Loading...
BCC Minutes 11/25/1997 RREGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 1997 OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conduced business herein, met on this date at 9:01 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRMAN: Timothy L. Hancock Timothy J. Constantine Pamela S. Mac'Kie Barbara B. Berry John C. Norris Robert Fernandez, County Administrator David C. Weigel, County Attorney Item #3 AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good morning. I'd like to welcome everyone to the Board of County Commissioners' meeting for November 25th, 1997. It's a pleasure this morning to have Reverend Peter Lyberg from the Shepherd of the Glades Lutheran Church with us. Reverend Lyberg, if I could ask for your blessing and invocation this morning, and follow by the Pledge of Allegiance. REVEREND LYBERG: Oh Lord, our God, great is your name and glorious your love and mercy. We are so very thankful for blessings of family, home and community and nation in this week and all through the year as well. For heritage and potential, for sacrifices and labors of so many preceding us to this day and place. Grant unto us freedom tempered by responsibility, caring embodied in action, diversity balanced by unity, common sense effectively directed, speaking enlightened by listening, success without penalties, happiness as a goal and not a guarantee, unexpected joys and challenges to brighten our daily walk, and strength to overcome adversity, forgiveness for error, and insight for wise steps into each new tomorrow. In all these endeavors, oh God, grant these unto us and unto the Collier County commission and our community, for which we are thankful and to which we seek to give our best as we strive to live our best. With praise and grateful hearts, we begin this day and this meeting, that both may give peace and joy to many. In your loving name we pray, oh God. Amen. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Reverend Lyberg, on behalf of the board, thank you for being with us this morning. Mr. Fernandez, good morning. MR. FERNANDEZ: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What do we have in the way of changes in the lineup? MR. FERNANDEZ: We have just three changes. The first is to move item 16(B)(2) to 8(B)(5). This is to approve in concept the Big Marco and Capri Pass Inlet management study and authorize submittal to the State Department of Environmental Protection. This -- this is a request from the staff, not the Board of County Commissioners as listed here, and really, since it does involve some discussion regarding the appointment of a task force, we felt it appropriate to put it on as a regular item. Second is to add item 8(E)(1), which is an agreement between the City of Marco Island and Collier County for a temporary interim city manager. That's at the staff's request, and the third is to delete item 5(C)(1), presentation of Phoenix Awards to recognize EMS paramedics. This is a staff request. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Mac'Kie, any further changes? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I had a request, I frankly don't know anything about it except for a request that item 16(B)(4) be pulled and put for regular discussion. It has to do with options for storm pipe material and a bid process that -- that Kathi Simon from CSR Hydro Conduit has asked to be pulled and I told her I'd do that as a courtesy and allow her to make a point. MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: I believe that's already been moved to the regular. It's on page three. It's item 8(B)(4). COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: I think it's that item that you're talking about. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Super. Great. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Anything else, Commissioner Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Nothing else. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing further. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry? COHMISSIONER BERRY: Nothing, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No changes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I also have none. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion we approve the agenda and consent agenda as amended. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Question, Mr. Fernandez, the second add item, it's listed as 9(E)(1). Is that supposed to be 8(E)(1)? MR. FERNANDEZ: Should be 8(E)(1). Sorry. We've revised that on the copy I have and didn't remember that you don't have it on your -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's okay. I just wanted to make sure. We have a motion and a second on the agenda. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five, zero. Item #4 MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 28, 1997 REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 3, 1997 JOINT CITY-COUNTY WORKSHOP AND NOVEMBER 4, 1997 REGULAR MEETING - APPROVED COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion that we approve the minutes of October 28th regular meeting, November 3rd joint City/County workshop, and November 4th regular meeting. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Second it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and 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 DESIGNATING DECEHBER 1, 1997, AS WORLD AIDS DAY - ADOPTED *** We are to proclamations and service awards, item 5(A) on your agenda. 5(A)(1) is a proclamation recognizing World AIDS Day. Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I believe we have Charlene Wendel and Russell Fox here with us, if they'd come on up. Good morning. MS. WENDEL: Good morning. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And if you'd turn and face the audience and, of course, the television cameras, we'll read the following proclamation. WHEREAS, the global spread of HIV infection and AIDS necessitates a worldwide effort to increase communication, education and action to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS; and WHEREAS, the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) observes December 1st of each year as World AIDS Day, a day to expand and strengthen the worldwide effort to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS; and WHEREAS, UNAIDS estimates that 21.8 million people are currently living with HIV/AIDS, with children under the age of 15 years accounting for 830,000 of the cases; and WHEREAS, the American Association for World Health is encouraging a better understanding of the challenge of HIV/AIDS nationally as it recognizes that the number of people diagnosed with HIV and AIDS in the United States continues to increase with 581,429 cases reported (as of December 31, 1996); and WHEREAS, World AIDS Day provides an opportunity to focus on HIV infections and AIDS, caring for people with HIV infection and AIDS, and learning about HIV/AIDS; and WHEREAS, the 1997 World AIDS Day theme "Give Children Hope in a World with AIDS" urges the world to contemplate the long-term repercussions, recognizes that everyone can do something about the pandemic through prevention, education and compassion, and emphasizes the hope of finding the means to prevent and cure HIV/AIDS in the ultimate prospect of minimizing the impact of the epidemic on children, their families and their communities. NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that Monday, December 1, 1997 be designated as World AIDS Day and urge all citizens to take part in activities and observances designed to increase awareness and understanding of HIV/AIDS as a global challenge, to take part in HIV/AIDS prevention activities and programs, and to join the global effort to prevent the further spread of HIV/AIDS. DONE AND ORDERED THIS 25th day of November, 1997, Board of County Commissioners, Timothy L. Hancock, AICP, Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Iwd like to make a motion we approve this proclamation. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. COMMISSIONER MAC~KIE: Second -- third. