive plan to meet the results of an unknown study. I don't think there's going to be any argument from you guys on that, but that was one thing that I think caused a lot of concern, but again I want to say the folks I've talked to in the Corps are not digging their heels in on any of these points. What we're looking for is something that's agreeable as a reasonable goal for everyone. If we can accomplish that, and we are in fact a principal with some authority and the direction and appointments in the study, I think we're in the best position we can be in. Next week I will bring back to you, hopefully, a draft agreement with -- whether it be strike through, underline, or just a total draft agreement, that it is my goal to have the Lee County Commission and this board agree on the principles and the goals and then to withhold judgment until the study parameters are specifically defined and presented. At that point, we as principals, again, would have the decision whether to move forward or whether the study parameters themselves are not in the benefit of our community. That's kind of the most up-to-date information I have right now. I'm as optimistic as I can be, but I'm equally cautious on all of these elements. Commissioner Hac'Kie, first. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Actually, you addressed the issue I had. My most important comment is that we have, perhaps, as a goal, to review our comprehensive plan in concert with the outcome of the study, but not a commitment that we shall amend the comp plan. That was my strongest objection. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You're not indicating, Mr. Chairman, that we would never put this into our comp plan under any circumstances, but rather we want to see the finished product before we make that decision; is that correct? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Precisely. I also fear that putting the comp statement in here gives a direction that was unintended. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Sure. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The direction was to streamline the process. What does that have to do with our comp plan? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Right. The other suggestion is that if we're going to try to cooperate with Lee County on this in a specific direction, perhaps it would be worthwhile to have a meeting, a joint meeting with Lee County and discuss this issue in a little more depth. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed, and what I envisioned is, the initial document isn't going to be detailed. It's going to incorporate what we have set forth as goals to protect the -- both private property rights and environmental interests in Collier County. Those goals themselves will turn up in the specific parameters of the study and before anyone signs on to those parameters, if that's what we choose to do, I think a joint meeting with Lee County commissioners is a super idea, and that would probably -- about two months from now is when those parameters will be developed, so it would give us the time to set up a joint meeting with them and discuss the details of the study. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One of the points that was made when this item first came up was we have pretty limited authority to object to a study being done in the first place. My question is, and you may or may not be able to answer this today, but at least for next week, should we have objections or concerns as we go along with the process, or as you said, if these parameters aren't being met, we'll have the ability to stop that. Under what authority and in what venue, if we disagree with the Corps whether or not those parameters are being in broken, what venue do we handle that disagreement? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Without wordsmithing that let me give you the general parameters that I foresee, and that is there are three parties to this agreement initially, and there are a lot of cooperating agencies and people who have interest to sit on committees, I'm not excluding them, but the fact is there are three principals, and those principals being the Corps, the Lee County Commission, and the Collier County Commission. The reason any one of those three entities should have equal and level authority in calling into question anything that's documented is because we're the three that should sign it or agree to it in principle as substantial parameters. If the Corps is saying, "We want your input, yet you will have no authority to enforce what we agree upon," then I think we get -- we are being sent a very clear message that we're not needed and that our input is not important. I'm not sensing that. What I'm sensing is just the opposite. That we are needed. That our input is critical, and that they will be willing to grant equal authority regarding the meeting of the study parameters to us. If they're not, then I think that's a signal we all have concern about. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But they may agree to that up front, but I'm saying if we get halfway through the study and we think the spirit of some of the parameters is not being met and they believe that they are, is there an entity that will settle that disagreement? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sure our senators and congressmen will be upset if an agreement that is signed by those parties is breached by a federal agency. You know, do -- you're right. The ultimate -- who does the ultimate authority rest with? It rests with the Army Corps of Engineers. They can do whatever study they want, but at some point you have to determine whether or not it's worth a good faith effort if everyone agrees on principle at the outset to be involved. So, you're right. I don't think we ultimately hold the hammer here, but I feel -- I sense that we're being given or the opportunity to be given authority in the direction of this study and we should take advantage of it. Commissioner Berry. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I don't see that there's anything that we can do. I mean, they're going to have a study. Let's be a part of deciding how and what direction we're gonna go. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think there's some things that we eventually can set as goals to come out of this, and the one entity or the one group of people we need at the table are people that do permitting for a living, because as I told the Army Corps folks in a meeting just a couple days ago, those are the people that can either verify what the Corps is saying to the balance of the group or challenge it, because they deal with the hoops every single day and they are good representatives of the private property owners because that's who hires them to get through all what the existing permitting hurdles are. So we need the permitting community to step forward and be a voice of reason, if you will, because you and I don't apply for nationwide permits every day. They do, and whether the process should be streamlined or made better, they're the best judge of. So I'll be requesting individuals from that community to serve. Commissioner Mac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And just in addition to that. I think another important component that I asked the folks from the Corps when I met with them to include is maybe representatives from a grass roots group like the president's council or someone who's not in the permitting business, but is in the living in Collier County business and wants to see how this is gonna affect, you know, living in Collier County, as opposed to the permitting folks. So I'd ask them to get in touch with president's council as a representative of just sort of grass roots community to include them in the process as well. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We want to be careful that these two standing committees don't get unwieldy. We've seen that happen in studies before. You get 40 people on a standing committee and nothing gets done. There have been discussions of professional facilitators. I think if we keep the standing committees at 20 or fewer people, we're not gonna get every single interest at the table in the standing committees. It's physically impossible, but I think we just, again, if we achieve that balance of interest, we're gonna have a product that can benefit the community. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But you're not suggesting the president's council is a bad inclusion? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Not at all. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Not at all. I'm just saying we need to define that, and not start dragging groups or enticing groups into it before what we know what their role could be is what I'm saying, whether it be the president's council or Audubon Society or anyone else. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I think that was my concern when I looked at some of the groups that had agreed to sign on here. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sort of one-sided it seemed to me. A lot of special interest and not very much general interest, and that's why I was looking for some -- president's council was my best idea as a general population kind of participant, among the others. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The notes I made there, you know, we need -- I mean, let's face it, builders or developers are a part of the balance. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Of course. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: They employ a lot of people in this community, but equal to that balance is someone whose interest is solely environmental. Again, that's the balance we need to see, so that the committee is diverse but not unwieldy. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And then just regular folks. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Regular folks. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And so that's what I was hoping president's council could help bring to the table. Hopefully, they'll agree. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Again, I think it's too early to name groups that make up those, but I'm sure there will be room for participation and when we bring it back next week, we're still not gonna have that level of specificity. That will come two months down the road when the parameters are developed and I, again, have said, I wouldn't ask this board to sign on to anything until the specific parameters of the project and the study are before us. Once we have that, we then have something tangible to comment on. Otherwise, we're just agreeing on principles. That, I think we can do, hopefully next week and go beyond that for a two-month stint down the road. Do we have any speakers on this, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, we do. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Speakers on my update? MR. FERNANDEZ: We have Mary Dunavan and Glen Dunavan, and one more. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Understand, folks, the board is taking no action today, other than hearing back a final report next week and there's no specific content at this point other than a draft agreement, so there's not a lot of action to be taken today. MS. DUNAVAN: Okay. I'm Mary Dunavan and I am speaking for TAG today, the Taxpayers' Action Group. As you notice, the ones that usually speak are on vacation. So I would like to read a resolution from TAG, July the 12th, 1997. Be it resolved that the Taxpayers' Action Group opposes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Colonel Rice's Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement study, which is PEIS, appearing before the Collier County Board of Commissioners. Whereas, Colonel Rice's white paper states that he will incorporate numerous studies to form a master plan, and one of these studies is the governor's commission on sustainable South Florida. The study recommends that the state legislature should authorize counties to enact without a referendum up to a one cent countywide sales tax for each of the next 10 years to capitalize funding pools to support infill development and redevelopment and otherwise assist in funding the implementation of the recommendation of the governor's commission. Whereas, the recommendations of the governor's commission includes: Number one, an increase in the density of multi-family residencies in urban areas. Number two, location of all residences within a five minute walking or biking distance of town centers, schools, community attractions. Number three, FDOT to prepare and submit legislation authorizing regional transportation funding authority. Number four, legislation should provide for a new dedicated source of funding for the authorities which could come from a regional gas tax, regional sales tax, regional agreement financing district or some other source or combination of funding sources. Whereas, the entire report seems intended to reverse long time low density housing desirability, the use of automobiles, the freedom of movement afforded by an automobile dependent society. Whereas, the intent is to tax automobiles to pay for public transit and other new taxes and layers of government and for new regulations foreign to our way of life in south Florida. Even the term sustainability is defined as sustainability can be looked at as an ecological constraint on human activities and a way to make deliberate ethical decisions to ensure that future generations meet their own needs. Therefore, let it be resolved that the Taxpayers' Action Group of Collier County opposes the PEIS agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and asks the Collier County Board of Commissioners not to enter into this agreement, and as a citizen -- speaking as a citizen now, not as TAG, but I have a lot of studies. I also have a briefcase full of studies that I have not been able to get into and recently I attended a meeting of Southwest Coast Eco System and Management Area Team met at the Natural Resources Center out on Immokalee Road, and by the way, if you do not know it, this is ongoing. The studies are ongoing, and you have county representatives sitting on these meetings, some of the planning departments and some of the others. I do not have their names. I don't have a list of the people that are meeting, but there were 35 people at this meeting, and they break up into sub-teams. There is no way I can possibly attend all these meetings by government. These are government and environmentalists and some are your forestry and like that. So when you're talking about this study from Colonel Rice, I believe it's a huge thing that will be -- the real things will not be brought out to you. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Glen Dunavan and then Nettie Phillips. MR. DUNAVAN: Good morning, county board members, Chairman Hancock. I'm Glen Dunavan and president of Citizens for Constitutional Property Rights. I thank you for letting me address you today. The programatic environmental impact statement as proposed by Colonel Rice on behalf of the Army Corps of Engineers, according to his white paper, will be comprised of studies already made. One of these studies named is the governor's commission on sustainable South Florida. It's 186 pages and here it is. This is one of the 200. Now, you've mentioned one. This is one of 200. You haven't mentioned the rest of them. There's over 200 of these studies and I feel that unless the county board has studied all 200 of these reports, which Colonel Rice intends to incorporate in his plan for Collier County, I don't think you should enter into any kind of agreement with it. Of course, you said there's going to be an agreement whether we enter into or not, as Pam said, but you and I have both seen a lot of agreements that they planned on us having that didn't materialize because there was an uproar from the community that said they didn't want them, and eventually, we didn't get them. So this is what we're concerned with today. Here's some of the quotes from this sustainable South Florida, which like I say is one of the 200. Sustainability can be looked on as an ecological constraint on human activity as Mary -- another idiotic statement such as this, on page 180 -- on 108. Although the ability to get along without automobiles in South Florida is quickly disappearing, proper urban design can help preserve this trend. I ask you, when in South Florida were we able to do without the automobile? Well, I'll tell you when -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: 1910, I think. MR. DUNAVAN: Pardon? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: 1910. MR. DUNAVAN: Yes, that's when we had horse power, and I suppose that's what they're intending on going back to. I don't know. Just before this is another idiotic statement, continue expansion of highway lines to increase capacity, reduce congestion and maintain acceptable levels of service, make public transit a more difficult option to implement. Well, yeah, I guess it would. On page 78, it refers to urban sprawl, meaning scattered decentralized low density development. This results in depletion of natural resources and an automobile dependent society. Again, they're gonna take our automobiles away. You might say people are not going along with losing the ability to have a single family dwelling on a few acres, which is what this means, well, on page 33, line 10, it states this is how to bring about change that will affect Floridians today and tomorrow in a manner that will ensure quality community development both economically and ecologically. On page 31, a global forum, not elaborated on who they were except that they were from around the world, developed gross -- grass roots initiative designed to monitor government and push sustainable -- sustainability efforts beyond what government processors were able to do. In other words, here is a world body going to enforce world regulations that local government can't. This all came about from the U.N. Earth Summit in 1992. One of the five documents designed -- signed was agenda 21. On line 43, agenda 21 is a means of enforcing -- of forcing, forcing now, the integration of environmental, economic and social planning at the state level and that it should be used as a tool for reconciling economic, environmental and development tensions and conflicts. I draw your attention again to forcing, which means using force, so that will take care of the people who might not want to go along with the plan. This is just two of over 200 studies to be adopted. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Dunavan? MR. DUNAVAN: If you haven't studied all these, you should not even consider -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me, Glen, that was your five minutes. You need to finish up. MR. DUNAVAN: Okay. So I thank you for letting me speak. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Glen. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Nettie Phillips. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As much as I think we can agree that there have been studies at times that have said things that are not in the best interest of this community the one difference here is that we're being asked to be a part of a study. We were never asked nor told that our input was even important in the study you cite, so that goes over the right shoulder and in the trash can after I get through the first three pages, because it had nothing to do with this community. We were not asked to be a part of it, so I agree with you there. That may be a difference here. We'll know in the short term, and again, I've got to ask, let's come back into this Army Corps study. Let's not get too far afield from that. MS. PHILLIPS: Again, for the record, my name is Nettie Phillips, speaking as a private property owner. Earth Summit 21, agenda 21, this is the world sustainable community development that they've come up with. It's a United Nations agenda. I support TAG's opposition to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Colonel Rice's Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Study, PEIS, appearing before the Board of Collier County Commissioners. Collier County and state government does not have to implement federal and United Nations agendas against Collier County and the State of Florida. To the Board of County Commissioners, I personally am holding my constitutional government accountable for our freedom and rights in this country. You are the breach to tyranny and a dictatorship in the United States. You and the state. You are it. Agenda 21, a program of action for sustainable development. Declaration on environment and development. The final text of agreements negotiated by government at the United Nations conference on environment and development, June 3 through the 14th, 1992, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. It all ties together. Conventional and biological diversity, a system of protected areas under article 25 of the global bio-diversity assessment and the world resources. There's 1200 pages to that. Under the global bio-diversity agreement of almost a thousand pages, we get the core areas, the buffers, and the sustainable community. From the biosphere we get the core areas, which comes from the Wild Lands Project of 1992. We can thank Reese Noss for that, the Nature's Conservancy, the Audubon Society and the Sierra Club. In America the core habitat will be 50 percent. No human intrusion. Buffer zones, 25 percent. Limited use with permits. Twenty-five percent sustainable communities. Back to the agrarian age of the 1400's. Clinton created the commission on sustainable development by executive order in 1993. The information comes from the government printing office on sustainable America. We are dealing with the environmental agenda coming down through the United Nations. The common man is not accredited with United Nations and un-American activity to our constitutional republic, American Sovereignty, constitutional property rights, our freedoms in opposition to slavery or a dictatorship as we have in the other countries of the world. However, the environmental organizations are accredited with the United Nations. We are dealing with the environmental agenda coming down through the United Nations by the way of NGO's, non-government organizations telling our supposed constitutional government what to do. They setup agendas and maneuver our government to agendas. Let's go back to resources. Private property taken for parks and preserves. Colonel Rice agrees to this because I have it on video. When we take the parks and preserves from the -- when we take the private land from the citizens and we turn it into parks and preserves, we say we're going to sustain this for your use, for your children and your grandchildren's. Guess what, 68 percent of the parks and preserves are turned over to the United Nations and controls and agendas through biosphere and heritage sites taken away from American property owners. This is American resources given away through biosphere and heritage sites. This is un-American. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we reel this back to the topic at hand before your five minutes are up? MS. PHILLIPS: Yes, this is all to do with a sustainable communities, which comes from the eco-system management areas, which comes -- all of this from the United Nations, and why are we having to go through an agenda that's a U.N. agenda? I mean, I just gave you-all the documents where the sustainable development comes from. It's all in this agenda. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I'm sorry, Ms. Phillips, when was the last time this board approved sustainable Southwest Florida as a part of our comp plan? MS. PHILLIPS: Commissioner? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just answer the question, please. Did we ever adopt that? MS. PHILLIPS: Commissioner, I believe we have five minutes to tell you why we would like for our board not to support certain issues, and support the property owners, and when you go to these meetings with Colonel Rice, et cetera, there is an agenda and they may give you 10 items, but I can assure you through -- going through all of their documents, that if you come up with three or four, it's gonna maneuver right back to their agenda. I mean, you look like you're participating. At the eco-systems management area just a few days back, we went to that. Guess what, this is basically NGO's with some government. The public usually doesn't even acknowledge -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ms. Phillips, was that a yes or no? I mean, I just asked you a simple question. MS. PHILLIPS: I don't have all the documents to give the date on when you do or do not do something. We're just asking you as public citizens not to go along with certain agendas. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. A VOICE: I can answer that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You cannot, sir. It's out of order. I'm sorry. Thank you. MS. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm not an attorney. So I didn't bring a lot of legal documents. I just brought the one book that has all of this information in this agenda. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, Ms. Phillips, and no one on this board has ever been asked to adopt, approve or implement anything in that book nor have we and that's my point. MS. PHILLIPS: Well, the point is when you do have these meetings, there is an agenda and if there's 10 items on there or 50 -- or 15, they may take two or three of the items off, but before the deal is over, they maneuver the government back to their agenda. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Ms. Phillips. I'm sorry, Glen, you had your time, and that's -- we can't let people come back up. I appreciate it, but -- MR. DUNAVAN: Well, I can explain. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No, we can't have comments from the audience because the court reporter can't get them on the record, Glen. Thank you. I appreciate it, but, you know, make an appointment with me. We can talk about it then. MR. FERNANDEZ: We have no other speakers on this subject. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. This requires no action by the board, other than unless there is -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You can bring it back next week. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, I'll bring it back next week in some form of general principle agreement, hopefully, and we'll get a chance to act on it then. Okay. What we have is we're coming up on the noon hour. I counted and we have seven public hearing items after public hearing comment today. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm gonna ask the board that we -- we humor me by working through the lunch hour. I got a couple of things I need to try to achieve before the end of the business day, that if we take an hour, an hour and 15 minute break, it will be tougher to achieve by the end of the business day. I think other than backflow, all the other items should go pretty quick. They're seven and a half foot variances. Four point five acres of property. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What time do we have a replacement for the court reporter coming? THE COURT REPORTER: One o'clock. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's do this. Let's go ahead through public comment and unless the board objects, we'll continue and take a recess for the court reporter change at one o'clock. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I appreciate it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I haven't heard an objection, so I assume that's an acceptable path. Okay. Public comments, Mr. Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman, before we take general public comment, I'd just like to announce that Mr. John Farquhar has asked to speak on an issue that has been continued. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Please -- I'm sorry, there's another item before public comment. Please go ahead with that. I know you had some folks that had registered. MR. FERNANDEZ: And one Harilyn R. Bell asked to speak on an item that is to be continued. She's also asked to speak on a public comment item. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. That's allowable under public comment, but if the item's been continued it won't be called, so they need to register differently if they wish to be heard. Item #10B DISCUSSION REGARDING THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE UTILITY REGULATION ORDINANCE - TO BE BROUGHT BACK ON AUGUST 5, 1997 Actually, there was an add on system item, item 10(B), discussion regarding requirements for reconsideration of utility regulation ordinance by Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, last week we did the utility regulation ordinance. Two things. One, we gave preference to those people who actually live in the areas that are being regulated and we gave two extra seats right now, three prior to last week, three seats were given preference for those who had some level of expertise. I just misread the item. I thought we had removed that and I'm just gonna bring it back for reconsideration. I had no comment last week because I misread the item and that's completely my fault, but we had some discussion as to whether to make all five of those have requirements, for some expertise or whether to have regular lay people have some representation on there, and I thought we had taken that one portion out and I just simply misread the item. So I'll bring that back, but under our law I need to do that with six days' notice before it appears on the agenda, so I'll do it next week, but I wanted to let you-all know what was coming up and why. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. All right. With that, we are to -- nothing under constitutional officers, so we'll go to public comment. How many do we have? PUBLIC COHMENT - HARILYN BELL RE AGENDA CHANGES MR. FERNANDEZ: We have one public comment. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: Harilyn Bell. MS. BELL: My name is Harilyn Bell and I'm a citizen here of Naples. I noticed on the agenda there was a recommendation to consider the application by Media One Enterprises and then it was canceled when I got here this morning. Now, if someone hadn't told me this, I would have sat here all day waiting for it. Is there any way that you people can put some kind of a board outside that lets citizens know what has been canceled, so that they're not sitting here all day? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's not a bad idea because unless you're here at the beginning of the meeting -- it is announced at the beginning of the meeting on all items that have been continued, but if you're here 10 minutes after 9, Mr. Fernandez, that doesn't sound like a bad idea. MR. FERNANDEZ: We'll work something out to do that. MS. BELL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's the kind of public comment I like. Constructive. Anything else? MR. FERNANDEZ: No other speakers registered. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Were we gonna let those other people speak during public comment? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Not unless they filed under public comment, which is kind of the way we do things here. You fill out a slip if you want to speak Okay. We are to item 12(A), under advertised public hearings. I'll tell you what, just for the court reporter, let's take five quick minutes. Give her a little bit of a break and we'll be right back. (Whereupon, a break was taken from 11:55 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.) Item #12A1 PETITION CP-97-1, HARTIN D. PINCKNEY, P.E., REPRESENTING HARTIN FRIHBERGER/AMYJERDE, REQUESTING A SHALL SCALE AMENDMENT TO THE MARCO ISLAND FUTURE LAND USE HAP OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIALL TO COHMUNITY COHMERCIAL ON .54 ACRES OF PROPERTY - DENIED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good afternoon. We're going to reconvene the Board of County Commissioners after that brief dexterity break. Item -- can I have your attention, folks? Item 12(A), under comprehensive plan amendments, Petition CP-97-1, Martin Pinckney, representing Martin Frimberger, Amy Jerde. This is a small scale amendment on Marco. Let me ask this, would all members of the Petitioner's team, the public and staff that are here on this item please stand and raise your right hand and be sworn in. Madam court reporter, would you please swear them in? (All speakers on this issue were sworn.) COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, before we start on this item, let's recall that we have spent two and a half years or more on Marco Island getting a Master Plan put together and putting it through the county -- the planning commission and the county commission, the DCA, and for us to come in and start modifying the plan, I think is just not in the best interest of all the process that we've gone through in the first place. I'm certainly willing to hear the proposal, but this is really not in line with the two and a half to three year effort that we put in previously to get where we were. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The Master Plan is how many months old? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Not very many, and there have been all these years of opportunity for someone to make this request while the plan was being formulated. So it's going to be very difficult for me to try to support any kind of modification to the plan at this point in time. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Understood, but you know in fairness -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I just wanted to make that known to staff. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We need to hear the issue and we'll start with staff presentation. MS. PRESTON: For the record, Debrah Preston, senior planner with the comprehensive planning section. The item before you today is to amend the Marco Island Future Land Use Hap, which is part of the Marco Island Master Plan, from low density residential to community commercial. The petition is a small scale amendment because it is less than 10 acres and there are no proposed changes to the goals, policies or objectives of the plan. Martin Pinckney is representing Martin Frimberger and Amy Jerde who are requesting to change the land use designation from low density residential to community commercial on .54 acres. The amendment is necessary in order for the petitioner to apply for a rezoning for the property from RSF-4 to C-1 to accommodate a parking lot. The commercial -- which is the commercial professional district. However, the subject of this hearing is only to consider the appropriateness of the land use change for the subject site, and to see if it meets the intent of the Marco Island Master Plan. At this point, I'd like to go to the Future Land Use Hap and show you the subject site and the surrounding property. The subject site is lots 10, 11 and 12, which face on Marco Road. Lot 10 is currently vacant and zoned RSF-4. Lots 11 and 12 have a single family unit on it, which is used as a day care facility and has a conditional use permit on that day care since 1985. Next door to the subject site is lots 7, 8 and 9, which are currently vacant, were included in community commercial district at the time of the adoption hearing, and the owner of that property has submitted a fezone petition to go to C-1. Next to that property is C-1 zoning. The medical facility is there and the fire station is also there. Directly behind the subject property is vacant residential property zoned RSF-4. There is a single family built house on the remainder of lot 12 and lot 13. The rest of the property across the street is vacant property zoned RSF-4 and within the low density residential district, and there is a built RMF facility across the street from the subject site. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Am I correct in looking at this, that there is no commercial development of C-2 or greater adjacent to this lot? MS. PRESTON: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So this is, in essence, a C-1 use surrounded by vacant or built residential single family uses? MS. PRESTON: Yes, except for the multi-family right across the street. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Across the street. I'm sorry. Please continue. MS. PRESTON: The community commercial district in the Marco Island Master Plan does not specify the zoning districts that are permitted. The community commercial district as stated in the Marco Island Master Plan is to provide for centers of activity that serve the needs of the surrounding community. It is staff's recommendation to adopt the small scale amendment to the Marco Island Future Land Use Map of the Marco Island Master Plan by ordinance and forward that to DCA for its review to find out if it is in compliance. Staff further recommends that the amendment be approved contingent on the property owner's willingness to fezone the property to low intensity commercial or C-i, and that adequate buffering be required along the east portion of the property to buffer single family dwelling units and to the rear of the property, so that any new development would also be buffered from the day care facility. Staff also recommends that the Marco Island overlay district that was adopted into the LDC not too long ago be amended to include this property as part of the community center districts subdistrict and that we add into that some architectural design guidelines to make sure that the residential character of that commercial development would be maintained. If you have questions at this time, I'd be more than happy to answer them and the petitioner is also available. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any questions of staff? Seeing none, let's go to the petitioner. MR. PINCKNEY: For the record, my name is Martin Pinckney of American Engineering Consultants, representing Martin Frimberger and Amy Jerde. I appreciate Ms. Preston's presentation. I don't -- what I really -- the only thing I really want to add is that we feel that this amendment of the plan, which would allow a fezone to community commercial, is consistent with the fezone application of the property adjacent to that to the west and the other existing community commercial property on the corner and surrounding this intersection and also consistent with the use of the property as a conditional use for the past 12 years. I would also -- I would be willing to entertain any questions or -- from the board at this -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Pinckney, did you say that the property's been used as a conditional use for 12 years? MR. PINCKNEY: Well, I understand it has been from -- since 1985, it has had been a conditional provisional use as a day care center. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And has it operated as such? MR. PINCKNEY: Yes, I believe it has. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And this is the sub parcel we're talking about? MR. PINCKNEY: The subject parcels, there's one -- approximately one and a half lots, which have the day care center located on it since that time and the other vacant lot that's between -- to the west of that, between that and the property that's currently under application for fezone is -- that's vacant. That one parcel's vacant, which would be -- the petitioner's plan at the present would be to expand that parking lot onto that lot for the day care center. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Was it, Ms. Preston? MS. PRESTON: I'm sorry, repeat the question. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: An application has been made for fezone in the immediate area also; is that true? MS. PRESTON: For lots 7, 8, 9, that property is vacant right now. It's just to the west of the subject site and they've come in for a C-1 fezone application with the intent to put in some medical offices. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that meets the Marco Island Master Plan, because it's in the commercial -- MS. PRESTON: The community commercial district. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- community commercial. And the property that we're looking at today, though, is the next three lots? MS. PRESTON: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And one and a half of those three lots has a conditional use for a day care and they want to expand the day care or just to add parking; which is it? MS. PRESTON: I believe it is just to add parking on lot 10 which is currently vacant. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Which they can do under conditional use. MS. PRESTON: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But by requesting a C-1 zoning that may very well change the value of the property, not to mention the potential uses. MS. PRESTON: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The problem I have is C-1 zoning has long been a transitional zoning district from residential uses to higher intensity commercial. This doesn't meet that criteria. This is basically stand alone, C-1 type zoning. If they wish to increase the parking area for the day care center a conditional use would be appropriate, but C-1 zoning that commits this property to a breadth of other uses, when there's no transitional need in the immediate area, to me is just not consistent. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But if the -- a big assumption, of course, it may just be that they are out ahead of the curve, but if the three lots to their west were approved, in their C-1 application, then it would just be a continuation. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right, but it's a leap frog continuation in a sense. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, if those three -- if I've got my map right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I understand what you're saying. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. ANd they're gonna be hard-pressed to turn down the C-1 fezone when it's within the community commercial district and then we're talking about an existing commercial use immediately adjacent to those, what is in all likelihood will be C-1. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, you've got to remember the intent of C-i, again, is not to have strips of C-1. That's basically become strip-zoning. So the intent of C-1 was those parcels that may not be wholly appropriate for solely residential use can have a residential appearance, a lower impact than a higher intensity commercial, but meld in and create the transition. What you're talking about is a de facto extension. If we approve these three, we might as well approve the next five. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the next 10 and the next 20. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And the next thing you know, that logic is it's a strip of C-1 without any real basis for it. So I -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What's the staff rationale for recommending approval? MS. PRESTON: Well, that it is -- has been a day care center and if it remains a day care center, which the petitioner has said that that's what his intent is, that it would just carry on that C-1 zoning and that the next lot, the rest of 12 and 13, does have a single family home on it, so that would be the end of any further development of commercial use. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We could accomplish the parking center expansion with a conditional application under the existing designation, and that's where it sounds to me like we ought to go. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If that's the intent, I think that was a procedural error on the applicant or petitioner's part. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Probably, I mean -- they're trying to change -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let's take thirty seconds. (A brief recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's reconvene the meeting. Are there any other speakers on this, Mr. Fernandez? Does anyone have any more questions for the petitioner? MR. FERNANDEZ: Oh. I'm sorry. There is one. Art Segal. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Pinckney, thank you. Mr. Segal, are you here? There you are. MR. PATTERSON: Yeah. Mr. Segal had to go. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We'll need you on the microphone so the court reporter can get it. Thank you. MR. PATTERSON: My name is William Patterson. I'm with the Marco Island Civic Association. Art Segal had to take his wife to the doctor and I'll speak for him. I think you're being mislead a little bit on the additional -- the applicant for the dental office next door. The dental office also includes one lot on the next street over, which is Tahiti, I believe. Yeah. Lot 29 on Tahiti. I don't believe that would be -- he would have adequate parking if he were not allowed to have that lot on Tahiti. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Are you saying that that would be across the street on Tahiti? MR. PATTERSON: Yeah. It'll be on the next street over. It'll back up to -- so I don't think that would be approved, so I think you're -- we're talking about a -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's important. MR. PATTERSON: Yes. -- re-zoning something that's -- that wouldn't work anyway. So we're opposed to it by spot zoning in that the property next door would not be approved at this time. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: For the record, I did receive a letter from the Marco Island Civic Association stating that position and I don't know of any other correspondence I have on this item. Commissioner Norris, would you enter that for the record? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I sure can. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Any questions? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm sorry. I just, you know, there's two reasons why this -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. There's two reasons why this should not be approved today. Actually, three. The first one is that, as you pointed out, you would have to start extending the Marco Island zoning overlay, which we've already gone through for all this period. Second of all, this can be accomplished without, without going through this process, also as you pointed out, with a conditional use. And the third thing is, if it's re-zoned to C-i, it's C-1 for the future and something else could be put in there at some other point in time, which wouldn't be the purpose of what we're asking for now. for those reasons I make a motion to deny. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. Is there a discussion on the motion? Seeing none. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Miss Preston. Item #12C3 ORDINANCE 97-33, BACKFLOW CROSS-CONNECTION CONTROL ORDINANCE FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER/SEWER AND GOODLAND WATER DISTRICT - ADOPTED UTILIZING OPTION FOUR We are to item-- let's see. 12(C) (1) was continued, (C) (2) was continued. Item 12 (C)(3), recommendation to adopt a Backflow Cross-Connection Control Ordinance for the Collier County Water/Sewer and Goodland Water District. Mr. Ilschner, good afternoon. MR. ILSCHNER: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, commissioners. For the record, Ed Ilschner, Public Works Administrator, I-L-S-C-H-N-E-R. We're bringing today an ordinance that we brought to you approximately one year ago. And this ordinance dealt with creating a program to prevent cross-connections in the community, or backflows that would affect the community's water supply. Those requirements were dictated by state law and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection regulations. There were a number of components in that original ordinance that we briefed to you that were objectionable. Number 1, we had a single family component in their retrofit program that -- there were questions dealing with how those programs would be costed or how they would be paid for. Number 2, we brought to you that program -- and we had an above-ground valve. Mike, if you will assist me. This was part of our program that was very objectionable from the standpoint of aesthetics in a single-family environment. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: By part of our program, you mean part of everyone's front yard in Collier County? MR. ILSCHNER: That is correct, Hr. Chairman. For those reasons the board rejected that ordinance and asked that we go back to the drawing board, redraft the ordinance, remove a single-family component, conduct some meetings with the local plumbing community to talk about issues related to implementation of the ultimate ordinance would be brought back to the board and then bring that revised ordinance back to the board. In the interim I came to Collier County. And one of the things that was brought to me as one of my first chores was to look at this issue. And it seemed to me that we ought to address whether we could address this aesthetic issue of above-ground in every single family lot in Collier County. So the staff was asked to research that and see if we could use a doublecheck valve in lieu of an aboveground RPZ valve. The staff researched that and went to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and we were advised that that would be fine, that we could use that in a revised program. Also, we were notified by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection that we were now in violation of state law in that we did not have in place the required backflow prevention control program. So today we're here before you bringing this program back to you, asking you to consider this program as it is now a requirement of state law, and we also want to point out several facts that have changed. Number 1, we're going to bring to you now this device as part of the principal program. So -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Shown by the lovely Vanna Clemons there. Sorry. I couldn't avoid that one. MR. ILSCHNER: So, our new programming we're bringing to you today will involve the use of this device which will be completely underground so that we won't have this device aboveground. Now, let me be frank with you. There will be some cases where, because of a high hazard situation, for example, with a lake that's supplying irrigation water where we have potential parasitic contamination of the supply, where we will have to use this high hazard device called an RPZ valve, and there will be those cases. We are building into the ordinance an option, however, for those areas. If they choose to install a central filtering system, then we could eliminate this aboveground valve and go also with a doublecheck valve. So I think, with respect to the aesthetic issue, hopefully this is addressed now in this revised ordinance that we're bringing to you. We in the original ordinance presented four options for implementation of this program with respect to its cost. Staff recommendation was at that time, in the original presentation, and is today, option number 4, which is an option entailing 5.301 million dollars to implement this program. The program would be implemented over a five-year period, with the first year of that program designed to address the high hazard areas. That program would go out to the private sector and be performed by the private sector, and it would total approximately 3.49 million dollars. And it would address the very high hazard initial areas of the community. Then over the next four years, and inclusive of the initial year, approximately 1.8 million dollars of work, retrofit work, would be performed by county staff, and that would be done in conjunction with our meter change-out program over that five-year period. This program, with its retrofitting element, covers all existing properties that would be required to have some type of device in place. We would determine that by a survey that would go out in the water and sewer belts to determine the existing locations. That's how we would make that determination. But based on our current knowledge we feel the program would total about 5.3 million dollars, and would be a joint program between private sector and county. The funding option, we feel like that, after looking at the financial plan for the water and sewer district, which we have finished developing, it's a five to ten-year plan, and looking at the associated capital improvements plan that interfaces with that, that this retrofitting program can be accomplished without a cost to anyone with an existing facility and not impact our rate fares at all within the system. The cost to future participants -- in other words, we build a new house or build a new building, there certainly will be a cost there but it will be very similar to the current program we have for obtaining a water meter, you would simply have an additional user fee. How much would this fee be? We estimate, based on the small units of installation, about $150 total, and on the larger units going up to roughly $250. Those would be paid for at the time of obtaining the building permit, et cetera. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to answer any questions or have our staff, if I'm not able to answer the question, answer the question for you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Ilschner. Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One question for you and then a couple questions for the county attorney. Roughly 5.3 millions dollars cost to effect this? MR. ILSCHNER: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But at no additional cost to the existing utility customer? MR. ILSCHNER: That is correct, sir. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If for some reason we didn't have to do this program, how much of a reduction would each rate payer likely see from 5.3 million dollars, that apparently we have, over and above standard service? MR. ILSCHNER: Excellent question. What we're doing is we're adjusting capital projects to a few years in the out years which we feel won't impact this in order to use accrued funds at this time. So they're not -- we're not using funds that we don't need to expend to implement this program. We're simply trying to accommodate the program without impacting the rate payer. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. Mr. Weigel, we had this discussion about a year ago, and I realize we're required -- I think we're all agreed we're required by state law to create a program, but we're given some discretion within the scope of a program what exactly that will be and how we're going to implement it. My recollection is that when it was before this board, we had concern about single family homes and particularly about retrofitting. And I'm wondering, I need a definitive opinion from you. My recollection was last year we were told that didn't have to be part of it, we had to have a program but it didn't get into the specifics. Has that, and I think maybe it has? I don't know. But has that changed since we had the discussion a year ago? MR. WEIGEL: Actually, I don't think it's changed. This kind of question comes up about once every three or four years it seems like with the board, and that is, where there's a statutory or regulatory requirement and the county may be considering opting for something less than that requirement, with the county attorney signing off for legal sufficiency. And we have done so cautiously, with the caveat that we are giving or attempting to give the regulator -- in this case the state regulator -- significantly more than they would have had if we did nothing, but we at that time thought that there was an opportunity that they would accept what we gave was enough. And since that time the rather specific communications that DEP has had with staff are that no, in fact the single-family home element is something that does have to be addressed within this and they are holding that kind of negative incentive of non-approval of significant requirements the county has concerning some of its capital structures in other permitting needs that the county has. So we really haven't changed, but what we were signing off on a year ago, or would have, would have been, the best that the board would have allowed at that time and we were going to see if DEP would have accepted it. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You know, I initially on this, I balked at two things. I balked at the state forcing something down our throat without ever talking to us, which is a regular occurrence but still uncomfortable. And the second thing I balked at was the fact that we would have to explain to our constituents why this ugly monster got placed in their front yard, and somehow they don't like the explanation of, "Call your state representative." That doesn't seem to work very well because it's our crews that are installing these things. So those two things combined caused me concern. But on the mitigating side of that, I live in a neighborhood where a lot of people have irrigation wells, and they are shallow wells. And you can go out and shut your own water off at the meter, and you can go out and make this connection -- once it was explained to me, so easily, that it's scary. And what bothered me is, if somebody in my neighborhood does that, makes that connection and we have a down time in service, I can be giving my family and we could be drinking basically their shallow well water. I've learned to say cryptosporidian through this, which I'm really proud of. But we could be drinking contaminated water. If we can eliminate that eventuality reasonably and not impact the rate payer, whether the state's forcing our hand or not, it's something we ought to consider. I've kind of come full circle on this. I think it's something we need to do because of -- as we start to see the irrigation problems we're having and restrictions increase on irrigation, you're going to see people doing all kinds of strange things to try and make up for, you know, for the dis-incentive to irrigate lawns and so forth. So I'm supportive of what staff has recommended here. I think they've done a good job in twisting the state's arm a little bit to get them to agree to something that is less offensive visually. Instead of a five-year implementation, is there a problem with a seven-year implementation or a -- again, looking for flexibility, due to it being a five million dollar project, I don't want to put ourselves behind the eight ball in getting this thing installed, if we go that way. MR. ILSCHNER: We have based the five-year plan based on what we know at this point in time based on our knowledge of what is out in the field. Certainly that program could be extended out, if necessary, based on our results of our survey, if we determine that a great deal more work needs to be performed, yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Further questions, comments? Do we have speakers on this, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I was concerned about the same things you were, the unfunded mandate aspect of this thing, essentially, the unsightliness of the things in the single-family homes, and the cost, especially with retrofit. Our Mr. Ilschner can't do anything about the unfunded mandate but he's done a very good job on the other two items. The other question I had in our first discussion was -- it's really sort of moot -- but just out of curiosity, are we addressing a problem that really doesn't exist and do we have any instances, documented instances other than the handful that were cited before? MR. ILSCHNER: Mr. Chairman, let me call on Hike Newman. He's got more history information than I. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Uh-huh. MR. NEWMAN: Good afternoon, commissioners. For the record, Hike Newman, your Water Director. We've documented several cases where actual cross-connections have occurred. We had a couple within Pelican Bay that had their tense water connected to their home and their potable water connected to their irrigation system and were like that for three or four months. And they were drinking, cooking and showering with that and they continually complained of problems and eventually our staff was called in and we identified that problem and it was subsequently corrected. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But, Mr. Newman, that's really not the problem that we're addressing here. That's a similar error in original connection, was it not? MR. NEWMAN: That is true. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So that's not really the problem that we're -- MR. NEWMAN: No. That is the -- we're dealing with the potential for connections to occur or actual connections that have occurred in protecting the county's system from that contamination that may occur from that, that connection from entering back into that system and possibly being transmitted to other customers downstream. If the, if your question is, is, have we documented medically that there has been disease transmitted through the water system, that is not the case because we do not have the facilities to do that and I don't believe that the County Health Department currently investigates those types of complaints. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, the point is that if our staff is all in agreement that state law is going to require us to do this, this little discussion is moot, but it's just, a point of curiosity, we do seem to be addressing a problem that's really not out there in practical terms. I mean, maybe there's a few, but it's not like it's a widespread problem that needs to be immediately addressed. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So once again -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: In any case, we have to do it, so -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. Any further questions? Is there a motion? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion to approve staff's recommendation number -- option number 4. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is there -- COHMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A motion and a second. Discussion on the motion? Seeing none. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? MR. CONSTANTINE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries, 4-1. Thank you, gentlemen. Item #12C4 BUDGET AMENDMENT RESOLUTION 97-3, APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 1996-97 ADOPTED BUDGET - ADOPTED We are to Item 12(C)(4), this is -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, we've seen these before and considered them before. I'll make a motion we go ahead and approve the item, as soon as he closes the public hearing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I will close the public hearing and -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Now I will make a motion that we approve these items. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: ANy discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none. Is there a motion that should one commissioner get a drink from Baskin Robbins they ask the other commissioners if they would like a shake? COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All right. I'll share, whatever. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So moved. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You've all got to get your own straw, though. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I am extremely jealous. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No one gets a fair shake here. Item #12C5 BUDGET AMENDMENT RESOLUTION 97-4, APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 1996/97 ADOPTED BUDGET - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We are at Item 12(C)(5). Again -- wait a second. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Close -- yeah. That's it. Close public hearing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: This is -- these are different budget amendments. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's correct, second and third quarter. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Did you close the public hearing? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, I did. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Wild birds out in the hallway? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That or a taxpayer being raked over the coals in the hall. MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: I've asked Mr. Smykowski to make a very brief announcement to the board regarding the actual specific figure on the aggregate millage. It changes as a result of rounding and I think it's important to read the revised figure into the -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's correct. As reported last week, the aggregate millage was 4.4907. We round to the nearest hundred dollars in all cases but the way the truth in millage calculation is actually performed and the way the state would verify our -- the accuracy of our aggregate millage calculation is actually multiplying the taxable value for each district times the appropriate millage rate with the unfounded figures. And due to rounding to the nearest hundred dollars, the aggregate millage is one ten thousandth different than reported last week. Instead of 4.4907 it rounds to 4.4908, and I just wanted to clarify that for the record. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good grief. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Headline, "Taxes Increase." COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'm shocked. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What's that, one cent on a hundred thousand dollars? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Not even. MR. SMYKOWSKI: But the official documentation provided to the property appraiser with that calculation would reflect the 4.4908, and I wanted to clarify that for purposes of the record today. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Boy, I'm glad you did because I've been worrying about that all this time. I'm certainly glad you clarified that for us. MR. SMYKOWSKI: My conscience is clean now. So thank you. Item #12C6 - Continued to August 5, 1997 Item #13A1 - Continued to September 9, 1997 Item #13A2 RESOLUTION 97-303, RE PETITION V-96-31, DANIEL TETLOW, JR., REQUESTING A 7.25 FOOT DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE FROM THE SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT OF 7.5 FEET TO ALLOW AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNIT TO REMAIN AT .25 FEET FROM THE WESTERLY SIDE PROPERTY LINE IN AN RSF-4 ZONING DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN NAPLES MANOR SUBDIVISION, UNIT 1, BLOCK 4, LOTS 8, SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 505, RANGE 26E - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All right. We're to Item 12(C)(6). This is a petition -- COHMISSIONER BERRY: Isn't it -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Continued. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Wait a second, this is continued. Never mind. We're to Item 13(A)(2), petition V-96-31, a variance, Daniel Tetlow, Jr., requesting a dimensional variance from a side yard setback. This is a -- this is a quasi judicial matter so the petitioner, any members of the public wishing to speak on this item, and staff, please stand and raise your right hand. Madam Court Reporter, would you swear the only person apparently giving testimony in? (The speaker was sworn.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good afternoon. MS. HURRAY: Good afternoon. Susan Murray, current planning staff. Mr. Chairman, you-all continued or tabled this at the February 25th, 1997, meeting. Would you like me or prefer me to give a very abridged version or would you like me to go back through the -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, I'll tell you what. This is the one that we didn't want to give a running variance to the property for the, for the -- for successive structures. We wanted to run only with structure. MS. HURRAY: Exactly. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's an existing variance and we now are able to do that. Is that correct? MS. HURRAY: That is correct. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: One of our new conditional variances. MS. HURRAY: That is correct. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Isn't that correct? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Does anyone need further explanation from staff? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve the conditional variance. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a pair of seconds. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ms. Murray, fine presentation. MS. MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Item #13A3 RESOLUTION 97-304, RE PETITION CU-97-14, PAUL TATEO, TRUSTEE, AS CONTRACT BUYER FOR WR REALTY PARTNERS, REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE OF THE C-4 ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A DRY MARINA, NEW AND USED BOAT AND EQUIPMENT SALES AND RELATED SERVICE WORK FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF BALD EAGLE DRIVE AND WINDWARD DRIVE, FURTHER DESCRIBED AS LOT 11, BLOCK 776, MARCO BEACH, UNIT 4 REPLAT, IN SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 525, RANGE 26E, CONSISTING OF 0.94+/- ACRES - ADOPTED Item 13(A)(3), another conditional use. Again, I'm going to ask all members of petition CU-97-14, Paul Tateo, Trustee, as contract buyer for WR Realty Partners and staff to stand and raise your right hand. Madam Court Reporter? (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good afternoon, Mr. Reischl. MR. REISCHL: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, commissioners. Fred Reischl, Planning Services. This is a request for a conditional use on Marco Island within the Marco Island town center, mixed use district. It's at the northeast corner of the intersection of Bald Eagle Drive and Windward Drive in an area that's zoned C-4. To the east are lots that are zoned C-5. In the C-4 district -- this conditional use, by the way, is for boat sales and a dry marina. In the C-5 district, those are permitted uses. In the C-4 district they are conditional. That's why I bring up the fact that it's adjacent to other C-5 zoned property. The Planning Commission looked at a number of issues with this project, and one that they added a condition to was the driveway on Bald Eagle Drive, which is shown on your staff report as an entrance and exit. The Planning Commission, through our Transportation Services staff, recommended that this be a right turn or -- excuse me, exit only, not right turn, but exit only. And that was the only condition added by the Planning Commission. It's consistent with the Marco Island zoning overlay district. It has applied for and been granted a waiver of archeological and historic resources prior to coming to you, and staff recommends approval. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Questions for staff? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Reischl, I understand that this petitioner and the Marco Island Civic Association worked out a number of stipulations? MR. REISCHL: That's my understanding. I haven't spoken to the Civic Association in a while, but, according to the petitioner, that's what I understand. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, are those stipulations incorporated into our material that we're going to be voting on today? That's my question. MR. REISCHL: No. I haven't seen any stipulations. I think it may be differences to the deed restrictions rather than county zoning ordinance. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Which, as we all know, we have no authority to enforce deed restrictions, however, we like to see people get along, so -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I think we'll hear from one of the members of the Marco Island Civic Association. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed. MR. REISCHL: Well, this will have to meet the county architectural standards and it's within an activity center so it will also have to meet the increased landscape buffers of an activity center. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Further questions for Mr. Reischl? Seeing none. Is the petitioner here? Sir, were you sworn in? MR. WALKER: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Come on up. MR. WALKER: Good afternoon. My name is Jim Walker and I own Walker's Marina and I am the petitioner. I brought today a rendering that might enable you to have a better flavor for what the project may look like and I'm really here to answer any questions that you may have on it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Before posting that, if any board finds it -- member finds it necessary, Commissioner Norris has referenced some type of an agreement with the Marco Island Civic Association regarding just compatibility issues. Are you aware of an agreement that has been reached? MR. WALKER: Yes. I have signed an agreement with them. I believe that they have it to furnish to you today. They had some questions about the project. I am pleased to say that we were able to work those out before we brought it into this arena. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are there any questions of Mr. Walker at this time? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What we'd like to do is, in case there's any questions on this -- and you can show it if you like. You probably paid good money for it. MR. WALKER: I did, so I would like to show it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's amazing what those fine architectural standards have done to our community, isn't it? What a fine idea my colleagues came up with. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Support it. MR. WALKER: Just so there's no confusion, Mr. Chairman, this hasn't been reviewed by our architect, so I -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, we reserve the right to hammer anybody. Thank you, Mr. Reischl. I'm just kidding. Public speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: You have one, Mr. Art Segal. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that Austin Healey going to be parked there all the time? Okay. MR. PATTERSON: I'm William Patterson from the Marco Island Civic Association. Again, Mr. Art Segal couldn't be here. We have come to an agreement. We had a -- many conferences with Mr. Walker and he agreed to these and he was very cooperative. There are five -- six stipulations that we had, that any county approval will include a stipulation that no outside boat display or storage be permitted. The only signage on the entire project will be a county-approved, ground-based sign. The north wall of the loading dock shall be a full height privacy wall. That's really around the other side. And the parking area toward the back of the building on the north side shall be a solid, structural private wall that includes screening -- screening the dumpster. Number 5, there shall be either a scrubbed or structural privacy wall at the rear end wall of the building, south of Windward Drive, to screen the parking lot. That's on this side, and that was agreed to. The applicant agrees to not park boats or store any material or boats on any adjacent properties. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. SEGAL: We hope and wish him well on his new endeavor. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I assume what's shown in the rendering, it does not constitute outside storage because it's covered, is that correct and agreed upon? MR. PATTERSON: Yeah. This is right. Yeah. We agreed to this. This is not outside storage. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Need you on the microphone, unfortunately. I know it's impossible to point over there, but -- MR. PATTERSON: The signage is the only thing we had a problem with. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And we're trying to make signage on Marco Island, as you know, the new sign ordinance. And I don't know that this would -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We've heard a few things about that. MR. PATTERSON: Yeah. I guess you have. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. PATTERSON: But Mr. Walker was very cooperative with us, and we work very well together. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It looks like a higher quality project -- MR. PATTERSON: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- than most boat dealerships we deal with. MR. PATTERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You've read those into the record. I need confirmation from Mr. Walker that he agrees with those stipulations. MR. WALKER: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let the record reflect Mr. Walker indicated yes. Let's go ahead and have that on microphone. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let him put it on the record. May as well, while he's here. MR. WALKER: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Walker. Mr. Fernandez, do we have any other speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Wish they were all that easy. Thank you, folks. Item #13A4 - Continued to August 5, 1997 Item #13A5 RESOLUTION 97-305, RE PETITION NUC-97-2, BEAU KEENE, P.E., REPRESENTING FIRST CHARTER SCHOOL OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC., REQUESTING A NON-CONFORMING USE CHANGE FOR USE AS A SCHOOL AND ASSOCIATED USES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY AND 68TH STREET SW, CONSISTING OF + 5 ACRES - ADOPTED We are to Item 13(A)(5), petition -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, on this item I just -- it seems to me that there can't possibly be anyone in the county who would oppose not only the concept of the school but moving on from that eyesore of a building to something else. I don't know how much of a presentation we're going to need here. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think Mr. Constantine has asked that we consider this favorably, if I read him correctly. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me do this. Mr. Reischl, is there anything you feel you need to get on the record that is not in the executive summary? MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl, Planning Services. Mr. Cautero has. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. If you do, then we have to go ahead and swear you in. Would all members of the public here to speak on this item and staff members please stand and raise your right hand? Okay. Madam Court Reporter? (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Mr. Cautero? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Before we start, can I ask the county attorney a question? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Sure. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It just occurred to me, because Mr. Norris asked me the question, is my son on the waiting list -- I have a kid on the waiting list for this school. He's number 2. I sure hope he gets in. Do I have a conflict; can I vote? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's only Number 27 You didn't get your check in quick enough or -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Number 2. Come on somebody, drop out. MR. WEIGEL: Yes. I think you have a conflict. The better choice would be not to vote. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Thanks. MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero, for the record. I'll be brief. I'm sorry -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Question. We already had one discussion regarding this school that you did vote on; is that correct? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. I brought it up and asked for it to be on -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Asked that we talk about it, but we haven't voted yet. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Okay. I wanted to make sure we didn't have to go back and undo something. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Re-do and un-do? No. Thanks. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Cautero, I apologize. Go ahead. MR. CAUTERO: No problem. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had a discussion a little over a week ago with Mr. Sims of the school board. He's the new Support Services Director, and he had indicated to me that there is some discussion going on between his office and the Board of Education, I should say the Department of Education in Tallahassee, and the standard inspection that is conducted for school facilities may not be conducted in this instance. I don't think it would be in the school board's best interest, certainly the students and the staff at the school, nor the county commissioners, that at least a courtesy building inspection isn't done prior to the opening. So what I would like to get on the record is the board's confirmation of my recommendation that, if that is the case, that we conduct a courtesy inspection prior to the school opening for the safety of the children and the staff involved. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I certainly would support that. Any questions of Mr. Cautero? MR. CAUTERO: The reason I bring it up is because the agreement, the school board agreement that we signed or the interlocal does not contemplate that we will -- that we will do anything with the building once the site plan review is done. But in this particular case, since that may be the issue, I'd like to recommend that to you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think that's a good catch on your part, Mr. Cautero. I think the parents would expect some level of inspection to be done and if negotiations with the DOE to not do a school level inspection are successful, I think that's time well spent on our part, so thank you for bringing that up. Any questions of Mr. Reischl? You don't wish to question the petitioner on this matter? Do we have public speakers who want to talk us out of this? Okay. Mr. Keene, the petitioner. MR. KEENE: For the record, I'm Beau Keene. I'm the engineer for the first Collier County charter school. We would like to request a refund of the $425 application fee. It's well needed in the early stages of the project. We'll put it into landscaping and exterior improvements to the building. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We have a procedure for that request but that doesn't happen as part of the petition request, if I'm not mistaken. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, that's not something we can act on today, is my understanding? MR. WEIGEL: Well, it's not a part of this agenda item, but is the $400 fee he's talking about in regard to the nonconforming use or some other fee? MR. KEENE: Yes. Nonconforming use. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's not on this agenda. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. I don't have a problem with the request but it needs to come in under proper context with some backup so we understand the basis for it. And so I would encourage you to file that, file that request so it can come through proper channels. MR. WEIGEL: And, Mr. Chairman, I'll just mention that when this was brought up a week ago, part of the distinction that I attempted to make that may not have been reported as accurately was the fact that the county's -- part of the county's concern here was that we have an underlying, privately owned piece of property that is looking to achieve this particular non-conforming use change that is obviously apart and separate from a lessee's use of the property. And so I want to make sure that -- if we shouldn't address at some point, whether here or at another time, the refund of the money, that wewre talking about the underlying landowner as the party in interest and not the lessee, which is the charter school. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Keene, and wewll see that at another date, another time. I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve petition NUC-97-2. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. Any discussion? Seeing none. All those in favor signify by say aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries unanimously. Mr. Reischl, thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Four zip because I abstained. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: 4-0. Thank you for that, for that correction. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just in case. Item #15 STAFF COMMUNICATIONS - COUNTY ATTORNEY RE MARCO ISLAND HOSPITAL PROPERTY CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We are at the end of our advertised public hearing at the point -- before we get to BCC communications, let's go ahead and go to Mr. Weigel. You had an update report for us regarding the Marco Island NCH Health Care, whatever we call it these days. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and commissioners. And I'm pleased to bring you the report of today's date. After an extensive review, and I want to thank also the materials and information provided by the attorney for the hospital interest and also Marco Island citizens that provided our office materials to review over time. After a rather comprehensive review my opinion to the board in regard to the sole question of, does the county have an ownership interest or a reverter interest in this property, and the answer is no, that Collier County has no title interest whatsoever in the property that was conveyed by deeds in 1981 and 1983. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Put that one to rest. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you for making that short and sweet because I know there were a lot of factors involved and your staff did a lot of work on this, and I appreciate it, so the parties can go on with that opinion, however they deem necessary and more power to them, whomever they may be. We're at Board of County Commissioners' Communications. Mr. Fernandez, did you have anything else? MR. FERNANDEZ: Nothing. Item #14A COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE RE DAVIS TRIANGE CLEAN-UP CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a report that the triangle cleanup had a hundred people show up and was such an efficient and energetic group that we had most of the work done by like about 10:00 or 10:30. And also, just to let you know, that a crew of about twenty came from the City of Naples. We had two city council people and the city manager there. We also had the drill team -- drill team. The drill academy, the juveniles from the drill academy. Yeah. But it was a very, a really energetic and exciting community effort and I just wanted to report that to you, especially to publicly thank the City of Naples for such a significant turnout. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry? Item #14B COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE RE AUGUST 8, 1997 MPO MEETING Commissioner Constantine, you have one item? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just one item. I wanted to see who will be in attendance or does anyone know if they will not be in attendance for the August 8 MPO meeting? I know we've started into our break at that point. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't think I'll be here because our first -- the 12th, the 12th we are not meeting. I believe I leave the 7th or so. So all you burglars out there -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's questionable. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll be here. As far as I know, I'll be here. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we end up with not enough, I just want to -- with the community transportation disadvantage thing coming up, and we just will need to figure out an alternative plan. I don't know what some of the alternatives are as far as getting Peter and Fred over here on next Tuesday or doing something. But it's fairly important we get that done before we go away on break because the following Monday the state hears the item. I wanted to poll that and if we're not going to be here, we just need to figure out an alternative. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Are you saying you won't be here? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I should, but 1, 2, 3 -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Is that a yes or a no? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I should, but -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: I should be here. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know, if it's a no -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'm pretty sure I'll be here. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and if anybody from the city isn't, then we could end up in trouble. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm a definite no. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just want to make sure ahead of time. Item #14C COHMISSIONER HANCOCK RE EMPLOYEE PARKING IN PUBLIC AREA CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I have two items, one a quick one and one a medium, I'll call it. Mr. Fernandez, an issue you may not be aware of. When Mr. Dotrill was the county manager, about every six months or so a memo would go out to county employees about parking in the lot closest to the southeast side of the building, the southeast entrance where there's a green canopy. A lot of times people show up for meetings here with exhibits and so forth or the general public just comes to a meeting. In that lot I believe the spaces say Public Parking on them -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Public Only? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yet -- yeah, Public Only. Yet I continue to see county employees parking there on a daily basis. It was an administrative, you know, policy of Mr. Dotrill to continue to remind people that that is for the public. And before -- without making a big issue of it, I would like to ask your office to continue that emphasis. MR. FERNANDEZ: Sure. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I came in this morning and we didn't have that big a crowd and that lot was jammed full. Now, I can't control the sheriff's cars in there but that is public parking only and I'd appreciate an emphasis on that when appropriate. MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman, I have mentioned this to the staff since it was mentioned to me. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: But I'll go ahead and follow that up with a memo. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. That's fine. I just -- I know the board was pretty supportive of Mr. Dotrill doing that because it gave the public priority, particularly on meeting days when it gets kind of busy. Item #14D COHMISSIONER HANCOCK RE LETTER TO CLERK BROCK RE INTELLINET AUDIT The second issue is one that, I'll be honest, is not really comfortable for me, but I feel the need to bring it up after last week's discussion. Commissioner Mac'Kie, you brought up last week a request for reconsideration of the golf tournament audit. In doing so, there were some implications made, and we all know that you can take ten things but only the most inflammatory will get printed. And as I read the coverage of what your request was, there was a very clear picture being painted that -- and there were even some statements you made that contribute to that -- that members of this board may not be as concerned about the expenditure of those dollars as you are. And I think if we go back, we can find at least some of those. I remember one specifically. The greatest part that concerned me is any perception the public gets that members of this board are not concerned with the expenditure of public dollars, and that is what I feel the need to correct. And whether -- I'm not holding you responsible for what the paper writes, that's out of our purview. But what I have done as an individual -- I'm not asking for board approval on it -- is constructed a letter to Dwight Brock which, in my opinion, is a summary of what this board asked for in response to your request. And I would like to read it into the record, and I have copies for everyone to take a look at. Addressed to Mr. Brock. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can we have one? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Pam -- no. I have made copies for everybody and I will enter one for the record also. The reason I'm doing this is I think the position is important enough to be solidified in writing and this is my take on what that meeting was, and if anyone else disagrees with it, then you can -- you certainly have the right to do that. Addressed to Mr. Brock. "Commissioner Pam Mac'Kie raised issues regarding the TDC funding of the 1996 Greater Intellinet Challenge at the Board of County Commissioners' meeting on July 22, 1997. Ms. Mac'Kie asserted at that time that the Clerk's Office has several difficulties in the manner within which the Board of Commissioners handled that contract and its subsequent revision at the BCC meeting on January 14, 1997. When requested to produce specifics regarding the inappropriate expenditures, Ms. Mac'Kie offered one example but stated there were approximately three inappropriate expenditures associated with the tournament. It was also Ms. Mac'Kie's statement that the Board effectively stopped your office from looking further into what you deemed to be inappropriate expenditures by amending the 1997 Greater Naples Intellinet Challenge." And that should read "Challenge contract." I apologize. "Since you were not present at the meeting, I have only Commissioner Hac'Kie's statements to consider. As a result, I have reviewed the minutes of the January 14, 1997 meeting in which the Board retroactively amended the Greater Naples Intellinet Challenge contract in order to tailor the contract to the expenditures necessary to complete the tournament. Those minutes indicate that out of a $500,000 grant, all but $32,000 qualified under the four stated categories in the contract as eligible expenditures. The only issue raised at that Board of County Commissioners' meeting regarding expenditures was whether or not the contract should be amended to include the $32,0000 as an eligible expenditure. According to Mr. Hitchell of your Finance Department," quote, "the only concern we had is that it is outside of the four categories specified in the contract. Included in our documentation, we can tell you everything you wanted to know about the $32,000," end quote. I have a copy of those minutes if you wish to review them. "If there were other or are other areas of the contract that raised concern at that time, the Board of County Commissioners simply was not notified of them. "In addition, the Board of County Commissioners approved wording in the contract that gave the Clerk's Office the ability and authority to request specific information to clarify any expenditures contained in the contract. At the BCC meeting on July 22, 1997 the Board reiterated its intent to specifically allow for information to be requested and supplied by the grant recipient regarding any questionable expenditures. In a nutshell, the BCC was not made aware of any questionable expenditures beyond the $32,000 previously stated. The Clerk of Courts' Office has had and will continue to have the ability to pursue any expenditures deemed ineligible or questionable and can do so without direction by the Board of County Commissioners. The financial prudence displayed by you and the members of your financial team in the past would lead me to believe that it would be of the utmost importance to notify the Board when a financial contract element has not been met. "Since I have received no correspondence from you on this matter, I must assume that you have not deemed this matter worthy of the Board's attention. If not for Commissioner Hac'Kie's comments, I would be completely unaware that your office feels areas of the '96 contract remain as questionable expenditures to be pursued. If this is in fact the case, please respond to my office in writing, and I'll be more than happy to provide that information to the balance of the Board at our earliest opportunity. "On a more personal note, as Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners, I welcome your communication on any matters in which you believe the Board of County Commissioners has not acted appropriately or has not received full and complete financial disclosure where required. If you have concerns that you deem appropriate to warrant Board action, the proper avenue of communication would be a request to the Chairman to be heard by the balance of the Board of Commissioners with supporting information. This avenue may help prevent occurrences such as last week where partial information is provided, leaving far more questions than answers. I greatly appreciate your cooperation on matters such as this in the future, and should you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please don't hesitate to contact my office." The reason I feel this correspondence is necessary is we're dealing with an issue of public trust here, one that none of us take lightly and I cannot sit by and allow statements to be made that would leave that question unanswered. I think this answers it specifically for me. I assume from what I heard at that meeting, the balance of the board feels the same way about the content of this correspondence. I'm not asking for an endorsement, but as chairman I felt like I had a responsibility to ask Mr. Brock, if things are wrong, bring it to us in a format and forum that is appropriate. Don't put it on your shoulders, don't put it on anyone else's shoulders, and certainly don't do it with partial information. I don't know that that happened. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But the way in which it played out last week was not conducive to good government, and I just don't want to see that happen again. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I, obviously, feel the need to respond. First of all, to tell you that no one from the clerk's office called me and said, "We need somebody to carry this message to the county commission." Quite the opposite. You know that when we changed the contract it was a 4 to 1 vote. I disagreed at that time, I continued to disagree, and let me explain more carefully. The $32,000 were the only three expenditures questioned at the time. As I'm sure you're going to be hearing from the clerk, with or without your letter, the reason that the flow of information stopped between the PGA and the clerk's office is that we amended the contract to eliminate those categories of expenditures that were either qualified or unqualified. We amended the contract basically to say the event occurred, the advertising that was promised was made, therefore we aren't looking anymore into the question of what was qualified or unqualified as an expenditure. We eliminated that categorization of qualified and unqualified expenditures. That happened as a result of the change in the contract and the change in the guidelines. So the clerk no longer has authority to ask, does this expenditure qualify under the contract or not qualify, because the contract was amended to eliminate that concept. Those three items that I questioned when, when we voted on this initially are the three that I continue to question but, frankly, as I did at the time, a question that I continue to have is not simply about county expenditure of funds but is also about whether or not the commitments made on which I relied in deciding how to vote, if those commitments were fulfilled. Specifically, were the -- was the $500,000 title sponsorship fee paid or not? When we invested in an event, did we invest a half a million dollars as matching money or were we in fact -- should Collier County have been the title sponsor? When -- there were several items that changed over the course of time with the golf tournament that I think warrant further inspection. The clerk will come -- the clerk is asking his attorney to advise him whether or not our amendment to the contract was legal, whether or not it was legal after the fact to say that categories of qualified or unqualified expenses are eliminated from the contract after the fact. There may be a statute that says that's illegal. If it's illegal, then the clerk will come to us and say, "I have the authority, in fact the obligation to continue to investigate whether or not those were qualified or unqualified expenditures." He will or won't do that, based on that legal opinion. But the fact of the matter is, it is our change to the contract that causes the clerk no longer to have a question to ask because we amended the contract to eliminate that list of qualified and unqualified expenditures. I don't for a second think I'm the only person who cares about what happened to that money. I do know that was I was the only person at the time who voted 4 to 1 not to change the contract. And I was hoping that you would reconsider that position and assist the clerk. But I'm sure the clerk will do what the clerk needs to do. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What I find unfortunate is that that entire discussion occurred. I mean, everything you just said, none of it's new. It's all right here in minutes from January 14th, 1997. