Loading...
BCC Minutes 09/09/1997 RREGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 9, 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 9:02 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building F of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following CHAIRMAN: members present: ALSO PRESENT: Timothy L. Hancock Pamela S. Mac'Kie John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine Barbara B. Berry Bob Fernandez, County Administrator Ramiro Hanalich, County Attorney Item #3 AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good morning. Going to call to order the September 9th meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. It's a pleasure this morning for our invocation to have Reverend Carl Orr from the Golden Gate Presbyterian Church with us. Reverend Orr, if I could ask you to offer our invocation this morning, we'll follow that with the Pledge of Allegiance. REVEREND ORR: Oh, God, our creator and sustainer, we pause before you to offer gratitude and thanks that you have enabled each of us to gather at this time and place. We thank you for these dedicated elected servants of our community. Give each one a clear conscience from which to study all issues and make timely and prudent program plans and decisions. We pray that the best interests of all citizens may be our plan, our purpose and our goal. We thank you for the presence and the efforts of our new administrator. Give him wisdom and guidance that through honest efforts and skills, he may help us provide efficient and effective leadership. We thank you for all who labor and work for us for our well-being; that together, we may enjoy more fully the fruits of our labors. In Christ's name we pray, Amen. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison). CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Reverend Orr, thank you for taking the time to be with us this morning and get us started off the right way. We appreciate it. We are to the agenda. Good morning, Mr. Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What goodies do we have this morning? MR. FERNANDEZ: We have three add items. The first is under Item 8(C)(1). We'd like to add the direction requested regarding a proposed in-line pro-tour world championship to be held at East Naples Skate Park in October. This is a staff request. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It doesn't require any category C money, does it? MR. FERNANDEZ: I don't think so. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It does. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It does? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. MR. FERNANDEZ: Is it category C? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think it is, but that's okay. We'll hear it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I just saw -- I just saw a pro-tour -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Tom, is it category C? Yes, it is. Sorry, it is. The next one is add Item 9(A). It's an update to the board regarding the concept of a juvenile daytime curfew ordinance and request for the board to provide direction regarding same. This is a request from the county attorney's office. The third item is add Item 9(B) which is a request for the Board of County Commissioners to receive for the public record an amended certificate of the Collier County Canvassing Board relating to the Marco Island Incorporation election recount. Also requested by the county attorney's office. Also, I'd just like to note for the record, unfortunately, I was not able to make this change before the printed agenda, but Item 8(B)(1), the wording on that item should not include Isle of Capri Road. That's an improper reference because it is north of U.S. 41. It should read County Road 951. So, I apologize for not being able to make that change before the printed agenda. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Any changes to the agenda, Commissioner Mac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry? COHMISSIONER BERRY: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No changes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Nor do I. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion we approve the agenda as amended. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response). CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five-zero. Item #5A1 PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING SEPTEMBER 29, 1997 AS LAW ENFORCEMENT APPRECIATION DAY - ADOPTED We are to proclamations and service awards. This morning, we have a proclamation on law enforcement appreciation day. Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's my honor to get to present this award to Sheriff Hunter, and I saw -- there he is. I knew he was back there. I saw that silver hair, I just couldn't find you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There's nothing wrong with silver hair. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, silver hair is great. Are you kidding, it's getting better every day. This really is an important proclamation, and I'm honored to get to read it this morning. WHEREAS, the problems of crime touch all segments of our society and can undermine and erode the moral and economic strengths of our communities; and WHEREAS, we are fortunate that law enforcement officers from all area agencies dedicate themselves to preserving law and order and the public safety; and WHEREAS, we recognize that the men and women in law enforcement risk their lives on a daily basis to protect our citizens and maintain social order; and WHEREAS, we encourage all citizens to pause to recognize our law enforcement officers so that we may not take their work for granted. NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier County Commissioners that the 29th day of September, 1997 be designated as law enforcement appreciation day. Done and ordered this 9th day of September, 1997, Board of County Commissioners, Collier County Florida, Timothy Hancock, Chairman, and it's my honor to move approval of this proclamation. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Congratulations. SHERIFF HUNTER: Thank you, commissioners, for the distinction and the day, and we will pass the good word to the members of the Collier County Sheriff's Office, law enforcement, corrections and bailiff services, and we hope to celebrate it well and safely. Thank you very much, again. Thank you. Item #5B1 EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARD - PRESENTED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Next under service awards, Commissioner Berry. COMHISSIONER BERRY: Thank you. Commissioners, this morning it's my pleasure to present Ms. Nelda Dyson, if she would come forward, please. We're going to recognize Nelda this morning for ten years of continuous service, and thank you. Nelda just reminded me that I was one of her high school teachers. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, boy. Okay. We are just going to steer clear of that one. COMHISSIONER BERRY: It's okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a good thing. Item #5C1 ROBERT WHEELER, NORTH REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT, PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION, RECOGNIZED AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR SEPTEMBER, 1997 CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: *** We are on Item 5(C) under presentations. It's my pleasure this morning to recognize our employee of the month for September 1997, and if I could ask Robin Wheeler -- or excuse me, Robert Wheeler of our North Regional Water Treatment Plant. I tried to mess your name up, Robert, the best I could. Come on up here so we can duly embarrass you and recognize you for -- for what some people think are pretty fantastic accomplishments. If I could ask you to turn and face the camera so we'll have official record of this. Bob has voluntarily stepped in as a safety representative on the Safety Committee. He keeps the staff informed of the information discussed at the committee meetings. He has had a lot of input on developing the site safety programs, and though it's not part of his job responsibility, Bob has organized training sessions on safety procedures and plant operations. He has had input on a computer program written for the injection well monitoring program. He has recently obtained the water plant operator "B" certification and is already in the process of completing the management course to qualify him to test for the "A" certification. This is not required for his position, obviously, going far and above what is required. Without any reservation, he was nominated and selected employee of the month for September 1997. Bob, it's my pleasure today to present you with a plaque recognizing you as the employee of the month, September 1997, and a letter signed by me as chairman of the board, and also in recognition, a check for $50, and from the board, thank you very much. Item #5C2 "AWARD OF EXCELLENCE" FROM THE FLORIDA CHAPTER OF THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR COHMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT - PRESENTED Next under presentations, Item 5(C)(2), we have a presentation to the board, an award of excellence from the Florida Chapter of the Planning Association for the Collier County Architectural and Site Design Standards for Commercial Development. Mr. Cautero, good morning. MR. CAUTERO: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and commissioners. Vince Cautero for the record. As the commission may be aware, the planning department received an award of excellence from the Florida Chapter of the American Planning Association in 1997 for the County's architectural and site design standards for commercial development, and as the commission may also be aware, which made it a little bit sweeter for us, was last week the state conference was here in Naples at the Registry Hotel from Wednesday through Friday, and Chairman Hancock was on board on Friday afternoon to accept the award at the annual awards luncheon, and the day before, a session was conducted on the standards moderated by the chairman in conjunction with Joe McHarris, our staff senior planner and architect, and Bob Mulhere, our current planning manager. I'm happy to tell you that that session was standing room only, and several people came up to me and told me that they thought it was the best session by far at the conference. I'd like to formally present you with the plaque today and pass it around, and the chairman was gracious enough to tell me at the meeting on Friday that he'd like it to be permanently displayed at the Development Services Center on Horseshoe Drive, and we are very grateful for that. Joe McHarris, our architect, if we can only hold him to five minutes today, he just wants to show you about five or six slides to give you some before and after examples, and we'll give him a chance to talk for another 20 minutes to some other group in the hallway, though, after the meeting. So, if I can invite Joe to come up and -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: First, I think our planning staff, Bob Mulhere, Joe McHarris, Wayne Arnold and Vince Cautero deserve a round of applause. Is this our first award from APA? MR. CAUTERO: I believe it is. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Fantastic. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: While they are preparing the lights for the slide show, I think we all would be remiss if we didn't point out that it was our chairman, Mr. Hancock, that brought all this forward in the first place. It's under his direction and guidance that Collier County has got into this position, and it turns out that there are a number of counties around Florida that want to, perhaps, duplicate what we've done here. How many counties have inquired so far? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We handed out 120 copies of the standards at the conference. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wow. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And we've even had standard requests outside of Florida. So, it's pretty gratifying. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, it's good to know that Collier County is once again on the cutting edge of design, excellence and guidance for the future benefit of all Collier County citizens. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Commissioner Norris. MR. CAUTERO: I'd like to echo those words, Mr. Chairman, before Joe begins and thank the board for their support. Without your support, this wouldn't have been possible. MR. McHARRIS: Thank you, commissioners, for allowing me to do this little presentation. This is the standard building that Discount Auto Parts gives every town in Florida, and under our guidelines -- we didn't catch them at the very beginning, but we caught them during the process, and this is at about 50 percent. What we -- what we -- what we got, what we -- and you can see the builder in the picture. He was actually very pleased at being able to do a building other than their standard prototype and called me about five times to make sure that the building was up to the standard. You can tell that we didn't have the traditional yellow in your face kind of band, and they were actually very proud of this building, also. All buildings are coming in different categories. Some are a little bit more articulated than others, and what's interesting here is that this was built in a neighboring county, and although the two buildings look similar, there are differences that are very profound but might be slight as you're passing by that you might notice just briefly. The wall facing us on the building in the -- on the left has a big large blank wall with the Walgreen's, and the one that Collier County got has a jog in the wall that gives a little relief and breaks up the masking a little. It has a sidewalk that connects to the peripheral sidewalk, and it has a landscape median in between the drive through lane and the drive-in lane creating a safe passage for both motorists. Again, this is the standard 7-Eleven on the left with the big Slurpee on top, and it is a square box with a door and a roof. Collier County standard has allowed us to -- this is a work in progress, to articulate the building with roof changes, with some fenestration which is windows along three sides of the building, a much more defined entry because it's on a corner lot, material that's represented in a cornice at the top, some banding, and again, this company is very proud of this building and has spoke to me several times. The piece of paper that I presented to you is a storage facility. When they first presented it to me, it was your bare bones, stripped out model, tin square building. After the design guidelines went through, you can see that the change is profound, and this, without the guidelines, the tin box would have been put on our streets and would have given a negative impression of what we feel of our community. So, thank you for the vision and the opportunity to do this. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I told Vince that I would ask this of the county attorney, and I'll just go ahead and do it now. We had something kind of unique requested. We were asked to take -- this is just a small piece of what was an hour and 15 minute total presentation of which was about 40 minutes or 50 minutes of presentation and the rest of questions. We've been asked by several communities in the State of Florida to come to their board of commissioners and show them what we've done. So, you know, obviously, our taxpayers aren't paying our staff to go to other communities and show them how to do it, but I liken it to someone who is working on a Ph.D., when you get published, you have to go out and talk about the work you've done, and that kind of recognition just builds your support at home and builds your skills. So, I'll be talking to the county attorney's office on -- you know, what I simply want to do is if we choose to accept that, is to be reimbursed for our staff's time to the general fund for the time they spend up there, and no additional fees, no one makes any money off of it, this is just what I would consider a professional planning responsibility, but I thought it was very flattering to have the presentation to such a degree by Mr. McHarris that he was asked by other communities to do it for them. So, I think it says a lot about our staff's professionalism and their ability to present things in a positive light. So, again, thank you, congratulations, and we'll get Skip Camp working on that award location as soon as we can; a big old glass case as you walk in the door, but maybe not. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: A shrine. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Next -- oh, by the way, you'll be seeing the standards come back. There's still some tweaking that needs to be done, some things that can be done better, and that will be coming back in -- Vince? MR. CAUTERO: Probably a half a year. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. About another six months. Over 90 buildings have come through that process now, so big difference. Item #5C3 PRESENTATION BY BRUCE LAWSON REPRESENTING LOCAL ASCE CHAPTER REGARDING PROJECT OF THE YEAR - PRESENTED Next, Item 5(C)(3), a presentation by Bruce Lawson representing the local ASCE Chapter regarding the project of the year. It's like award day. MR. LAWSON: Good morning, commissioners. I'm Bruce Lawson with the American Society of Civil Engineers, and each year, we recognize outstanding projects in Southwest Florida through the Southwest Florida Branch of the American Society of Civil Engineers. This year, we chose the Collier County beach restoration project that went along both Collier County and the City of Naples coastlines, and our criteria for awards, we look at what impact it has both on the community, the people and the environment. In looking at the awards this year, we recognize this project because it met the criteria as an outstanding project. Our beaches are one of the main things that people in Florida come for and looking forward and making sure that the beaches remain, as well as the wildlife and the people life that use those beaches can use them to their fullest extent and the people and community, and restoration, as you know, was over six miles of critically eroded shoreline. The restoration allowed more recreational use, storm protection and the environmental habitats for turtles and other endangered species as well as a restoration of sea oats. In the presentation to us, the engineers, Coastal Engineering Consultants showed how their design of using a multi-layer beach restoration of putting, actually two layers, one of shell and what would generally be considered less desirable material on a beach in the lower layers and then coming back with the good sand and going through the research of being able to find locations near shore that would allow them to do this restoration and a project that came in under budget. In looking at it, we saw that the important thing is the restoration allowed much more turtle nesting habitat in the shoreline. I don't remember the exact number of nests, but it was over a 91 percent success rate in the nesting along the restoration. So, we'd like to congratulate both Collier County, the City of Naples and Coastal Engineering for looking forward and doing this project, preserving part of the lifestyle that Southwest Florida individuals have come to desire as well as looking at the endangered species and making sure that they can utilize our coastlines as well. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Bruce. It's nice to be recognized for our staff's efforts and contract efforts, to be recognized by both regional and state organizations. think it says a lot for the quality of people we have working in Collier County. Item #5C4 PRESENTATION BY DICK LYDON, CHAIRMAN OF THE BEACH COHHITTEE, RECOGNIZING HARRY HUBER'S EFFORTS - PLAQUE PRESENTED Next item under presentations, we have a presentation by Dick Lydon, Chairman of the Beach Committee, recognizing Mr. Huber's efforts. MR. LYDON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. As chairman of the Beach Committee, it gives me great pleasure to present this plaque which reads as follows, 1997 Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association local government award presented to Harry Huber, project manager, Collier County, Florida, for your many years of outstanding leadership and dedication in overseeing Collier County's beach projects, including handling the difficult issues of local funding. It was presented September 4th at Amelia Island -- and I'd just like to tell Harry that we look forward at the Beach Committee to his continued dedication and cooperation in making the Collier County beaches and waterways an outstanding experience for both its residents and its visitors, particularly the visitors who are kind enough to pay us for this particular activity. Harry, come on up here. MR. HUBER: First of all, I think, in my mind, this award belongs to everyone who has been so helpful and supportive in bringing the beach and the projects to the success that they've achieved to date; particularly, like the leadership and guidance of the beach renourishment maintenance committee, this board, the City Council, the Economic Development Council, the Chamber of Commerce, and of course, the support of the community as a whole. It's been outstanding, and I am pleased to have shared in this honor. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Again, congratulations, Harry, and thank you for all your work. I mean, we want to recognize, it was mentioned briefly, Coastal Engineering also. It was a good team. The product is wonderful, and we are pleased to have both of you here today representing a fine project. Item #SA1 JAMES B. YOUNG, P.A., REPRESENTING WOODROW AND LOUSIE HENRY, REQUESTING A REFUND OF COLLIER COUNTY ROAD IMPACT FEES PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NUMBER 92-22, FOR FEES PAID IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER 96-9783, BOBBIN HOLLOW EQUESTRIAN CENTER - ROAD IMPACT FEE REFUND APPROVED IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,906.93 Next item on the agenda this morning is Item 8(A)(1), James B. Young requesting Woodrow and Louise Henry -- or representing, excuse me, requesting a refund of Collier County road impact fees. MR. ARNOLD: Good morning, commissioners, Wayne Arnold, planning services director. This is a request from Mr. Young representing the Henrys to have an exemption from road impact fees relative to the horse stabling and riding facility that was constructed on Vanderbilt Beach Road across from the Orchids project essentially just east of Airport Road. Part of their contention is that under state statute, this should be considered a farm building not subject to building codes or building fees. Staff disagrees with that proposal. We did, however, take another look at the impact fee calculations that were prepared for this project and believe that it could qualify for a refund using some alternate fee calculations similar to other horse stabling facilities that have been built within Collier County. The new calculation that staff performed resulted in a refund of $9,906.93 from the original $18,533 fee previously paid by the Henrys for that project. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Arnold, is your assessment based on the concept that this is not a horse breeding farm, but is, in fact, a rental facility, one in which people will stable horses for a fee? MR. ARNOLD: I think that's part of it. We, typically, haven't seen these as large horse ranches, so to speak, but these are within the urban area. They are a riding academy, so to speak. They will stable horses. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Which people will come to once or twice a day to either take care of their horse or ride, and it's somewhat of a generator? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. When the fee was originally calculated, apparently, it was calculated at a general commercial rate for the entire facility. We've gone back and Tom Kuck on our staff did some other more specific calculations and came up with a reduced fee which we think is certainly more appropriate and probably more accurately reflects the impact to the road network. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Questions of Mr. Arnold? Seeing none, let's go ahead and hear from Mr. Young. MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure to be here. My name is Jim Young. I'm a local attorney, and I'm here with Tammy Jones, Tamara Jones, and we represent Mr. and Mrs. Henry, who back in December, built a horse barn on Vanderbilt Beach Road North extended from Airport between Airport and the interstate. At that time, they -- and I might say, this hearing was requested pursuant to your road impact fee ordinance. You should have a copy of my letter of December the 12th to the county manager in that regard. They were required to pay to get a building permit and were required to pay impact fees, the payment of which are conditioned precedent to the issuance of a permit. In other words, you have to pay the impact fee to get your building permit. There is a statute that exempts farm buildings, non-human habitation, habit of buildings, however you say it. It's only inhabited by horses in this instance, not people. The statute specifically exempts farm buildings. It's the same statute that authorizes local governments to regulate land use in their counties. It says, a specific model code of the state minimum building codes adopted by the county shall regulate every type of building or structure wherever it might be situated in the code enforcement jurisdiction. However, such regulation shall not apply to non-residential farm buildings on farms. We donwt dispute -- therews no dispute about the fact that this is agricultural. Therews no dispute about the fact that this is a pole barn. Itws designed to house horses and not people, as I said in my letter of December llth, which you should have in your packet. They paid a total of $24,024.09 in the various building permit fees, road impact fees, sewer impact fees and so forth. They paid these sums under protest. I donwt think they are applicable -- evidently, we have a disagreement between lawyers on the construction of the statute, but this hearing is pursuant to that ordinance, and we would request that they all be refunded. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Young, can you explain to me what farming functions occur on-site? MR. YOUNG: None that I know of. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think thatws where it may be a disagreement of law, but itws not a disagreement of logic in that this is not a farming operation. It is a commercial operation in which you have a building which is rented or hired or rented out by people to house things, much like a mini storage would be. The difference is we are talking horses instead of furniture here. So, the fact that there is no farming operation on-site makes it very difficult to, I think, to have the argument that itws a farm building, and I think that's where -- where I will separate from looking solely at a word within the law and look at the intent of the law, also. I don't believe the intent was to apply to commercial facilities, but I do think our staff has done a good job in looking at the reduction, and I would be supportive of the reduction but certainly not of the elimination. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question about the reduction. I don't want to -- I don't want to just compromise because we are trying to find a happy middle ground, so how did we come to calculate on a different standard first and now we've reviewed and decided that that was an inappropriate standard. MR. ARNOLD: Based on discussions from our staff in the community development division that deal with impact fee calculations, it was merely assessed at a general commercial rate based on the total square footage of the facility, nearly 13,000 square feet, when the request came in for the exemption. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Like a Wal-Mart or a -- MR. ARNOLD: Right. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. MR. ARNOLD: We came back and refined that, breaking it down to the horse stabling facility, the tack room, the storage area, the office area, did some alternate trip generation methodology that Ed could probably explain in a lot greater detail than I could, but that resulted in this lower number, and that's a similar methodology that was used in other horse stabling operations in the county that have come through the process as well. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So, the standard or the fee applied is the same, it's still the commercial fee, but it's a question of how many feet apply to that particular ratio? MR. KANT: For the record, I'm Edward Kant with the transportation services department. Not exactly, commissioner. The calculation is based on trip generation rate, on the average distance traveled, on the percentage of new trips, which I'm sure you're all familiar with. It typically -- and under Section 3.10 of the ordinance where we have a use which was not contemplated under the fee schedule, we perform what's called an individual road impact fee calculation. In this case, because there was a significant difference in this use between, as you point out, from, say, a Wal-Hart or some other general commercial retail use, we have in the past performed specific -- site specific calculations. I don't know what the circumstances were on this particular one where it was calculated as straight commercial, but then in going back, we utilized -- or I should say, Mr. Kuck utilized some past figures for similar operations and came up with the adjustment. It was not done simply to arrive at a compromise. It was done on the basis of trip generation, of distance traveled and percentage of new trips. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Then whoever, Mr. Fernandez, should be monitoring to be sure we don't just put the highest number we can on whatever application comes in. You know, we shouldn't make that mistake in the first place, but having made it, I'm glad we're correcting it, and it seems to me that the reduced amount is what I'm going to -- MR. KANT: Typically, we strive to arrive at an equitable fee, especially where we have things that do differ from what's in the rate schedule. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie, I think it's only fair to state that the ordinance we adopted places that burden upon the applicant, not on our staff. If you have an unusual use, it's up to you to point that out to our staff; not up to our staff to do your work for you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's in the ordinance. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's a valid point. Thanks. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine. MR. YOUNG: Can I -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me, Mr. Young, let me get Commissioner Constantine and Norris had a question, and then we'll -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just kind of reiterating, but I think it's fairly clear the impact fee formula is designed that you pay impact correlating directly to the amount of impact you have, and obviously, this isn't going to generate like Wal-Hart or like some other normal commercial enterprises. While it's not habitated by humans, in a residential sense, though, it does generate some traffic. There's some activity going back and forth, and as a result, there needs to be some impact. There is an impact, so there needs to be some impact fee there, and I think that's just logic, and so I think staff has come up with fairly fair numbers there on the return of nearly $10,000. I assume it will be welcomed by you and your client. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Just a thought on a similar line, this strikes me that this is a lot less of an agricultural facility and more of a recreational facility; not -- unlike, for example, a tennis facility. So, I think probably what we are doing here is on the right track. I'll leave it up to our staff to make the calculations, but it seems to be fair. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The analogy that might be made is you can put a golf course on agricultural property and never change the zoning, but there's an impact assigned to golf courses because it generates a certain amount of traffic. Still zoned agricultural, nobody resides on it, but they still have to pay a fee. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Young? MR. YOUNG: I was just going to point out to the commission, not only -- this is just not operational to rent stalls to people who bring in their horses and house their horses, he does breed horses there. He raises and trains and stables horses. It's a wider operation than you indicated. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Any further questions for staff or the petitioner? I assume, Mr. Fernandez, we have no one on this item, no speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that's to approve staff -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Staff recommendation. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- recommendation for the reduction? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response). CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five-zero. Item #8A2 RESOLUTION 97-350, SUPPORTING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A QUARANTINE FACILITY TO HELP FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF BIOLOGICAL CONTROL AGENTS FOR USE AGAINST INVASIVE EXOTIC VEGETATION - ADOPTED AS AMENDED We are to Item 8(A)(2), resolution supporting the construction of a quarantine facility to help facilitate the development of biological control agents for use against invasive exotic vegetation. Boy, that sounds -- that sounds just high tech., doesn't it? MR. LORENZ: For the record, Bill Lorenz, natural resources director. This resolution -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is the item Mr. Cornell brought to us last week? MR. LORENZ: That's correct. That's correct. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Anything you wish to add to that? MR. LORENZ: No, that's fine. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Speakers on this? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, we have one, Mr. Brad Cornell. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do you want to talk us out of this, Brad? MR. CORNELL: No. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Our support is leaning as you speak. MR. CORNELL: This will be real brief. I just wanted to say, as you pass it -- I'm sorry. For the record, my name is Brad Cornell representing myself. As you pass this, I would recommend that you send it also to, with a cover letter, to the Florida delegation, our federal delegation which would be our senators, Congressman Goss, also to interior secretary Bruce Babbitt and a copy to Ted Center, who is the research director up in Fort Lauderdale, but just as a matter of housekeeping, I think those would be the effective ways to go with that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Make sure we have Mr. Center's address. I think we have the others, but -- you may have given Mr. Center's address last week. MR. CORNELL: No, I didn't because he doesn't really have any influence on how it's funded, but -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Ryan is indicating that he has it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. MR. CORNELL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion include direct -- MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, before the motion, it was my understanding from last week's meeting that there was a question in regard to the second whereas in the enclosed resolution, and I believe that staff has prepared an alternative resolution deleting that second whereas if it was of concern to the board. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Due to the reference to sustainable South Florida and the fact that this board doesn't really want to sign on as a whole to sustainable South Florida. MR. MANALICH: Correct, so it would not be misunderstood that that was some type of support by the board, if that's a concern. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll amend my motion to reflect that change. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Second? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The deletion of whereas number two? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: With staff's substitution. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And second amends? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, I guess so. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A begrudging amendment on the second. Any further discussion? With the request Mr. Cornell had to give staff direction to please send those things to those individuals; all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response). CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five-zero. Mr. Cornell, thank you for bringing this to our attention. I appreciate it. Item #SB1 RESOLUTION 97-351, INCREASING THE SPEED LIHIT ON TWO ROADWAY SEGHENTS ALONG C.R. 951 FROM 45 HPH TO 55 HPH BETWEEN U.S. 41 (S.R. 90) AND S.R. 84 (DAVIS BOULEVARD) AND BETWEEN GREEN BOULEVARD AND GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD - ADOPTED We are to Item 8(B)(1) under public works, recommendation for board approval to adopt a resolution increasing the speed limit -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, this is kind of a no brainer. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, it is. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It used to be two ten foot wide lanes, and it was 55 miles an hour, and now it's four twelve foot wide lanes, and it's 45 miles an hour. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Our staff pointed out the state requirement for this when we first designed it and said they would be coming back, as they are today, when it was appropriate. So, I'll go ahead and make a motion that we approve the item. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Now, are you factoring in the reduction in ticket revenues on that roadway? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We are. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Just checking. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response). MR. KANT: Thank you, commissioners. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Kant. We understand -- we try and tell the public that your hands were tied on that. It's not his fault, but we send them to you anyway. Item #8C1 DIRECTION IS BEING REQUESTED REGARDING A PROPOSED IN-LINE PRO-TOUR WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP TO BE HELD AT THE EAST NAPLES SKATEPARK IN OCTOBER - STAFF RECOHMENDATION APPROVED Under public services, we have an added item, proposed in-line pro-tour world championship at East Naples Skate Park in October. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's what happens when you -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is the new, fantastic, world renowned, beautiful skate park that happens to be in Collier County. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's what happens when you build the best in the world. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Build it and they will come. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And they will come, that's right. MR. OLLIFF: If there's any questions, I'll be happy to answer any. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What's -- the crux of the request is just -- here is to have the event, and then there will be a secondary request before the Tourist Development Council and the board on potential category C funds? MR. OLLIFF: For the record, Tom Olliff, public services. This is, as is most of my add on items, a unique item for the board to consider. What we are looking for is some direction. We've been approached by the ASA which is the Aggressive Skate Association, probably the major organization of in-line skaters in the country. Each summer, they hold a summer series of pro-tour events. They are generally held in some very large venues. This past summer, they were in L.A., Chicago, Philadelphia and other major metro areas across the country. These events in those areas generally draw ten to 15,000 people per day to their events, so this is a hugely popular sport today. The exact same type course that you've seen on the Extreme Games and ESPN is the type of course that we are under construction for at the East Naples Community Park, and the board is well aware that we've been working on this for the better course of this year, and invitations are already out, and you have probably already received them for the grand opening on September 20th. The ASA has come to the county, and because of some difficulties that they've had with what was scheduled to be their championship event, the season ending event in Hiami, because of some issues with both permitting and logistics, that's becoming a difficult location for them to have the event, and knowing that we had this park under construction here, they came to look at it and would like to move the venue and actually hold their world championships here. In essence, what we are talking about is a three day pro in-line skate tournament. It would be held October llth, 12th and 13th. The good portion of this proposal for the county is that it actually provides a great deal of national and international coverage. It is in the shoulder season, and as you can tell, I'm heading towards it, will require a contribution from TDC funds, but I think from everything that I've seen, it fits exactly with the criteria that are being requested by the TDC. This is the kind of event I think the TDC is looking for. If you'll look at the executive summary, it actually indicates that the ASA is going to need to request $70,000 in funding from TDC category C funds. In return for that, I think that they can show you some pretty good hard numbers on the attachment about the value of the actual media coverage that you would receive in return with four hours of prime time coverage on ESPN, ESPN2. MTV is also doing a series of MTV sports shows which this would be a feature of, and there's also a full-length movie scheduled for release in 1998 of which this final event would be the feature premier event. I'm being told that because this is the season finale, this is the largest event in the history of the in-line skate sport. It would be an amazing coup for Collier County to have this type of an event as sort of a grand opening event for its skate park in East Naples. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have a comment. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: This is sort of a sensitive comment that I'm going to make here, but I think our sports park facility, our skate park facility, I mean, is going to be an extremely positive facility for Collier County and the youth that we have here. I think it's one of the best things the county has done to help our youth in ages, if not forever. I remember when my -- some years back when my boy was a skateboarder, and he was actually on the front page of the newspaper in a picture one time when they were throwing them all out of the shopping centers back in those days. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That front page thing kind of runs in the family. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It does. It does, indeed, and the coverage that Collier County and Naples will get on ESPN and ESPN2 is great, and we've all seen the benefits of that sort of coverage before, but my reservation is that to have this also on MTV seems to be a complete contradiction of what we are trying to accomplish here. MTV, in my estimation, is one of the biggest debasers of the morals of our youth in America that exists, and I just see that as a complete contradiction to the positive image that we are trying to project and the positive approach we are trying to take to help our youth in this county, and if MTV is going to be involved in this, I am not going to support it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess -- I disagree with you in that there are certain programming on MTV that I think is undesirable. However, there is certain programming on ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX and all the others that is undesirable. You can get into -- ESPN's example here, you can get into some of the women's events in tiny bikinis and so on that appear on ESPN and try to debate the appropriate morality of that, and then there is some good programming on MTV, as well. So, I don't think we can single that out and can the event and the -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, I think we can. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- potential benefits of it because certain programming on a certain network is objectionable. I don't disagree with you either. There's certain programming on there that is, but there is objectionable programming on much of television, and I don't want to try to get into being moral police of that, and I think if we can help contribute positive programming for that network, we ought to. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a good point. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry? COMHISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Olliff, is there anything about this that you see as negative in terms of -- other than what's been mentioned regarding the television thing because it seems like anytime I see anything with television, I'm getting real nervous about this as of recent dates? I begin to back off; wanting to know is it ultimately really worth it. Is there anything here other than what's been mentioned? Is there any other downside to this other than the things that have been mentioned? MR. OLLIFF: The only downside is, frankly, time from our perspective. They are scheduled to move the event and have the event within less than five weeks, and to pull off a world championship type nationally televised event in five weeks is a lot of work. It's one of those drop everything, let's go do this type of an event. Does that mean that we can't get there from here, I'm not saying that at all, and in fact, I think the representatives from the ASA that I have dealt with -- in fact, Mr. Rick Bratman is here, and he can answer some of your more specific questions about the event itself, but I think that they have done events of this magnitude with this amount of time, and they can pull this one off. The only downsides that I see outside of that are logistical issues. The East Naples Community Park, frankly, wasn't designed for an event of this size, so it is going to require some off-site parking. It is going to require some transportation to the event. It's going to impact to a certain extent for that three day weekend the neighborhood that surrounds East Naples Community Park, but from a staff perspective, I think those are the two downsides that we've seen; certainly not insurmountable. It's a very short distance from where we would propose to park the cars to bring them to the site. We have the Sugden Park property which is less than a quarter of a mile away, and it is all lime rock from the previous events that were held there, so it can handle the parking. It's a short trolley distance from there. So, the negatives that we see we think are overcomable. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My -- my concern -- and I don't want to go over into the TDC side, because that's a separate decision. My concern is, we built that park for the kids in the community, and they're the priority. I don't think we built it to be avenue, although who we got to design it certainly allowed that. My concern is that they have 16 events, 400,000 in prize money throughout the season, it's an average of 25,000 per event in prize money. We are being asked to do something that is 70,000 in sponsorship, and once again, the television, quote/unquote, exposure is the thing. I won't go nearly as far as Commissioner Norris did on the HTV issue, but let's face it, if we are looking for people that have revenues and dollars to come to Collier County, most of them are not the HTV generation or ESPN2. Granted, some people on this board have enjoyed the Extreme Games, but -- and I watch it, but I don't know that I've watched it and said, I want to go there, because it's actually the event itself that is incredible. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But commissioner, you're talking about the funding question, and that's not what we are being asked today. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, I understand that, and that's why I said I don't want to get into that decision down the road, but I think we are taking a step in that direction, and the only way I'm comfortable doing that is if we have someone that knows how to negotiate sponsorships, because that's what we're being -- we're talking about a sponsorship here. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Not yet. We are talking about a site location. When we have the TDC issue, we'll talk about sponsorship. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, okay. Close one eye and use the other one, but it's what eventually is coming, and so -- I have no problem using the site, but in no way am I sitting here today saying I'm giddy about this and I'm going to commit to the $70,000 or that I think that's the way to go because I'm not comfortable with that side of it. I would -- I would be pleased to let them use the site for this, and I think it would bring exposure to it, and the kids will get excited about the park being here, and that's all great, but I don't want to -- I don't want to leave an impression that I'm making any commitment down the road. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know we want to be careful to separate the two issues. Obviously, we want to not have any misunderstanding as far as what any decision today makes, but I'm very comfortable with the site, and I understand your point that it is intended for the public, but I think as long as it's still available completely to the public 362 days of the year and we have an opportunity to have a world class event, we should take advantage of that. I agree, we need to have the funding debate, but, obviously, not today. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Instead of spending money, let's make some money. COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's exactly one of my concerns. We are looking at the site, which is fine, but I really wish we had the entire picture. I don't want this to be misconstrued down the road on what we are doing here. The site is one thing, and I really have no problem if they want to use the site and if staff thinks that they can work out all the logistics and that kind of thing, but I'm -- I really am not comfortable with -- because we have a short period of time. There's not a lot of time here to look at this whole thing, and I don't -- when does TDC, when will they be looking at this and -- MR. OLLIFF: That's part of the request here this morning. The TDC's next scheduled meeting is not until after this event occurs, so we would have to get the board to request a special meeting of the TDC as soon as possible in order to be able to review this application. Two points, one, I want to make the board aware that we do have a concessionaire set up to handle that skateboard park from which we expect to generate some revenue that will help to operate the entire park. One of the things that we are trying to do is look for events that can maximize the exposure of this park so that not only Naples kids, but kids up in Lee County and Sarasota County know that this thing exists and that it's here, because we, frankly, feel like it's going to be the best park bar none in the State of Florida, and if the kids know it's here, they will come, they will use it, and they will make our investment worth our while. So, this event does that. The second issue that I wanted to at least broach, and I know this is a chicken-egg kind of an issue here, and it's very awkward, but because the event is being requested to be held at a county park, it's one of those where I have to come to the board and get approval for the location of this type of an event before I can be standing in front of the tourist development council saying, we are going to have an event at the East Naples Community Park. Because we would never approve this type of an event without your acknowledgment of that, and because of the time frame, it is very short, and we are going to be in a position where I've got to try and probably be back on next Tuesday with the funding request for the TDC funds or we are not going to be in time for them to be able to make a decision of this size. To be able to move an event of this size is a major, major decision for them, and I'm not asking you for a funding decision today at all, but if you decide that this is an event that you want to have, please recognize the speed that would be needed in order to get the funding question back in front of you to get it answered. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed. Are there any further questions for Mr. Olliff? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know if ASA, they want to share with us, but I would suggest a motion that we go ahead and give tentative approval to the site location and give our staff the go ahead to talk and ask you as chair to call a meeting of the TDC, and you can debate the funding issue at that time or we can bring it back and hash it out here, but at least take the next step forward. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Do you want that to be a second to my motion I've already made? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great; yes, I will. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion on the floor. Do you have something to add, sir? MR. BRATMAN: No, I'd just like to address two of the issues, though, which might help to alleviate some of the concerns you have. Number one, in terms of -- my name is Rick Bratman. I'm with the ASA. In terms of the HTV issue, ESPN and ESPN2 are our primary coverage sources. They're the ones that film the competition. They're the ones that have the four hours of prime time television coverage. HTV's only relationship with this event is to come in and film the story that's part of their HTV sports ongoing series. So, it will be a -- compared to the ESPN coverage and the global television coverage -- we've cleared this program right now in over 170 markets as we sit here today, and I imagine by the time mid October hits, it will actually be closer to about 190 countries around the world. So, the HTV portion is minuscule compared to the rest of the exposure that you'd receive. Also, to address one of the other issues that was mentioned here today was the potential to generate revenue. As Mr. Olliff had explained, there are concession opportunities that are involved with the event. In addition to that, we would be more than amenable to working with local sponsors in this area and to provide money that we are able to raise in local sponsorship back to the community to help cover any costs that are expended as a result of this event. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, I'd recommend working on that between now and meeting with the TDC if the board should approve this because county government being the sponsor of events hasn't worked out real well in the past, so we are a little more cautious in those areas, so MR. BRATMAN: I think -- another -- another issue, just to put out on the table, is that this event will be the biggest event in the history of the sport. It will provide a tremendous amount of credibility to the skate park itself, and I think over the course of time, it will end up generating revenue by the mere virtue of the fact you'll be able to say that the Sanctuary Park held the ASA world championships which will, I'm very confident, will draw kids from not only all over the county, but all over the state. I know that I had spoken to kids in Fort Lauderdale last year before they had any place to skate, and they used to drive up to Jacksonville, which is a good five hour drive for them, because it was the only skate park in the state, and I think the long-term positive aspects of holding the event here will ultimately realize more revenue for the park. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you very much. We have a motion and a second on the floor. Is there any discussion on the motion? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Just that -- I think this is going to be something that will really generate interest within our own community's youth to have this event here. I think the event is very positive, and I -- based on what the gentleman has told me with the coverage of HTV being a very minuscule portion, I will support this under protest that HTV has anything to do with it at all. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Anything further? Seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response). CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Olliff, a lot of work ahead of us. MR. OLLIFF: Thank you very much, I think. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Instead of spending money on this, we might be able to make money. Item #9A UPDATE TO THE BOARD REGARDING THE CONCEPT OF A JUVENILE DAYTIHE CURFEW ORDINANCE AND REQUEST FOR THE BOARD TO PROVIDE DIRECTION REGARDING SAME - STAFF DIRECTED TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE AND BACK TO THE BOARD MR. HANALICH: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, Mr. Manalich. MR. HANALICH: I respectfully interject at this point, just a request here. The Honorable Franklin Baker, circuit judge, is on break, and he's here in the audience right now to address the curfew matter which is the item right after the next one. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. HANALICH: He's on break from a heavy docket in court. I'd like to respectfully request if he could be heard at this time. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, for most judges, certainly, but it is Frank. Judge Baker, we'd be glad to -- MR. HANALICH: Thank you, Your Honor. Just by way of introduction, this is an item that we've added on to the agenda briefly. It is the concept that we'd like you to address today of a juvenile daytime curfew ordinance, and Hr. Pivacek from our office has done preliminary legal research on this matter. We've had extensive interaction with the City of Naples and Collier County Sheriff's Department personnel as well as some with Judge Baker. At this point, I could allow Judge Baker, perhaps, to explain the concept better. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me -- let me, at least, set the board up as to why Judge Baker is here. It was at my request this item be heard today; not as the approval of an ordinance, but to give staff direction. I've met with Judge Baker, and at that first meeting, we had everyone and their mother there who is associated with youth issues, from the school board to the sheriff's office to the judiciary right on down, and this curfew has done some amazing things in other communities, and I'll let Judge Baker extol the virtues of it, but the purpose here is to ask this board if you wish to give staff direction to bring an ordinance back to us on this matter. Judge Baker? JUDGE BAKER: Thank you. Good morning. Frank Baker, circuit court judge. Commissioner MacwKie left when I was introduced. Is there anything I should read into that? Wewre not asking that you consider a curfew. Wewre asking that you consider a daytime curfew, and the goal is, really, to address the issue of truancy in the schools. We know that therews a truancy law out there. We know how hard it is, Commissioner Berry, to enforce that law from the schoolws perspective, but we think that maybe therews a better solution to it. Iwve spent all morning -- when I left court this morning, we still have standing room only in the disposition phase of juvenile court, and the majority of the people Iwve seen this morning have school related problems. So, we know somehow truancy and delinquency are related. We donwt know how strongly, but we are suspecting that itws probably one of the early stages of delinquency or, at least, indicators of delinquency. So, what we are asking you to consider to do is what theywve done in Roswell, New Mexico, Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER MACwKIE: Hews got his alien cup right here. JUDGE BAKER: I didnwt see the cup until right now. They were progressive enough to decide that the way to handle this was by enacting a daytime curfew. Kids of school age had to either show why they were out on the street legitimately or be in school. Failing to do that has some consequences attached. The advantages to the school, to the community, to law enforcement was, they could pick the child up, take him to an assist center. The parents were called. The parents had to come down to the assist center right then, miss work. Their child was given a ticket to come to court. So, for the first time, from a truancy point of view, we had the courts involved, which we have some different enforcement techniques than the schools do. One of the schoolls enforcement techniques ultimately is to suspend somebody from school. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Letls see, you didnlt go to school, so we are going to throw you out of school. JUDGE BAKER: Yes, yes. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: That doesnlt seem to be much of a penalty to a kid to me. JUDGE BAKER: Well, you recognize the issue. So, what we were trying to do was, we were trying to put some teeth into the truancy aspect that we are experiencing in court by enacting an ordinance. We think itls a win-win for everyone. We donlt see any additional law enforcement requirements, any expenses to this county. We see a lot of benefits. We accept that initially there will be a large surge of business for us. We donlt need the business, but we are willing to handle it, and we think that after we experience the large surge, that the people who are truant and in playing with it are probably going to go back and follow the rules. The ones that have substantial problems with truancy probably have substantial problems in other places, and we need to address that anyway, but what it does, it means, essentially, is that law enforcement going down the street and sees kids out that are school age during a school day can now stop them if you enacted the ordinance, ask them why they arenlt in school. If therels no legal reason for that, take them immediately to an assist center, contact their parents, release them to their parents with a ticket to come back to court, and then after that, the sanctions that we have are multiple. One is including enforcement school attendance through reviews. Failing to go to school, in direct contempt which could put them in Fort Myers. Those are all of our possibilities. So, all I'm asking the board to do is take a serious look at it. We know that daytime crime is relatively high in the juvenile community. I can tell you that this morning, I've seen a lot of kids. Some kids are going to programs from this morning's orders, and a lot of them were involved in criminal activity that occurred during the day during the week. We also know that I can tell you without exception that every person I placed in a program this morning, and I've done about 15 right now, had some issue concerning school. Lastly, from the felony court perspective that I've spent two years in, it was rare when I took a plea to a felony charge when I asked somebody their educational level, that they were able to tell me they were a high school graduate. Now, I'm not saying that everyone that doesn't graduate from high school is going to get in trouble, but there is some connection somewhere, so I think this gives us an opportunity without any cost to anyone other than an ordinance to implement what we think is a valuable program. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Judge Baker, and rather than kind of hearing this item twice, extolling its virtues or negatives now and then doing it again when it comes back before the board, I will say that my predominant concern was that we don't create a new county department to handle this, and actually, representatives of law enforcement checked out the Roswell situation and found out that that was not the case there. So, there's a history of it being done without adding a new department or supplanting other efforts. So, what I'd like to ask the board to do -- and I'm not going to hamstring anyone. If you feel the need to spit something out, please do, but I really would like to ask you to give direction to the county attorney to bring it back as soon as possible so we can have the necessary public debate to determine whether or not we wish to adopt this ordinance. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd just like to generally state support for it, though, out of deference to Judge Baker having been here to let him know you're going to be hearing support from me. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Anyone else? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Let's take a look at it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I see a consensus of the board wishing to bring this back, take a look at it and ask the board to consider it for adoption. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This will solve the problems of those kids staying home and watching MTV. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: That's right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, Mr. Manalich, if you would -- I know Mr. Pivacek has been working on the ordinance, so let's put it on the fast track and bring it back and see what we can do. COMHISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am. COMHISSIONER BERRY: Just one consideration, I don't know how you write this into an ordinance, but if a parent keeps a child out of school for whatever reason, is this addressed in the ordinance or -- JUDGE BAKER: I think it should be. COMHISSIONER BERRY: I do to. JUDGE BAKER: I think it can be, and I think it's an excellent solution to the parent who does exactly what you say, that doesn't take an active role in their child's life. Just this week, I ordered a parent, a mother, to do 20 hours of community service work with a child. I think it's an excellent opportunity to do that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: With their own kid? JUDGE BAKER: Yes, with their own -- exactly. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No kidding. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's almost purgatory. JUDGE BAKER: The majority of parents, Commissioner Berry, would like to know their child is in school. In fairness to them, they're going to be the first ones that are going to help us solve the problem CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: With that -- JUDGE BAKER: -- but there are a few out there. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: With that discussion, I think it will be in the ordinance -- JUDGE BAKER: Great. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- if we make that note. Is there anything further? Judge Baker -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just wanted to thank you for bringing this forward to us. It's exactly the kind of thing -- I would love for us to see more from our judiciary as we need to see a potential problem -- or a problem that we can potentially help solve. Thank you. JUDGE BAKER: Well, thank you for everyone's courtesy. Let me say this, it is not my doing. I'm part of it. Commissioner Hancock and the commissioners' part of it, the sheriff's department back here has been very involved, Dr. Hunz and the school district, the police department, everyone has really enjoyed and enjoined into this issue, so -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But I have to echo Commissioner Hac'Kie, thank you for your leadership, and thank you for your involvement of everyone in this, we were able to get the answers a lot quicker that way. JUDGE BAKER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thanks, Frank. MR. HANALICH: Mr. Chairman, a representative of the sheriff's department has given me an informative brochure here from the Department of Justice on this, so he asked me to pass it out to you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Please do. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How many -- do you guys ever do this -- I mean, I guess I like abuse, but I see kids -- yesterday saw what looked to be middle schoolers, you know, riding their bikes, and pulled over at the stop sign, rolled down the window and said, why aren't you in school. I didn't get any really informative response from them, but, you know. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But I understand your license plate was issued as a stranger danger. That's precisely why I don't do it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, man, I hadn't even thought of that. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Unfortunately, you have to think of those things these days. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, that's too bad. Item #SD1 SETTLEHENT DISCUSSION REGARDING THE LAWSUIT, HCGINNIS VS. COLLIER COUNTY, CASE NUMBER 95-1481-CA-01 - SETTLEHENT OFFER REJECTED; ATTORNEY BRYANT DIRECTED TO GO TO TRIAL CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let's go back just one item to Item 8(D)(1), settlement discussion regarding the lawsuit McGinnis v. Collier County. Mr. Walker? MR. WALKER: Good morning, commissioners. Jeff Walker, risk management director for the record. I'm here this morning with David Bryant, the attorney representing the board in this matter. The board may recall that this was an item that was brought before them in June of 1996, and the board approved, at that time, an offer of judgment in the amount of $3,000. We have a couple of other items to bring before you this morning that are new to this case. One of them is, excuse me, a high low agreement which is a new concept which I'll allow Mr. Bryant to inform you about. The other is that we have received a demand, a new demand in this case in the amount of $10,000 to settle it. This case is set for trial on October 2nd, and we wanted to get this to you, obviously, before that time. With that, I will turn it over to your legal counsel, Mr. Bryant, to discuss the matter. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seems like old times. MR. BRYANT: It's a pleasure to be here. Mr. Chairman, commissioners, as I said, it's a pleasure to be here this morning, even though it's on this matter. As Mr. Walker said, this case came up approximately -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just need your name for the record, Dave. MR. BRYANT: David Bryant. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. BRYANT: This matter came up approximately a year ago, and at that time, the discussion between the plaintiff and the county, the plaintiff was asking for approximately $24,000, and we said not no but never, and the board approved an offer of $3,000 as an offer of judgment, which we've provided to the plaintiff. They subsequently came down after that, after all the discovery that was completed, and now the demand is to pay a $10,000 demand. That is part of the matter before you today, along with that, as Mr. Walker said, the high low offer. This is something -- it's kind of novel in what's a classic slip and fall case that we have here today. Generally, you see these type of caps of bottom and top end in complex medical and malpractice litigation, complex class action cases where everybody wants to cap their exposure, both at the bottom and at the top so you know going in that you aren't going to pay more than "X" or you're not going to get more than "Y", and that's exactly what the plaintiff has proposed to us today, where if we go to trial, the maximum exposure the county has is $30,000. If we get a zero verdict as we did in the Billups case where the jury found no liability on the part of the county, she still gets $3,000, which was our offer of judgment to start with. We brought this to you because we wanted your guidance and your direction. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine and then you. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you give us a thumbnail sketch of the case? I just remember a couple of cases in particular when you had described to us that the board opted not to, with the facts of the case so clear, not to settle, and the Billups case, one of those that we ended up not only winning, but getting back our attorney's fees, and it's, for me anyway, very helpful if you describe what happened. MR. BRYANT: Commissioner Constantine, this is, like I said, a classic slip and fall type case. Ms. HcGinnis was walking along the pedestrian pathway approximately across from the old O'Shea's restaurant out on Marco Island. There is a hole that they are claiming she stepped in that's approximately anywhere from a foot and a half to two feet wide. I mean, it's not like we are talking about a six inch or a three inch or a two inch hole. It's a pretty open and obvious hole. She steps in it. She breaks her -- fractures her wrist and has about $6,000 in specials or medical costs, and she blames the county because she fell in that hole. It's our position that we constructed the pathway appropriately according to what Mr. Archibald said. The pathway was built back in the '70s with CETA money. We have monitored the pathways as we do all pathways in the county, and after the fall, we went back and resurfaced a lot of the pathways out in that area. They maintain, they being the plaintiff, that we should walk every one of our pathways in the entire county. I think the board can see how ludicrous that idea is. That is what their expert testified to. We have approximately 250 miles of pathways according to Mr. Archibald's testimony, so we think it'd probably take four to five years to walk those pathways, and then we'd start it all over again; whereas, we monitor them with our continuous transportation monitoring of our people. We believe she fell in a hole, and she should have been watching where she was going, but by the same token, it's our ethical responsibility and our duty to you to bring these matters before you for your direction and guidance. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My -- I don't have any interest at all in accepting her settlement offer. I'm curious about if we did this high low business, because we did, at one time, authorize offering her $3,000 to go away, if we go -- I don't want to cut off the opportunity for her to owe us attorney's fees. Does the high low affect that at all? MR. BRYANT: I would think it probably would. That's kind of a novel area that we'd have to probably do an extensive amount of research on whether or not if she got two, so we give her three, does that foreclose our offer of judgment. I think it probably would. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't want to do it then because I want her to have to face the possibility of reimbursing the county for the costs we've expended in defending the litigation. MR. BRYANT: If I could respond to that, Commissioner Hac'Kie, and I think that's an excellent point, and I really appreciate the board's support in those areas. The only downside to that is that, basically, she has nothing. We've done an asset check. We get a judgment against her. She's in Ohio. We've got to go to Ohio and try to get something out of her. She's going to be living, supposedly, in subsidized housing, so I really don't believe we would end up having anything other than a judgment we can hang on the wall. The upside to the high low agreement is we know going into trial that if she got $100,000 because somebody feels sorry for somebody, she only gets thirty. That's the one thing that I see as the board's benefit. It does cap your exposure, and you know what your downside is at the very beginning. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Except where you have or you believe you have a strong case, it's kind of a double whammy. It says she has no risk going to court because her attorney is going to take the three grand, and she's going to walk away on the low end. So, we end up paying the three grand plus the attorney's fees in trying the case. So, it's a little bit of a double expense. The reason we offered her three grand in the first place was because she didn't have a case, and that's what it was going to cost us to try it. So, in essence, we are now going to pay six grand one way or another, so -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- I -- the high low, I don't even want to start considering those things. I think either we make a judgment that we have a reasonable position and have a good chance of winning this in court and we take our chances or we don't -- and recouping those expenses, you know, she may not have anything, but a $3,000 judgment against her will rest with her for awhile and make her think about frivolous lawsuits in the future, and that's one of my principal concerns about these kinds of lawsuits is no one is responsible for themselves anymore. It's someone else's fault no matter what happens to you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, I'll make a motion to reject both the settlement offer and the high low proposal. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that indicates direction to go ahead and try the matter? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Go to trial. MR. BRYANT: We are ready to go to trial. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There's a motion. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And a second. Any further discussion on the motion? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Repeat the motion, please. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: To -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Object to both. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response). MR. BRYANT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Bryant, thank you. Item #9B REQUEST FOR THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO RECEIVE FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD AN AMENDED CERTIFICATE OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD RELATING TO THE MARCO ISLAND INCORPORATION ELECTION RECOUNT - APPROVED We are to Item 9(B), another item added to the agenda; amended certification of canvassing board. This is the recount that occurred last week. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to accept. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A motion and a second; any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, I'll provide that to the clerk/court reporter at this time then for the records. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Manalich, and by the way, how about those Dolphins? MR. MANALICH: Undefeated. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Like the Bucks. MR. MANALICH: And unimpressive. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: How many times have we said that? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not exactly a thrilling performance but undefeated. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'd rather win ugly than lose pretty. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There you go. PUBLIC COMMENT - CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: *** Public comment on general topics, Mr. Fernandez, do we have any -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Ty Agoston. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that our only speaker this morning? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, it is. MR. AGOSTON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I got here late, and I'm sorry I couldn't comment directly on the petition to the federal government to get money to fight exotics, and every time we talk exotics, we're talking about two plants. We're talking about the Brazilian Pepper and the Melaleuca, whichever way you pronounce it. There are over 100 plants on that list. There are some plants I was trying to grow in a pot in my backyard gardens. We are looking now for four million dollars from the federal government. Gentlemen, I have children. I have grandchildren. That four million dollars coming out of the federal government is the same kind of money as what you're spending, public money, our tax dollars. I personally, first, don't believe in getting sucked in to establish an organization just to keep track of exotics and to examine them and work with them. Who is going to pay for the maintenance of that? It's not going to come out of their pocket. It's going to come out of ours, and to be honest with you, with the Sustainable Florida and the Sustainable America literature that I've been reading, I am very suspicious of the environmental industry. I, up to now, thought they were a bunch of hustlers and they came in front of you and tried to hustle you for extra money for their business. There are pretty wealthy businesses within the environmental community, but I now went along, after reading some of the inputs from these executive orders from the president as well as the governor, I now am a firmer believer that these people are trying to change our system of government, and if you'd like to read them, I'm sure you'll come to a similar conclusion, and I am not sure how we can justify fighting two plants with the expenditure of four million dollars. How much are they going to come back tomorrow to sustain this particular experimentation? That's all I have to say. Thank you very much for the opportunity. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Ty. Before we go to advertised public hearings, why don't we take about a five minute break, and then we'll continue. (Small break was held). Item #12B1 ORDINANCE 97-41, RE PETITION PUD 89-14(1), ROBERT L. DUANE, AICP, OF HOLE, HONTES & ASSOCIATES, INC., REPRESENTING FREDRICK R. PAULY, TRUSTEE, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "PUD" TO "PUD", BREEZEWOOD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AS REQUIRED BY RESOLUTION 97-68, LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE 1-75 - IMMOKALEE ROAD ACTIVITY CENTER, CONSISTING OF 7.4 ACRES, MORE OR LESS - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's reconvene the Board of County Commissioners' meeting for the 9th day of September. We are to advertised public hearings, under zoning amendments, Item 12(B)(1), we have Petition PUD-89-14(1), Bob Duane, AICP of Hole, Hontes representing Fred Pauly, trustee, requesting a fezone of PUD to PUD for Breezewood Planned Unit Development. This is quasi judicial, so I'm going to ask that all members of the -- petitioner, all staff and all individuals here to speak on this item please stand and raise your right hand to be sworn in. Madam court reporter, would you please swear them in. (The speakers were sworn). CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Could you say that a little faster next time? THE COURT REPORTER: I speak about as fast as you do. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Got you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Directly to the heart; touche. Mr. Reischl, good morning. MR. REISCHL: Good morning, commissioners; Fred Reischl, planning services. This is a PUD amendment for the Breezewood PUD, an existing PUD which was directed to come before you by the PUD sunsetting requirements. The PUD is located at the intersection of Immokalee Road and 1-75. It's surrounded by the Donovan Center PUD on the left and a small agricultural parcel -- an agricultural parcel to the south, 1-75 right-of-way and a small ag. parcel to the east, and 1-75 right-of-way to the north. It's within the interstate activity center. The uses within the PUD have remained the same from the original and now to the amendment. The density inconsistency, which was what triggered the PUD amendment, has been corrected. There have been some minor changes to some sections, including code references and department name changes, and architectural standards have been added to the PUD. At last -- at last Thursday's planning commission meeting, the planning commission recommended approval seven to zero. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In a nutshell, this is a hotel/motel project? MR. REISCHL: With commercial also. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: With commercial, but the 26 units per acre cannot be transferred to a multi-family or single family density project? MR. REISCHL: No, it is -- all the residential density is hotel/motel. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Do we have questions of Mr. Reischl? Seeing none, does the petitioner have anything to add at this time? Any public speakers, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have had no correspondence on this particular issue and certainly will make my decision on what I've heard here today. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ditto. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Berry, have you had any correspondence or contact on this matter? COMMISSIONER BERRY: I've had some contact on this matter, but I'll make my decision based on what I've heard today. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have no recollection of any correspondence prior or communication prior to today. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's called the Ollie North fifth. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have no recollection. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I, likewise, have not had any communication on the matter. I'll base my decision on what's presented here today. Would there happen to be a motion on this matter? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response). CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five-zero. Thank you, Mr. Duane. Item #12B2 ORDINANCE 97-42, RE PETITION PUD -91-1(1), THOMAS E. KILLEN, ARCHITECT, REPRESENTING EARL L. & SHIRLEY A. FRYE, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM PUD TO PUD KNOWN AS "RADIO SQUARE" TO AMEND THE PUD DOCUMENT FOR PURPOSES OF ADDING FRATERNAL ORGANIZATIONS AS AN AUTHORIZED USE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF RADIO ROAD (C.R. 856) AND DONNA STREET, CONSISTING OF 9.4 ACRES - ADOPTED COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, on the next item, I have had communication, but as required by the law of the State of Florida, I'll base my decision solely on the information that occurs in this public hearing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That applies to me as well. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Actually, I have had communication on this item, but I have a question for the county attorney. I think I may have a conflict on this. I -- the owner of the property, the Fryes, are not the -- yeah, they are the applicants because -- they are not the end users, but they are the applicants, and Mr. Frye is a shareholder in a corporation that I currently represent. I assume I should not vote. MR. HANALICH: My advice is to abstain from this on the voting conflict law on the basis that it might -- it can, in fact, will inure to a principal by which you're employed. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thanks. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, Commissioner Hac'Kie has a conflict of interest. Commissioner Berry? COHMISSIONER BERRY: I don't recall any correspondence on this, but if I have, I will base my judgment simply on what I see here today. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I've met with our representatives from the Elks and Mr. Killen, and I'll base my decision on the information presented to this board today. Likewise, this is a quasi judicial matter. Anyone who is registered to speak on this item, excuse me, a member of the county staff or the petitioner, please stand and raise your right hand. Madam court reporter, would you swear them in, please. (The speakers were sworn). CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: *** Thank you. Mr. Nino, good morning. MR. NINO: Yes, good morning. Ron Nino, for the record, planning services department. The petition that's before you seeks to amend the Radio Square PUD for one singular purpose, and that is to add a fraternal lodge on a parcel specific location within the Radio Square PUD as a use in addition to the uses that are currently authorized. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Nino, the uses that are currently authorized are C-5 and industrial. Could you give me some examples of what would be some of the, quote, worst case scenarios of what could go in as far as industrial or at C-57 COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Asphalt plant or that sort of thing. MR. NINO: Assembling, packaging and fabricating operations; light manufacturing and product assembly; wholesaling, warehousing and storage distribution facilities; otherwise, the other uses tend to be office type uses. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It would be fair to say, this is a considerably lighter use than asphalt plant or any of those other things you mentioned? MR. NINO: Well, in my opinion, from a compatibility point of view, land use versus land use and not levels -- not traffic generation characteristics, certainly from a land use, it would be more -- a less obnoxious use to any nearby residential area, in my opinion, than would be the fraternal lodge, which by virtue of the requirements within the PUD is -- a special isolation is brought about because this PUD says that this use and many other uses can only go on tracts that are, for all practical purposes, totally isolated from the Donna Street neighborhood. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm going to make a request that we get some longer pins for this board because I've spent three years watching people fight with putting exhibits up here. So, Mr. Fernandez, let's make a note of that and get some longer pins for that board. MR. FERNANDEZ: Either that or a helmet for me. MR. NINO: Let me point out that the Radio Square PUD is surrounded with industrial zoning and the industrial land uses on all sides except the east side, which is an estates district, and the Future Land Use Element does allow for transitional uses at boundaries which we assume to be arterial streets. So, this amendment would be consistent with the FLUE. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And your recommendation. MR. NINO: The planning commission heard this petition. They unanimously recommended its approval. We received one letter in opposition which you have in your executive packet. We certainly endorse this amendment. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Killen, would you, when you get back to the mike, give your name and state whether you were sworn in or not. You can hand those to Mr. Manalich, and he'll get them to us. MR. KILLEN: Tom Killen, for the record, and good morning. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. KILLEN: This is a preexisting PUD, and basically, all we've done is add one sentence which allows fraternal organization usage. I'm not representing the developer. I'm actually representing the Elks Club, the Elks Lodge, and it's been their expense and so forth to go through this process because they have a very tired building on Airport Boulevard that they're negotiating sales on now, and they've got an option on this property, a contract on it to build a new location, and we've tried hard to live up to everything that the PUD asked for, the office space on the corner, the proper buffers. With this plan, we are right in line with our own tract with the existing PUD. I think it's a much better use of the land than industrial. I think the community will enjoy this much better than industrial usage, and what else can I say? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's the problem with having -- MR. KILLEN: If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's the problem of having a good project, it's kind of tough to sell. MR. KILLEN: Yeah, it is. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is, obviously, more compatible. Let me ask, are the Elks a contract purchaser of the site? MR. KILLEN: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So, we are not dealing with any type of speculation here. MR. KILLEN: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is what is to be built on the site. MR. KILLEN: They have contracted to buy the entire tract of land. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Are there any questions of Mr. Killen? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No. Mr. Chairman, this is really -- what we are doing is the Elks Club is just requesting to move about, what, a block, two blocks from where they currently are and get better access. One of the problems they have where they are currently is their access in and out of Airport Road, so I think this would be a better deal for everybody. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We do not have any speakers, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: You have speakers who have only asked to be recognized if there are other speakers in opposition, and if there are not, they don't need to speak. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And barring that, we will close the public hearing. Is there a motion on this item? COHMISSIONER BERRY: Move for approval. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response). CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five-zero. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Four. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Killen -- I'm sorry, four-zero. Thank you -- with one abstention. Thank you very much. MR. KILLEN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, that's what you guys do on Tuesday. Item #12B3 - Continued to September 23, 1997 Item #12C1 - Continued to September 23, 1997 Item #12C2 RESOLUTION 97-352, APPROVING THE PRELIHINARY ASSESSHENT ROLL AS THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL AND ADOPTING SAME AS THE NON-AD VALOREH ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR UTILIZING THE UNIFORM METHOD OF COLLECTION FOR SOLID WASTE DISTRICT NO. 1 MUNICIPAL SERVICE BENEFIT UNIT SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LEVIED AGAINST CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY - ADOPTED *** Item 12(C)(2), approval of a resolution approving the preliminary assessment roll as the final assessment roll. This is on Solid Waste District Number 1, MSBU. Mr. Yonkosky. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve. MR. YONKOSKY: Mr. Chairman, commissioners, good morning. Item 12(C)(2) is a request for the Board of County Commissioners to approve a resolution that does two things. It sets the rate for District 1 for next year, and it also approves or authorizes the placement on the tax roll to be collected as a non-ad valorem assessment. The dollar amount for District 2 this year -- or next year will be $107.96 for equivalent residential unit. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Is that the lowest in the state? MR. YONKOSKY: I'm not sure whether it's the lowest in the state, but it's certainly the lowest one in this area. It's considerably lower than -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's either the lowest in the state or it will be the lowest in the state next year. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, there was some question -- I think it was Hanatee County or somebody or Martin -- Hanatee or Martin or somebody like that may have been a few cents lower, but they were in the process of raising their rate, but I believe that we are -- once they do that, we are still, once again, the lowest residential rate in the state. MR. YONKOSKY: Commissioner Norris, I do not know what their CPI increase was. The only increase in your rates over last year was the CPI on the disposal. There's no increase over last year for the collection. It's just the mandatory contractual increase on disposal that is a CPI increase that's in your contract with the service provider. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Can we close the public hearing? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. Mr. Fernandez, do we have anyone to speak on this item? MR. FERNANDEZ: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response). CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, that item is approved. Item #12C3 RESOLUTION 97-353, APPROVING THE PRELIHINARY ASSESSHENT ROLL AS THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL AND ADOPTING SAME AS THE NON-AD VALOREH ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PURPOSES OF UTILIZING THE UNIFORM METHOD OF COLLECITON, FOR SOLID WASTE DISTRICT NO. 2 MUNICIPAL SERVICE BENEFIT UNIT SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LEVIED AGAINST CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY - ADOPTED *** 12(C)(3) is a similar item. Do we have to approve them individually? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. The next item, 12(C)(3), I'll ask if there's any questions of staff on that. Seeing none, any speakers, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to approve the item. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response). CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five-zero. Mr. Yonkosky, thank you very much. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman, just a second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I just noticed in the reading, on that first one it was Solid Waste District 1, and this was Solid Waste 2. Is that two separate -- MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, Commissioner Berry. District 1 is the western half of the unincorporated area of the county. District 2 is the Immokalee area or the eastern half of the unincorporated area. COHMISSIONER BERRY: All right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And Mr. Yonkosky's presentation covered both districts. That's why -- he did mention District 2 in his presentation, and that's why. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Right. I just wondered if we were on track. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. Item #12C4 ORDINANCE 97-43, AMENDING ORDINANCE 90-87, AS AMENDED, TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN ADDITIONAL AREAS FROM THE IMPOSITION OF SEWER IMPACT FEES - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: *** Item 12(C)(4), approve and adopt an ordinance to amend Ordinance 90-87 to exclude certain additional area from the imposition of sewer impact fees. Mr. Finn, this is something we've talked about case by case, and it's finally coming back to answer what we had directed, what, about two or three weeks ago? MR. FINN: Yes, sir. I believe you've had three public petitions on this matter. What we are proposing to do is exclude certain areas from sewer impact fees through 12(C)(4) and water impact fees through 12(C)(5). Associated with that is going to be a substantial amount of refunding. The actual amounts in that regard are approximately $820,000 for sewer impact fees plus interest and approximately five hundred twenty in water impact fees plus interest. Additionally, we have an issue of records being stored off-site and a matter of fees associated with retrieving those records, and we propose that the petitioners would absorb those fees. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: How much do those fees total? MR. FINN: They are $15 to pull each record according to Development Fee Resolution 96-594. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Does this -- 40 years from now, these areas decide they want sewer and they are going to pay for it, they would have to pay a system impact fee at that time under the current ordinance; is that correct? MR. FINN: Yes, sir. This exclusion is not absolute. If they are characterized as having an impact, they would pay an impact fee. In fact, that fee would be at the current rate at the time which would better reflect the cost of construction anyway. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. Any question for staff? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just -- I think I've colored the map that was in our packet to understand what areas are excluded but -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Did you stay within the lines? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, no, I'm not very good at that, but if there's a better map, hopefully we'll use something better to be able to publicize, you know, who may be applying for a refund. MR. FINN: Yes, ma'am. Actually, I have an exhibit out there for the audience that is a little bit better than the one in your package. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good. MR. FINN: I'm sorry I didn't provide one for you. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's okay. MR. FINN: It's our intent -- we've done considerable research and have considerable staff time into this already. We are intending to actually notify likely parcels impacted by this that they may be eligible, provide them the forms and allow them to return those to us along with the records request form with the payment to allow us to process those as efficiently as possible. The ordinance provides or requires several records, including a statement, a sworn statement that they are the current owner of the property, because the impact fees do, in fact, run with the land, not with the original payor of those impact fees. The ordinance also provides up to 90 days for us to, after submission of that request, to respond with whether we will provide those refunds or not. So, the timetable on this, in all likelihood, is in the neighborhood of 90 to 100 days for the long-term folks, and there are some areas where the records are better where we've already essentially identified those. We have about 100 properties that are identified and simply would be waiting for the forms to be returned. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Fernandez, do we have any speakers on either of these items? MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm going to close the public hearing. I'm going to ask to entertain individual motions on 12(C)(4) and 12(C)(5). COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve 12(C)(4). COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response). CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five-zero. Item #12C5 ORDINANCE 97-44, AMENDING ORDINANCE 90-86, AS AMENDED, TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN ADDITIONAL AREAS FROM THE IMPOSITION OF WATER IMPACT FEES - ADOPTED *** Item 12(C)(5). COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Motion carries five-zero. Mr. Finn, thank you very much. Item #13A1 RESOLUTION 97-354, RE PETITION V-96-28, JOHN GRISSOM REPRESENTING LANDMARK COMHUNITIES C/0 MIKE JEPPESEN REQUESTING A 1.94 FOOT DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE FROM THE REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT OF FIVE (5) FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN QUEEN'S PARK SUBDIVISION AT LAGO VERDE, PHASE SEVEN, LOT 189 - ADOPTED *** We are to Item 13(A)(1) under advertised public hearings, Petition V-96-28. This is a variance request for 1.94 feet of a five foot setback, Mr. John Grissom representing Landmark Communities. Again, this is quasi judicial. I'm going to ask Ms. Murray and whoever is here to represent the petitioner plus any members of the public that wish to speak on this to please stand and raise your right hand. Madam court reporter. (The speakers were sworn). CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Ms. Murray? MS. MURRAY: Good morning, Susan Murray, current planning services. I'm not going to go into great detail with this because you-all have heard this, unless you want me to. You, if you recall, recommended that this be -- or voted that this be tabled on February 25th until after the LDC amendments in June to allow conditional variances. As a result, I've amended the attached resolution to reflect that change to the LDC. The applicant was just requesting a 1.94 foot variance to allow an existing pool deck and cage to remain 3.06 feet from the rear property line where the rear setback requirement is for five feet. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And Ms. Murray, do we have either a lot of objection or agreement on this from the adjacent property owner that would be affected by this? MS. MURRAY: At the original public hearing, I did receive two letters of objection; one from a citizen that lived across the lake and one acting or claiming to be a representative of the property owners on either side. Since that time, I have had no communication or contact from either. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Questions of Ms. Murray? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: This house has been occupied all that time? MS. MURRAY: This is correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I remember this as being one of those situations that you want to go after the person responsible, but you didn't want to adversely affect the property owner by doing that, and the person responsible really isn't available for that, so -- that's my recollection of the item. I don't know if that's entirely correct, but it's ballpark. Mr. Bullen (phonetic), did you have anything to add? MR. JEPPESEN: I don't have anything to add, nor do I want to talk you out of it, but if you'd like a brief presentation, I'm ready to give one. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Does anyone have questions of Mr. Bullen? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's his name? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry. Your name for the record? MR. JEPPESEN: Mr. Jeppesen. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I was wondering who you were thinking about. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. Never mind. MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, if I might respectfully interrupt you at this point just because I see in the package that originally staff had recommended denial on this. I just believe it is necessary maybe in very summary form we can have what is the basis for, if there is a motion to approve, as I understand is coming here, what is the basis for that grant of that motion. Perhaps, the planner can comment on that as to -- MS. MURRAY: I guess I didn't quite understand your question. I don't think our recommendation -- our, as a staff recommendation, has changed, and I don't want to put words in the mouth of the Board of County Commissioners. MR. MANALICH: But is there -- my only question be, is there a basis you can identify within the code that conserves the basis for approval here? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll make a motion to approve based on the fact that the special conditions and circumstances that exist that are peculiar to this property is the longstanding existence of the encroachment and the fact that we now have the ability to have the encroachment removed upon destruction and reconstruction of the property. Is that sufficient? MR. MANALICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I need to close the public hearing, and that motion will now stand. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is there a second on the motion? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I will. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask a question on the motion directed towards the county attorney. As the motion was voiced, it appeared that it said that the property would have to be demolished, but would you construe that to mean that the pool itself and not the house, because really it's the pool we are concerned with, not the house? MR. MANALICH: Yeah, I think that clarifies it. MS. MURRAY: If I may, it's written that way in the resolution as the pool and/or pool deck. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. All right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And there will be an apology to Mr. Jeppesen for mistaking you for someone else. A little embarrassing. Any questions on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response). Items #13A2 and #13A3 - Continued to September 23, 1997 Item #15 STAFF COMMUNICATIONS CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: *** Next two items were continued. *** We are down to staff communications, and Mr. Fernandez, you get a big gold star for putting the name of the person giving the invocation, but now you get a black one because staff communication was supposed to be reversed with BCC communication. So, you went neutral on us today. MR. FERNANDEZ: I broke even. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's the big things. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The first is more helpful than the latter being more hurtful. Staff communication, Mr. Manalich? MR. MANALICH: None at this time. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And a fine, fine job you've done today. We appreciate it. MR. MANALICH: Thanks. I survived. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: I have nothing, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: *** BCC communications; Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nothing. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Not today. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry? COMHISSIONER BERRY: Nothing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, sir. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I also have nothing. With that, ladies and gentlemen, we are adjourned. Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner Norris and carried unanimoulsy, that the following items under the Consent Agenda be Approved and/or Adopted: Item #16A1 APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT OF "STERLING OAKS PHASE 2A" - WITH CASH BOND, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS Item #16A2 APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT OF VLAENCIA PHASE ONE - WITH LETTER OF CREDIT, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS Item #16B1 CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 TO DOUGLAS N. HIGGINS, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $86,100.00 FOR CONTRACT NO. 97-2626, MARCO ISLAND T-GROIN CONSTRUCTION - SUBJECT TO RECOHMENDATIONS FROM THE BEACH RENOURISHHENT/MAINTENANCE COHMITTEE AND THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL Item #1682 - Deleted Item #1683 - Deleted Item #1684 RESOLUTION 97-347, REQUESTING THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO CONVEY SURPLUS PROPERTY TO COLLIER COUNTY BY QUIT-CLAIM DEED FOR ACCESS TO BORROW PIT NO. 2 AND FOR THE FOUR-LANING IMPROVEMENTS TO COUNTY BARN ROAD Item #1685 - Deleted Itemm #1686 INTERIH IHPROVEHENTS TO THE PINE RIDGE ROAD/LIVINGSTON ROAD INTERSECTION PENDING FINAL IMPROVEMENTS AS PART OF THE PINE RIDGE ROAD SIX-LANE PROJECT SCHEDULED FOR CONSTRUCTION IN OCTOBER, 1999 Item #1687 FISCAL YEAR 1997-98 ANNUAL CONTRACTS FOR BID #97-2713, TRAFFIC SIGN MATERIALS - AWARDED TO MUNICIPAL SUPPLY & SIGN CO.; AND BID #97-2712 FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND STREET LIGHTS - AWARDED TO MID-CONTINENT ELECTRIC, INC. (PRIMARY CONTRACTOR) AND E.B. SIHMONDS ELECTRICAL, INC. (SECONDARY CONTRACTOR) Item #1688 CONTRACT TO CONSTRUCT NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATHENT PLANT BELT FILTER PRESS WALKWAYS, BID NO. 97-2721 - MINOR IRREGULARITIES WAIVED; AGREEMENT WITH HIGH POINT GENERAL CONTRACTING, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $39,950.00 FOR TOTAL BASE BID ALTERNATE NO. 2 Item #1689 AUTHORIZATION TO SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE REPLACEHENT PUHPS, SPECIFIED REPAIR PARTS AND MATERIALS FOR APPROVED SUBHERSIBLE LIFT STATIONS - TO ELLIS K. PHELPS AND COMPANY Item #16B10 PURCHASE ORDER UNDER EXISTING MAINTENANCE CONTRACT #96-2567 WITH WILKINS MALCOLM & ASSOCIATES FOR REPAIRS OF WELL NOS. 6, 11 AND 14 - IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $27,000.00 Item #16Bll - Deleted Item #16B12 RESOLUTION 97-348, APPROVING A DECLARATION OF EASEHENT ON COUNTY OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED ON COUNTY BARN ROAD Item #16C1 BUDGET AMENDMENTS RECOGNIZING ADDITIONAL REVENUES FROM THE TWO PERCENT TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX, AND TRANSFERS TO THE COLLIER COUNTY MUSEUM FUND - IN THE A_MOUNT OF $10,600.00 Item #16C2 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FLORIDA RECREATION DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM GRANT AGREEMENT FOR SUGDEN REGIONAL PARK Item #16C3 BUDGET A_MENDHENT RECOGNIZING CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE GOLDEN GATE COHMUNITY CENTER FOR THE SUHMER CAMP PROGRAM Item #16D1 AGREEHENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTHENT OF COHMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR THE REVIEW AND UPDATE OF HAZARDOUS ANALYSES AT FACILITIES POSSESSING EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AT OR ABOVE THE THRESHOLD PLANNING QUANTITY WITHIN COLLIER COUNTY Item #16D2 - Deleted Item #16D3 ADDITIONAL 800 HHZ SYSTEM REIMBURSEMENT REVENUES AND ALLOCATION OF A PORTION OF 800 HHZ SYSTEM REIMBURSEMENT REVENUES TO FUND PERMIT AND LICENSING FEES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT Item #16D4 RESOLUTION 97-349, AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR A PICNIC TO RECOGNIZE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS EMPLOYEES Item #16El BUDGET AMENDMENTS 97-426, 97-427 AND 97-432 Item #16G 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 by order of the Chair at 11:00 a.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK TIMOTHY L. HANCOCK, CHAIRPERSON These minutes approved by the Board on presented or as corrected as TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING BY: Dawn Breehne