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What do you mean? What entire discussion, none of it's new? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What you just said. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: None of it is new, N-E-W. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: None of it is new. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: None of it is new. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's absolutely true. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, and that's where it goes back to last week is you had said at the time, in light of new information that's available and that's when I had asked, what is the new information? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The new information is that the primary -- who I felt was the leader in the decision to modify the contract was our chairman at the time, Commissioner Norris, and now we know that he was receiving compensation from Stadium Naples. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's not true. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry. I thought there was $10,000. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Not at that time. Not until Hay the 13th of 1997. You need to get your dates right. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't -- I'm not -- I'm not saying anything except that it needs to be looked into to get all the dates right, to get all the information -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine but don't make them up. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- so this public trust can be restored. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What you're talking about is an ethics issue and what my concern is is that you attempted to revive a lengthy discussion, and the page numbers are Page 25 -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I am continuing to try to revive that discussion. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- 25 through 41. And the bottom line is, this board has made decisions in the past that I don't like, I have been on the losing side of. For me to bring them back just because I didn't like them and think that we need to look at them again and to make statements in that process that people will make inferences to, we all know that. If I stand up here and say, "Well, if you guys don't agree that it's a good idea to look at the expenditures," well, what's the inference there? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I can't help what people infer from your vote but -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But you -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But, Tim, we all have to make difficult decisions on this board and, frankly, bringing this up is extremely difficult for me because I know it's going to make you all mad at me. Nevertheless, I feel strongly enough about it to bring it up. So I wouldn't do it -- I don't do it lightly. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What I'm -- what I'm trying to get around here is that there is a way to do those things and, in my opinion, the way to do it is to provide us with background information that supports the request you're making. By not really doing that, by not really giving us any background information and re-hashing the same discussion we had then, that serves no purpose but to appear to the public as if we're up here arguing with each other for no reason. It -- there was no specific course, and, as chairman, that concerned me. It concerned me because if Commissioner Constantine puts something on an agenda, I fully expect him to have back up and basis for it. That really wasn't there and it became an element of innuendo in what you were saying. Whether it be Commissioner Norris or me or someone else is not that important for me, but I thought it was inappropriate, the way in which it was handled. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And you're entitled to that opinion. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And as chairman I have the responsibility, since you and I can't sit on the phone and talk about this -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- to address that with you. As much as it was uncomfortable for you, I don't like doing this today. But the bottom line is, I don't think that's a good way of doing business, to bring things up because we didn't like the way they went the first time. If there's new information, fine. But let's display it. And, going back to, "Well, the clerk has told me this and the clerk has indicated that," that's an issue I have with the clerk. If there are problems with the way we're doing things and the clerk feels that way, why, as chairman, am I not notified of that to bring it to the board's attention? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You will be when he completes his legal review. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And after he's discussed it with you, apparently. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But if I'm the one who called him, Tim, you can call him. He didn't call me, I called him. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, again, that's an issue between me and the clerk. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I called him and I would hope that he would communicate with me and answer my questions when I call. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, again, I've said my piece about disagreeing with the manner in which it was done last week. And any time that results in coverage that implies that I feel a way other than I do, that someone else is speaking for me, I resent that. I resent it when the paper does it. I resent it when any member of the commission does it and I'm going to respond to it from now on instead of sitting back and just watching it happen. And if that means that we have to have these discussions at the end of every meeting, then we'll have them. I don't care who it's with. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So be it. That's sunshine. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman, I think one of the things that has come out of this that, that concerns me is that what transpired last week has painted some of us with the idea that, number one, we don't care, and the fact that we're all trying to hide something. And I personally resent that. And I -- at the time I do remember I certainly questioned amending the contract or changing the contract after the fact. But the problem still lies, and I guess it wasn't understood last week, and I still contend that, if the clerk has had this ongoing concern about these expenditures, as to why he has not contacted either you as the chairman or the county administrator. And if this was going on for a period of time, even when Mr. Dotrill was here, it would seem to me that he should have been coming to him, if this was an ongoing question. And that's what I don't understand, Pam. I just don't understand that. I mean, I didn't know that much about the whole thing, but I don't understand why it wasn't pursued, because I'd look at that as part of his job on any expenditure that this group makes, that he has a right to question it. And regardless of what that contract says, I believe it's his duty and I don't think that he has to wait for a commissioner to call him. He's a constitutional officer. I believe he has an obligation to this commission to certainly point out to us that he sees that there is still on error here and that we really need to be aware of it. That's my concern. And I think maybe that was even misunderstood in what I said last week. And I really am concerned about that, that there's something that's not right here, which takes on the reflection that I'm not supporting the process that this has taken from the clerk's standpoint. I certainly do not object nor do I think probably from what I'm hearing here that the rest of the commissioners object to finding out if there's been any problem in expenditures. But the problem is the process, the fact that the clerk has not come to us with a statement of saying, "Guys, something is not quite right here. I need to have some more information." If he needs that, come to us and say he needs it and let us change what we've done here. I wasn't aware, Pam, until you mentioned this last week, that there is an ongoing concern. And I believe that he's derelict in his duty of not coming to us as a commission. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And he's completing his legal review. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Pam, even if he didn't have the legal review, why doesn't he come to us and say, "I am getting a legal review and I am pursuing this because I think and I have some questions." Keep us informed. It's called communication. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And where was that concern on January 14th, 1997 when the clerk was represented in this chamber and gave testimony, Mr. Mitchell did for the clerk's office, there was not one mention regarding legality of changing the contract from anyone in the clerk's office. So, I have to assume that a development occurred afterward. And if it did, why wouldn't I be notified of it? I'm not asking you to answer for the clerk. What I'm saying is, the process and how this discussion came up last week was not handled the way it should be handled for government to operate as it should, in my opinion, and that's why I addressed the letter to the clerk and not to you, because I feel the issue is with him and with me. I apologize for taking the length of that, but again, I don't have the opportunity to respond to those things with you personally so it has to be done here. Anything else? Seeing none, we are adjourned. ***** Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner Mac'Kie and carried unanimously, that the following items be approved and/or adopted under the Consent Agenda: Item #16A1 FINAL PLAT OF VILLAGE WALK PHASE SIX - WITH STIPULATIONS, LETTER OF CREDIT AND CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT Item #16A2 FINAL PLAT OF AVILA, UNIT ONE - WITH STIPULATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT Item #16A3 FINAL PLAT OF AVILA, UNIT TWO - WITH STIPULATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT Item #16A4 FINAL PLAT OF AVILA, UNIT THREE - WITH STIPULATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT Item #16A5 FINAL PLAT OF AVILA, UNIT FIVE - WITH STIPULATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT Item #16A6 FINAL PLAT OF AVILA, UNIT SIX - WITH STIPULATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT Item #16A7 FINAL PLAT OF AVILA, UNIT FOUR - WITH STIPULATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT Item #16B1 CHAIRMAN TO SIGN AN ENVIRONHENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATION NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT REPAIRS TO BRIDGE 030176 (VANDERBILT DRIVE OVER BIG HORSE PASS) Item #1682 - Moved to Item #882 Item #1683 STAFF DIRECTED TO ADVERTISE AN ORDINANCE CREATING THE RADIO ROAD BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY COHMITTEE Item #1684 CHANGE ORDER WITH BETTER ROADS, INC. FOR THE RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD FOUR LANING PROJECT UNDER BID 95-2441 IN THE NET INCREASE AMOUNT OF $54,930.57 Item #1685 APPROVAL OF PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR THE SALE OF SURPLUS PROPERTY KNOWN AS QUAIL CREEK, UNIT 2, OUTLOT "B", PLAT BOOK 13, PAGES 74-77 Item #1686 LUHEC, INC. AS SOLE SOURCE VENDOR OF LIGHTING FOR THE IHMOKALEE DOWNTOWN STREETSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT Item #1687 CHANGE ORDER WITH APAC-FLORIDA, INC. IN THE MAXIMUM A_MOUNT OF $505,339.00 FOR THE VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD FOUR-LANING PROJECT, UNDER BID 95-2438; APPROVAL OF A CONSULTING ENGINEERING FEE OF $5,000 WITH WILSON, MILLER, BARTON & PEEK, INC. UNDER A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT; AND AUTHORIZE AN AGREEMENT AMENDMENT WITH WCI COHMUNITIES, LP FOR A $109,959.41 REDUCTION IN ROAD IMPACT FEE CREDITS Item #1688 CHANGE ORDER TO THE VACCARO CONSULTING, INC. AGREEMENT TO DEVELOP A FUNCTIONAL SPECIFICATION FOR DOR UTILITY BILLING, SOLID WASTE, SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AND CASH RECEIPTS BUSINESS FUNCTIONS IN THE A_MOUNT OF $3,300 Item #16C1 BUDGET A_MENDHENT PROVIDING THE FUNDS TO INSTALL A JOHNSON CLIMATE CONTROL SYSTEM AS PART OF THE MARCO ISLAND BRANCH LIBRARY EXPANSION PROJECT Item #16C2 BID #97-2701 FOR THE USE OF PORTABLE TOILET RENTALS AT ALL COLLIER COUNTY PARK FACILITIES - AWARDED TO J. W. CRAFT, INC. Item #16C3 REPORT ON THE STATUS OF FLORIDA COHMUNITIES TRUST PRESERVATION 2000 GRANT FUNDING APPROVAL RELATIVE TO THE SUGDEN REGIONAL PARK AND AUTHORIZATION THAT THE CHAIRMAN EXECUTE APPRAISAL AGREEMENTS SHOULD ADDITIONAL APPRAISALS BE REQUIRED BY THE TRUST Item #16C4 TWO QUITCLAIH DEEDS FOR THE DONATION OF THE PROPERTY SITUATED IN SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 52 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FOR PARK AND RECREATIONAL LANDS Item #16C5 TIGERTAIL BEACH CONCESSION AGREEMENT WITH COOL CONCESSIONS, INC. Item #16C6 BUDGET AMENDMENT TRANSFERRING FUNDS FROM PERSONAL SERVICES TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS IN FUND 111 IHMOKALEE/EVERGLADES HSTD Item #16C7 CONTINUATION CONTRACTS BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE AREA AGENCY ON AGING FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC. FOR SERVICES TO THE ELDERLY Item #16D1 AUTHORIZATION OF FUNDING FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE ANNUAL SYSTEMS MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR THE HUMAN RESOURCES INFORMATION SYSTEM SOFTWARE Item #16El BUDGET AMENDMENT 97-326 Item #16E2 INCREASE OF THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY'S FUEL BUDGETS AT ALL THREE AIRPORTS SO THAT THE AUTHORITY CAN CONTINUE TO SUPPLY AV GAS AND FUEL TO THEIR CUSTOMERS Item #16G1 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the various departments as indicated on the miscellaneous correspondence. There being no further business for the good of the County· the meeting was adjourned at 1:25 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK TIMOTHY L. HANCOCK, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on presented or as corrected · as TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE BY: SHERRIE RADIN ELIZABETH H. BROOKS, RPR