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Congratulations. (Applause.) MR. FOX: As a person -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You need to go to the podium so they can pick it up on the mike. MR. FOX: As a person living with the virus, I want to thank you for declaring this proclamation and I invite everybody here to the celebration at Cambier Park on December 1st starting at seven owclock. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Our next proclamation by Commissioner MacwKie is recognizing Miss Karen Bishop. Item #5A2 PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING KAREN BISHOP OF PROFESSIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. FOR HER VOLUNTEER EFFORTS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF SUGDEN REGIONAL PARK - ADOPTED COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would ask Karen to come up, please, and hopefully face -- face the VCR that the tape is rolling at home. I almost called you to remind you. Come on up here. This is a really incredible act of community volunteerism that's being recognized today. The proclamation reads, WHEREAS, Sugden Regional Park will be the first true regional park in the County's park system; and WHEREAS, the Park is the result of a grass roots community effort involving many different groups and individuals throughout the County; and WHEREAS, the work involved in readying the facility for construction included the coordination of a number of different paid and volunteer professionals; and WHEREAS, the work of preparing this site for construction also required a working knowledge of, relationships with, and many hours devoted to obtaining permits from Collier County, the South Florida Water Management District and the Army Corps of Engineers; and WHEREAS, the work done to design, permit and develop construction bid documents for this project would have cost Collier County taxpayers an estimated $150,000; and WHEREAS, all volunteer work was initiated, organized and professionally accomplished by Ms. Karen Bishop of Project Management Services, Inc., at no cost to the County Government, to the taxpayers or the children and families who will use and ultimately enjoy this park. NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that a great debt of gratitude and appreciation is owed to Ms. Karen Bishop of Project Management Services, Inc., for her tireless volunteer efforts on behalf of all County residents to coordinate and personally work to design, permit and develop construction documents for the Sugden Regional Park project. DONE AND ORDERED THIS 25th day of November, 1997, Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida. Timothy Hancock, Chairman. I'm pleased to move approval of this proclamation. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And it comes with a beautiful plaque that we hope Karen will display in her office, and we appreciate it. (Applause.) MS. BISHOP: I would like to take a minute to thank all the other people though. I was just a small little part of the big people -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, you weren't. You were a big part. MS. BISHOP: -- that did all that work. Bill McAnly's office, Bill McAnly himself, and Kent Carlisle (phonetic) were very instrumental in the work and design of the park, as well as many other landscape architects from the local groups. Stan Chrzanowski, George Fogg and Todd Turrell's office spent an incredible amount of hours doing a lot of work for this project. Without them, my efforts would have been a lot less, so I really appreciate them and I accept this for them. Thank you. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Miss Bishop. We're all looking forward to our first dip in the lake. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can't wait. Item #5B EHPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED *** CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Under service awards, it's a pleasure this morning to recognize two people for ten years' service with Collier County, and the first, I'm going to apologize in advance for getting the name wrong because I know I'm going to do it, but for ten years' service with EHS, Noemi Fraguela. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just out of curiosity, how close was I, balipark? Congratulations. Also this morning recognizing ten years' service with the library system, one I'll have an easier time with, Kelly Pierson. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Historically, it must be a good month for the library, recognizing five years' service with the library, Michael Widner. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Staying in the employment of government service, whether it be County, State or Federal for any period of time is a feat, but to do it in an elected office is masochistic, but I'd like to recognize two of our employees, Commissioner Timothy Constantine for five years. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And Commissioner John Norris also for five years. (Applause.) COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Proudly display those pins. Item #SA1 REPORT ON A PROPOSED WORK PROGRAM TO INVESTIGATE ALTERNATIVE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY SCENARIOS AND THE RESULTING TRANSPORTATION NETWORK IMPACTS - STAFF TO COME BACK TO THE BOARD IN SIX WEEKS *** CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Next on our agenda this morning, item under 8, Community Administrator's Report, 8(A), Community Development and Environmental Services. Mr. Arnold, we have a staff report on a proposed work program to investigate alternative residential density scenarios. MR. ARNOLD: Good morning, commissioners. Wayne Arnold, Planning Services Director. You have in your executive summary packet our proposed work plan for completing the exercise we discussed on October 28th. We believe that that's an achievable work plan. I would like to tell you that we have, what we believe, completed phase 1 that I alluded to in that executive summary packet, which is to tell you the -- the point at which population and the grade separations and six lane roads sort of come together. Somewhat unfortunately, I must tell you that we believe that population is at about 286,000 or about 178,000 dwelling units, that we believe that keeping the road network essentially as we have it today, we can support it. That number can go up or down slightly, depending on how much more specifically we would run that methodology through our model. That appears to be -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry, Wayne, you said it's 176,000 dwelling units? MR. ARNOLD: About 178,000 dwelling units is what we estimate our network will support. We have authorized through the zoning process, to date, approximately 217,000 dwelling units to be constructed. That's why we believe that phase 2 is ever more critical for us to go back and take a more specific look at some of the zoning approvals. We had a zoning teevaluation process five years ago that made somewhat of a reduction in our number of dwelling units. I'm not contemplating going back through that kind of exercise. What I'm talking about is going back and making some realistic assumptions of what's going to be built on the ground today. We know for a fact that Fiddler's Creek has given away 2,000 dwelling units that it was authorized to build when we initially calculated these numbers back in 1992. We believe that some of the other large DRI's will not achieve their maximum densities and number of dwelling units that they've been authorized. Some of the other straight zoning categories that we have out there, we, too, don't believe that they are going to achieve their ultimate, so we would like to go back through each of the 200 TAZ's, more specifically -- traffic analysis zones, excuse me, go back and look at those numbers to see if we can't bring that number down slightly or significantly. I really don't know what the case will be. I don't believe it's going to bring us down to that break-even point through that exercise, but that's where, when we move into phase 3, when we start looking more specifically at the intersections, and that's where we start dealing with the issue of grade separations because for the traffic models perspective, any time you reach an intersection of about 100,000 crossing movements, that's where it becomes identified as a potential grade separated intersection. There are alternatives to grade separated intersections in some cases. Unfortunately, the way that our model looks at the transportation network, it's very much an arterial and collector roadway network model. There are some better simulators for local traffic movements we believe may be necessary, but I think realistically, we can get through phase 2 without the -- without any paid consulting help, as mentioned in the executive summary. We can go back through each of these TAZ's, rerun the model through what we believe is an existing contract with the Florida Department of Transportation. Phase 3, and then later, phase 4, may involve consulting fees, of which, unfortunately, I can't tell you what that cost might be. Could be fairly significant, depending on exactly what we hope to achieve, but again, these -- this is sort of our preliminary findings and that is our work plan. I do have a copy of an internal staff memo that -- that discusses how we arrived at this sort of break-even population number that I'd like to give you for your consideration, and I can provide that to you now or under separate cover, whichever you prefer. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think now would be appropriate. Just to -- to summarize somewhat, the existing road system we have, you're saying, will support any urban area 178,000 dwelling units? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And we currently have built and permitted 217,000 dwelling units, and by permitted, I mean zoned, not building permits issued, which is a disparity of 40,000 dwelling units, plus or minus 90,000 people? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So between what has been zoned and built out there and what our roadway system can handle, we have a shortfall of 90,000, without going to an undesirable level of -- of roadway construction? MR. ARNOLD: That's -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I know these are general statements. MR. ARNOLD: These are general numbers, and I really think when we go back and start taking a harder look, we've come up with, for phase 2, a list of -- long list of assumptions we would like to make going into that analysis, which will include going back to some of the major, not only population centers, which will be some of the DRI's, but to also go back and look at some of the major, what will be employment centers, because the traffic model also has an employment base, as well as population base, so some of the numbers are factors of employment movement throughout the county. We need to take a hard look at that as well, and we're going to make some assumptions that -- that I think were unrealistic back in 1992 about how much commercial acreage -- or how much commercial square footage is being constructed per acre. We think that number is less, given some of the environmental constraints, some of the open space requirements, water management criteria, et cetera. We think we can bring some of those numbers down, so in total, we may be able to make a more significant impact than just tinkering with the population side of that equation. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Questions of staff? Yes, Commissioner Berry? COMMISSIONER BERRY: I don't know if this is the appropriate place, but where -- at what point or when -- when do we get something in regard to the economic impact? Where -- where does that fall into this plan? MR. ARNOLD: I'm hoping that we start looking at that as part of what will be phase 3, because really through phase 2 we're really looking at the data of, can we reach an achievable and optimal sort of density and population scenario with a road network that we all agree on and is realistically -- somewhat realistically achievable. Then I think the legal ramifications and some of the fiscal impacts of that need to be discussed through the next phase, because what I would tell you, talking to our MPO staff who ran this model, you really, for a much reduced population, don't need six lane arterial roadways in all cases, so you sort of overbuild the system, but by the same token, we generally, as a rule, don't build facilities until we need them. So some of these -- some of the funding is really more a factor of whether you have to build it at all, in addition to, you know, is the revenue stream going to be there to support it at the same time. We knew that through the Plummet study that was completed a couple of months ago, that a population of 429,000 people and the road network to support that was in the realm of financial feasibility, at least how we were projecting revenues into the future, so scaled back road networks should be achievable. I think it's really, when we start looking at some of the zoning impacts and whether or not we have to go back and compensate people for actions that we might take or go back and make some other adjustments, then that's where some of those other financial considerations will be given. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry, when you say. economic impact, are you talking about really -- COMHISSIONER BERRY: Both, both. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Because there's a check and balance for income and revenues -- revenue and expenditure on the county side for construction of infrastructure, and then there is a more community-wide economic development that would be -- COHMISSIONER BERRY: Absolutely, and I'm not sure that -- that staff is going to do that side of it and -- and I don't know if we, at that point, get involved with, say an EDC to come through and -- and analyze, you know, the actions that the board could possibly take and -- and kind of work together on that angle, but it's both, financial and the economic -- MR. ARNOLD: I do know that Mr. Cautero, our division administrator, has been in contact with Dr. Borgia from Florida Gulf Coast University who's expressed some interest in being involved in some economic study related to this. We haven't explored it in any great detail because I don't think we've reached quite that point at which we have to make that decision, but that is another option with the university at our back door. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There's -- there are communities that have gone far further in -- in the restricting side of development than what we are, at this time, contemplating, such as limiting building permits to a number in a given year, and I think from those, the one in the 70's that I read about so much was Petaluma, California. There have been others that have done it since. It may be helpful to communicate with those communities or any that you know of that are more recent, maybe go through APA's library and database to see if anyone has gone through in a -- in essence, a residential reduction to infrastructure demands recently and see what -- what community impacts resulted from that. That would probably be a resource I'd recommend to -- to look at to see if there's a real world example rather than speaking just in theory, because that becomes very, very difficult. MR. ARNOLD: We can certainly look at that as part of our phase 2 and phase 3 analysis. I would hope that we would come back to you sometime either in December or early January right after the holidays and present to you some of our findings of phase 2. We understand that our consultant's contract runs through the end of the year, so hopefully we can get data to them and let them run this model by the end of the year, and then we can have some fresh numbers for you either at the end of the year, depending on the holiday board schedule, or right after the first of the year. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As -- as I see this, I see what has been done to date and what will be done in the next phase as establishing the basis for future decisions. The bottom line is, if we're behind X amount today, we need some way to make up for that deficit in future decisions. So in other words, to go out and approve a community with X number of residential dwelling units, we have to determine the availability of constructing roadways within the community's desirable limits to serve that in the future, and if you can't, then we have a true infrastructure concern. Is that a fair assessment of -- of what we're looking at for this phase? MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think it is, and part of what we will discuss later on that will ultimately be some of the strategies we have to take is amendments to our growth management plan and our long-range road network plan to determine what we are going to support, because right now the plan of attack is to have a road network that will serve a population exceeding 450,000 people, so you can certainly scale back your long-range road network plans if you intend to scale back the ultimate build out population. So some of those issues will -- will come up, and I think that the grade separation and the six lane road segments have been two things that wewve discussed as sort of the identifiable optimum road network issues. What we didnwt discuss as part of this exercise even, are there new road corridors that we can open up, are there some other local road connectors we can make to help alleviate some of the intersections, and thatws where this intersection analysis, I think, will be really critical, because we may actually be able to sustain a slightly higher population than wewre showing under this scenario if we make some other intersection improvements, other road network connectors, et cetera. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think itws important to note that itws not the boardws desire one way or another to sustain a higher or lower population, but we do have legal requirements, through the Bert Harris Private Property Rights Act, that limit us severely on what we can and cannot do with existing zoned property. It doesnwt limit us entirely but it is a significant restriction that can be costly if itws violated. So the reason why wewre looking at these higher numbers is not so much the desire to serve a larger population, but the recognition that there are past decisions we may not be able to affect, but I wanted to say that because I -- I hear quite a bit that the public doesnwt understand the legal parameters of what we have to work within, and I think it's helpful to state those as often as possible so it doesn't -- these decisions don't appear arbitrary or growth -- growth friendly, but just -- just community friendly. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I know we first started talking about this and trying to deal with the growth issue in any detail in October of '95, and I just wanted to compliment staff. I think that a plan was put together here, to the amount the law allows, certainly goes a long way toward, not from a legal sense, limiting growth, but putting kind of a realistic perspective on it and trying to at least get us a number and a road network and facilities that I think are certainly more in line with what we hear every time we're out in the public, so compliments for the work done. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Further questions? Mr. Arnold, to you and your staff, thank you for a very quick look at things. The next phase, I understand, is going to be adding reality into the existing plan rather than just the numbers that appear on paper, and I know that's going to be a difficult task to try and -- and be accurate without being too conservative. MR. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRNLAN HANCOCK: So good luck and we'll see you in -- we'll see you before that, but we'll see you on this item in about six weeks. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. Yes. CHAIRNLAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Arnold. Item #SB1 INFORMATION REGARDING THE ROAD IMPACT FEE FOR THE SPORTS AUTHORITY BUILDING - RECOHMENDATION OF STAFF APPROVED *** Next item on our agenda, item 8(B)(1) under Public Works, present additional information regarding the road impact fee for the Sports Authority building as requested by the board and to request approval of the road impact fee. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, the one question I had had on this before was the numbers -- as our staff report was given, the numbers had been based on information provided by the builder, by the petitioner, and my question had been, I know they had a formula to adhere to, but if we looked at those ourselves, would we come out with the same number? MR. KANT: For the record, Edward Kant, Transportation Services Department. Yes, sir, those were independently checked. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great. MR. KANT: If I may, very briefly, the agenda item includes a background paper that I believe is fairly self-explanatory. The whole issue revolves around one word, and that word is alternative versus individual. We have an ordinance, ordinance 92-22 which sets forth the procedure for determining road impact fees. The issue which arose, arose because, at the time the petitioner approached the staff, it was staff's interpretation that this would have been an individual impact fee. Subsequent to that, some year or so later as a result of a spot audit by the Clerk of Court's office of impact fee revenues, the issue was -- the question was raised as to whether that should more properly have been an alternative impact fee which should have come before the board. In either event, the same date it would have been presented to you, the same conclusions would have been reached and the issue, at that time, would have been resolved one way or the other. When we received this information from the Clerk's office, we went back and looked at it. We felt at the time that we were still correct in our initial interpretation. However, because the issue had come up, we did agree that perhaps it should come back to the board, and that's why we're here now, but nothing in the last year and a half or since early 1996 has changed. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And giving us the -- I see this as two-fold. One is that it gave us the opportunity to request a verification of the initial number, and after looking at all the best engineering principles, you have determined that number is as good as it can be? MR. KANT: Yes, sir, that's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The second thing is that in the future, these types of -- similar types of road impact fee analyses will come before the board? MR. KANT: Yes, sir. We believe that we would prefer to err on the side of caution. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We can expect Commissioner Mac'Kie to ask why they aren't on the consent agenda. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's exactly right. MR. KANT: I beg your pardon, sir? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's okay. I was just teasing. Okay. Do we have any direction or questions on this matter? Mr. Fernandez, I assume there's no speakers on this item? MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve staff recommendation. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries four, one. MR. KANT: Thank you, commissioners. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Item #882 APPROPRIATION OF A PORTION OF THE MARCO ISLAND BEAUTIFICATION H.S.T.U. FUND 131 RESERVES FOR CONTINUED MEDIAN LANDSCAPE REFURBISHHENT ON SOUTH BARFIELD DRIVE - APPROVED *** 8(B)(2), request for the board to recognize, approve and appropriate a portion of the Marco Island Beautification H.S.T.U. Fund 131 reserves for continued median landscape refurbishment on South Barfield Drive. Mr. Bobanick, that is an early morning sports coat. MR. BOBANICK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Easter egg blue. Good morning. MR. BOBANICK: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, my name is Dave Bobanick. I'm transportation director. The purpose of this agenda item is to obtain board approval to basically transfer funds from the Marco Island H.S.B.T.U. reserve fund to the H.S.T.B. -- yes, sir? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think Commissioner Norris wants to streamline this. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. Mr. Bobanick, this is a request by the committee, right, the advisory committee? MR. BOBANICK: Yes. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Does -- does transportation staff have any objection or comment about this? MR. BOBANICK: Excuse me? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Does your transportation staff have any objection or comment about this transfer? MR. BOBANICK: No, no. No objection. We're recommending approval. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion that we approve staff's recommendation. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are there any speakers registered on this item? MR. FERNANDEZ: There are none. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five, zero. MR. BOBANICK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Bobanick. Item #883 LIGHTING OPTION FOR THE U.S. 41 WIDENING PROJECT BETWEEN AIRPORT PULLING ROAD AND DAVIS BOULEVARD, A FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTAITON PROJECT THAT IS CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION - OPTION A-i, AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPROVED *** We are to item 8(B)(3). COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The good news. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Which is a request to approve and recommend lighting option for the U.S. 41 widening project between Airport-Pulling Road and Davis Boulevard, and I see Mr. Bobanick is still at the helm. Commissioner Hac'Kie, was there any progress in the last week on this item? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: A lot of progress. Some really good news. Staff is probably better able to lay it out for you, but some really good news. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: With that, we'll go to Mr. Bobanick. MR. BOBANICK: Okay. Thank you. Again, for the record, my name is Dave Bobanick, transportation director. To open this discussion, I'd like to point out to the commission that the contract that is involved here is between FDOT and the contractor Austin Western (phonetic), and quite frankly, the contractor is in the driver's seat as far as the cost options on this particular project, and this is based on the severe time restrictions on this project, the potential for liquidated damages and the inability to get a time extension. I'd also like to point out that FDOT does require that an appropriate lighting system be in place when their project is completed. Since the last board meeting, I was able to work with the office of management and budget and it was determined that funds would be available in order to fund what was the original lighting recommendation of the staff, and that was option -- what we're now calling option A or A-1. A-1 -- the difference between option A and A-1 is, A-1 will have receptacles for banners to be utilized for events or to be changed out for various items. This was highly recommended by the East Naples Civic Association. Since the funds became available, staff did change their recommendation and now we're recommending that the commissioners approve option A-i, the necessary budget amendments to fund -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that just comes from that -- that special taxing district? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Absolutely. These are from those two special taxing districts. There were some unexpected carryforwards that we didn't know that were there. Michael Smykowski, as always, brilliant, did the work and found the money. So the good news is, with the funds from those special taxing districts, not general county-wide funds, we can get the lights that we had hoped for, and in a nutshell, it's really important that we go with the A-1 option, frankly, so that as we cross the bridge from the City of Naples into unincorporated Collier County, the transition is a comfortable and beautiful one and not a surprisingly different view at the county line, so I hope there's going to be support for option A-1. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A or A-i? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: A-1. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In addition, will the city -- MR. BOBANICK: That's our recommendation, A-1. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- change its architectural standards so you don't notice the change when you drive into the city? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You know, they're working on that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That would be nice. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: They are talking about that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Curious about that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Am I right, Mr. Bobanick, A-1 is the one with the banners and -- MR. BOBANICK: With -- right, with the opportunity to place banners. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's just so obvious when you drive in the city, the lack of architectural standards. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No comment. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just kidding. Is there no sense of humor today? Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm smiling. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is John smiling. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Did I hear a motion on this item? I'm sorry, was there a motion on the item or -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, motion to approve staff recommendation A-1. I think there's probably a lot of people here in support of it, but maybe you just want to raise your hand if you're in support of A-1 because I know you showed up and asked -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those people standing checking their watch have raised their hands. Mr. Fernandez, registered speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: You have two. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's go ahead and call them. MR. FERNANDEZ: David Carpenter and then John Hooley. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Dave, you want to talk us out of this one? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: My support is waning. MR. CARPENTER: We got a short course in the last week of how expensive lighting is and how tough contractors can be. I hope you go ahead with the A-1. The -- just -- I know there may be a little question on the banner. Design West has been working on the proposed renovation plans for the triangle and strongly advises that we go to a banner system to try and delineate the area of that community, and that's why we felt strongly that we should go ahead with that, but these things are a long-term investment though. We're looking at 30, 40 years probably on -- on streetlights like this, so it's the money up front, but it's going to last a heck of a long time, more than most of us will. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going to be around for the entire life of this street lighting. MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. John Hooley. MR. HOOLEY: My name's John Hooley. I'm here on behalf of Lely Civic Association. I'm the president of the civic association, and we've been always attentive to making our area of the county nicer and we've got a special taxing unit just for Lely, and we would really appreciate the consideration of the county on these light fixtures because, you know, really, I think everybody wants the place to look nice and these are really outstanding light poles. Thanks a lot. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Hooley. Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The banner thing will actually allow for decorative items to be put up? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right, either identification of the area or then they can be changed out from time to time. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Who's going to control that since it's a state road and -- I assume if the taxing district is paying for these, then the county ought to control that, but we probably ought to have that question answered up front so that we don't have surprises or arguments over the banner hanging down the road. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is anybody here from FDOT or -- if you know the answer to that, I don't. I know -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Probably not a pivotal issue, but one that requires our -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not a critical one. MR. CARPENTER: Dave Carpenter, East Naples Civic again. Coming out of this revitalization or redevelopment of the neighborhood, there probably will -- we will see either a redevelopment agency formed or an M.S.T.U. formed. I think at that point, that's the time to address this -- this issue because the county certainly would not be expected to go around paying for changing banners. There would have to be -- it would have to be a legal mechanism or a legal organization that would undertake that responsibility, and when that's set up, that's the time to say, hey, by the way, you guys are stuck with this, too. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In addition, we may want to verify with FDOT that there would be no objection to the placement of banners before we go paying for the addition of -- to allow for them on the poles. MR. BOBANICK: I understand. Since the -- since the county will be responsible for maintenance of the lighting system, we would -- I would presume we would also be responsible for maintenance and the controlling of the banners. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Good. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But we'll confirm that, Commissioner Constantine. Good point. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any further questions? Seeing none and no speakers, we have a motion and second on the floor to approve option A-1 as presented by staff. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five, zero. MR. BOBANICK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: To staff and Commissioner Mac'Kie, thank you for your work on that. Thank you for all of you who have shown up in support this morning. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're going to be proud of it. Item #8B4 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, RE BID NO. 97-2738, FOR IMPERIAL WEST/LANDMARK ESTATES DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS, - AWARDED TO STEVE A CLAPPER & ASSOCIATES OF FLORIDA, INC. IN THE A_MOUNT OF $486,219.56 *** CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Item 8 -- we usually allow more time for applause, but you ended early, so -- item 8(B)(4), award construction contract to Steve Clapper and Associates regarding Imperial West/Landmark Estates drainage improvement. Mr. Gonzalez, good morning. MR. GONZALEZ: Good morning, commissioners. Adolfo Gonzalez, capital projects director. This is to enclose a couple of ditches along Imperial West and Landmark Estates. Staff -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Gonzalez -- excuse me, folks, if I could ask you to keep your conversations either out in the hall or to a minimum here so we can hear staff. Thank you. Mr. Gonzalez, go ahead. MR. GONZALEZ: Included in the bid request were different types of pipe material, high density polyethylene pipe, concrete pipe and PVC pipe. The reason we asked for a different alternate is to come up with the best combination of price and constructability. The low bidders, Steve Clapper and Associates, had -- his lowest bid was on the concrete pipe alternate. We're recommending that you go with the polyethylene pipe alternate for a couple of key reasons. One is that they're going to be working underneath some transmission power lines and the -- the equipment needed to move the polyethylene pipe is smaller equipment, there will be a little added safety factor in terms of clearances to the power lines and it should make the work a little bit easier for them. In terms of performance, both the concrete pipe and the polyethylene pipe have the same types of performance and there have been successful construction projects in Southwest Florida and in Florida for both type materials. It's simply a request on our part to make it a little bit safer, a little bit easier for the contractor to move the material underneath the power lines and possibly even finish the job just a little bit earlier. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's a $100,000 increase cost? MR. GONZALEZ: No, ma'am. The difference between the concrete alternate and the polyethylene alternate is 19,000 for both Imperial and Landmark Estates. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see. MR. GONZALEZ: Less than 5 percent of the total bid value. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are we seeing a reduction in -- in construction time for placement and cost for placement as a result of the difference in material, because you mentioned quicker and easier, that equates, usually, to me, to lower cost? MR. GONZALEZ: We haven't done enough projects yet with the polyethylene pipe to have some historical database on how much sooner construction projects are completed. We think it will be a little bit sooner in time or a shorter construction project because they're longer segments of pipe, they're easier to haul around, place in the ditch with smaller equipment. Those, at least, should make it easier, more effective for the contractor to work with in the war zone without, again, getting caught on the transmission lines or -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You mentioned we don't have a lot of experience with the polyethylene as far as O.C.T.M. projects. Where are we getting our information on, I guess, longevity of the material to sustain itself on the polyethylene versus the -- you know, my mind is -- is concrete is concrete and it can be sleeved and, I mean, you can do a lot of things with it. Polyethylene, when it fails, does it fail by compression or does it fail by cracking? MR. GONZALEZ: The polyethylene pipe has the same types of load bearing characteristics as the concrete pipe. It's been accepted by the federal authorities that we usually use as design standards, the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Aviation Administration. About half the counties in the state have accepted it as an alternate equal to concrete pipe. Just because we haven't had a lot of experience in Collier County, one of our neighbors, City of Naples, has an installation with polyethylene pipe underneath a roadway. It's commonly used. I specified it in other parts of the state, but not here. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Questions for Mr. Gonzalez? Do we have speakers on this, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. The first is Larry Brosious and -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: How many speakers total do we have on this? MR. FERNANDEZ: Two. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Is Mr. Brosious here? Sir? MR. BROSIOUS: I'm Larry Brosious and I represent ADS, Incorporated, which is the manufacturer of the polyethylene pipe. Maybe I can answer a couple of the questions that you had inquired about there. The acceptance level, of course, it is a DOT approved product, so with that in mind, the extensive testing, the ASHTO approvals and ASTM approvals, all of the product performance issues are basically behind us and are intact at this point in time. The -- when we saw this job, we basically interpreted the, again, the ease of installation. The safety factor was perhaps one of the most compelling issues, but in addition to that, the polyethylene is a smoother interior surface and that does lend itself to self cleaning, if you will. The other thing is that you'll be putting actually about one-third the number of connections underground, and your typical failure points on a lot of storm drainage and other types of construction is at the joint performance itself, so -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Because you can manufacture it in longer lengths. MR. BROSIOUS: Yeah, exactly, and you'll be handling it one-third the number of times in under your power lines as well, and those are -- you know, it's not a matter of performance or character of the pipe. We can give you a long, long list of jobs in Florida -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We'll just stipulate that rather than -- MR. BROSIOUS: I mean that justification is there, so -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. Any questions? Next speaker, please. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Angel De Jesus. MR. DE JESUS: Good morning. My name is Angel De Jesus. I am a civil engineer with 20 years of experience in the concrete pipe industry. At present, I represent CSR Hydro Conduit in the State of Florida as a sales engineer. Let me start by saying that -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Who are you here representing today, sir? MR. DE JESUS: CSR Hydro Conduit, the concrete pipe manufacturer. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. You're not here representing any of the bidders? MR. DE JESUS: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Go ahead. MR. DE JESUS: Let me start by saying that it is a known fact to the engineering community that the concrete pipe should be the material of choice because of its serviceability, and more importantly, the service life characteristics. Service life is something that the Florida Department of Transportation right now mainly assigns 100 years' service life to concrete pipe, while it's only allowing the use of plastic pipe for 50 years, design life. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm going to interrupt you for just a second. I think it is inappropriate and -- and I allowed the first gentleman to go, not realizing that we're going to have a war of materials here today. The five members up here are not our engineering staff. We hire professional engineers to give us advice, and I'm not going to sit here and listen to a war of whether concrete's better than -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Plastic. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- plastic material. That's what Mr. Gonzalez is for. You both have had the opportunity to present him and our staff with information. They have put it together and made a recommendation to us. This is not an appropriate forum to have a debate of materials, and I don't think this board is qualified to make that decision. That's why we have our professional staff. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman, I'll tell you that this -- I just got a phone call saying that there was a person calling who had basically what sounded like a bid protest, a procedural question and wanted to bring that in front of the board, not a question about what was the appropriate material, because I certainly wouldn't have -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Even in that though, we have a bid protest process by which they would have to go through and it's not coming here first. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is the person who asked for this to be pulled off the consent agenda here? MR. DE JESUS: Well, actually, I am representing her, Miss Kathi Simon. She works also for CSR Hydro Conduit, and that's the reason I am here today. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. It's inappropriate for vendors to come to this forum and argue material specs. That's really not what we're here for. The decision today is whether to move ahead with one bid or the other. We've had information presented to us by our staff -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I make a motion to approve the staff recommendation. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have any additional speakers, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: We have none. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What I'd recommend, sir, is you may want to work with our staff if you have information and materials on future job considerations, but this just isn't the appropriate forum to have that kind of debate. MR. DE JESUS: Let me just mention that I basically -- I didn't come here today just to argue one pipe material against the other. I really came here prepared to make some recommendations with regard to the job itself because I, as a professional engineer, understand that there is a risk involving the construction technique of this job and the concern of the county engineers. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Have you expressed those concerns to our staff, sir? MR. DE JESUS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. DE JESUS: Okay. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, you were correct in your assessment of the appropriateness of that. We have seven -- seven firms bidding on this and we're at the point of accepting one of those. This gentleman didn't appear to be representing any of those firms, so his opportunity to make this discussion expired, I assume, some weeks or months ago. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed. I will assume that any future projects again containing these two materials, it might be helpful that we have a little backup on how you arrived at that decision, since the question has been raised in a public forum, and that will give these gentlemen an opportunity to convince you that their product is either superior or in the best interest of this county, but for now, we're going to rely on our staff's recommendation. Item #885 BIG MARCO AND CAPRI PASS INLET HANAGEHENT STUDY AND AUTHORIZATION OF SUBMITTAL TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION - STAFF RECOHMENDATION APPROVED, REMOVING ITEMS #5 AND #6 AS INDICATED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY *** With that, we are to item 8(B)(5). This was formerly item 16(B)(2) on the consent agenda. It is a request to approve in concept the Big Marco and Capri Pass Inlet Management Study and authorize submittal to the State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection. I understand -- I do have a couple of questions on this outside of -- of what I think we have a fair number of folks from the public here to speak on, but Mr. Huber, if you want to give us just a -- a brief summary of what this entails, and then we'll go to, first, board questions and go to public speakers from there. Mr. Huber? MR. HUBER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, my name is Harry Huber representing the Office of Capital Projects Management. If I may, I'd like to first briefly give you the purpose of the study and then go from there. The -- the State Department of Environmental Protection through the Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems is responsible for the development and maintenance of a statewide comprehensive long-term plan for the restoration of the state's critically eroding beaches. This responsibility is mandated through Section 161.161 of the Florida Statutes, which is part of the Florida Beach and Shore Preservation Act. Part of the statewide comprehensive plan requires the evaluation of each coastal inlet to determine the extent to which the inlet may be causing an adverse impact to an adjacent beach area. DEP is fulfilling this -- these requirements by having local sponsors prepare an inlet management study for each inlet. Once the study is completed and accepted by the State DEP, we'll use the study to prepare an inlet management plan. So the inlet management plan itself is really a brief document, maybe five pages in length, which will set forth the management alternatives and the cost sharing guidelines and an implementation schedule. Normally, after -- and the purpose of this item then, the study has been completed and the recommendations that resulted from that study are included in your package, and so the purpose of this is to approve the study and authorize its submittal to DEP so they can proceed with their review and adopt -- you know, preparing the inlet management plan. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Before getting to issues on Sand Dollar Island, I have two questions on the -- that arose from my review of the executive summary. The first is a request for preliminary design for stabilization of Coconut Island. That's actually in Big Marco Pass. I guess my question is, why would we look at expending funds to stabilize Coconut Island when, I mean, you know, the Army Corps of Engineers is warning not to monkey with Mother Nature on some of these issues. I'm wondering if we want to go down that path on -- where this island is concerned. What's the basis for rationale -- or the rationale for recommending that? MR. HUBER: If I may, I'd like to refer that to -- Mr. Humiston and Mr. Moore are here. They are the ones that prepared the study. I think he -- they would -- could give you a better answer on that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. HUMISTON: Kevin Humiston with Humiston and Moore Engineers. There were some recommendations for some immediate action and some more long-term recommendations, and the Coconut Island one is one of the long-term recommendations, and what we're looking at there is the large scale changes that occur at this inlet can have some dramatic effects on Marco Island. We believe the history of Big Marco and Capri Pass is somewhat responsible for the erosion that occurred in the central part of Marco Island that resulted in the need for a beach restoration project. The changes that are going on with Coconut Island could, in the long term, have some dramatic large scale changes at the inlet, so that recommendation is to look at the changes that are going on in Coconut Island and determine if stabilization of Coconut Island would be appropriate, because if Coconut Island continues to erode as it has been, it may very well disappear, and this dual inlet system will go back to a single inlet, and that could trigger some rather large scale, long-term changes that may be undesirable. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just -- I have some experience growing up in the Tampa area with going out and camping on spoil islands in the bay, and if you went out there every two months, it was a completely different island and I'm just very -- I guess I don't have enough information to say no, we shouldn't do that, but it just seems to me the concept of trying to stabilize an island is something that is swimming upstream, at best, and that's where my concern comes from. Maybe as the design comes forward, those concerns will be allayed, but I'm very, very cautious in that regard, just from my experience with spoil and barrier islands growing up in Florida. I don't know that we can -- we can overcome what, you know, nature's trying to do with that island regardless, but -- and I'm also curious how much money we would spend trying to find that answer, so I'm going to kind of flag that for future consideration. I don't really have enough information to say no at this point, but I am very hesitant, and maybe with discussions with you and your staff I could become a little clearer on -- on the basis for that. The second item I have is, investigate wildlife habitat creation issue. That's a little broad. What does that mean, specifically? MR. HUMISTON: That, again, is in the list of long-term recommendations, and the thought behind that was that with regard to what's going on currently with Sand Dollar Island and the -- some of the controversy over the multiple uses of that area, that it occurred to us that resolution of that might involve creating some wildlife habitat in some other area, if the recreational use would preclude preserving the existing wildlife habitat. We were, during the presentation, accused of using a euphemism there and that really is the same thing as off-site mitigation, which -- which it is, but again, this is something that was just put in there as a possible way to go, should there be some difficulty in resolving some of the current issues there. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is gonna sound odd, but I'm going to ask that we remove that, and the reason is, looking at the Clam Bay restoration plan, the single biggest point they're having of argument now is the creation of additional wildlife habitat. They're having to convince the state and federal regulators that the creation of upland areas to diversify the habitat is a good thing and they're spending a lot of money doing it, so just on that track record alone, you know, I -- I'm not happy with that one staying in there because I've already seen some of the hurdles that are thrown up when you try to create habitat. It's more difficult than doing nothing, which makes no sense to me, but I'm seeing it and -- so I'm not comfortable with that one left in there. Those are the two questions I had outside of, you know, any issues surrounding Sand Dollar Island, which I know there are folks here to speak about, so I'll defer to the balance of the board for any questions of staff or the consultant. Anything further? Okay. Seeing none, Mr. Fernandez, let's go to public speakers. MR. FERNANDEZ: We have three, Mr. Chairman. The first is Frank Blanchard, and then Brad Cornell. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Did you say three speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: Three. MR. BLANCHARD: Good morning. My name is Frank Blanchard. I'm the chairman of the Marco Island Beach Advisory Committee. I want to put two things into the record. One, a particular resolution was passed both by the Marco Beach Committee, as well as the joint county/city committee, but prior to that, I'd like to put into the record, that the medical examiner's records will show that for the last eight years, an average of 2.5 humans have drowned each year in the saltwater of Collier County. Five people have drowned at the Tiger Tail area; three this summer within a space of two months. The only prior drownings were one in 1992 and one in 1990. We think that that's rather unusual to have three in the off season period of time when there are not that many people here. The Marco Island Beach Committee passed, on October the 2, and the joint county/city beach committee passed the same resolution on October the 3. In light of recent incidents involving losses of life, this committee or these committees support efforts to resolve the Tiger Tail Beach/Sand Dollar Island issue in the most expeditious manner, including the determination of legal jurisdiction and development and implementation of a corrective plan. We respectfully request that the Board of County Commissioners pursue all avenues of action to effect resolution of this most distressing situation. We think that a management plan should be aggressively approached and we would request that your -- your commission direct staff to proceed. I'll be glad to answer any other questions. I have aerial photographs of the particular area in question if you'd like to see -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: How current are those photographs? MR. BLANCHARD: Taken about a month ago. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Can I -- would you mind if I take a look at those? I'd like to see that. I haven't been down there in a little while, so it would help bring me up to speed. MR. BLANCHARD: They were taken October 25. MR. HUBER: Mr. Chairman, I've got a blown up one on a poster board here if you'd like me to put it up. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Of the same time frame, a month or so ago? MR. HUBER: It's the same photograph. MR. BLANCHARD: It's the same photograph. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's do that since we already have it and it has to be part of the record. MR. BLANCHARD: Well, I can go ahead and give you copies for your Own '- CHAIRNAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you, Frank. Also, it may be helpful, Mr. Huber, to post that in such a way that the folks who are sitting here can see it, if we're looking at the same thing in front of us. MR. BLANCHARD: The area where -- the area where the drownings occurred, we believe, are within 100 feet of each other and about the center of this photograph. If you will notice in the center, there is an irregular sort of a tan boundary on the right-hand side. We think that that is the area -- that is the point of discontinuity. To the left, where the yellow part is, the sand is firm, it slopes gradually up, and then on the right-hand edge, it drops off very sharply, and when a person puts their foot on that wall, there is no support, so the foot then, therefore, goes down two, three feet and there's gum ball mud down at the bottom, so we suspect that that's probably the cause and that's the point of concern. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A lot of times when people -- I know from my days at the Coast Guard when people hit water unexpectedly, the first thing they do is gasp, which is inhaling, lungs fill with water. People roll off rafts, they fall asleep and roll off a raft and they drown because the first reaction is to gasp and inhale, lungs fill with water, and that -- that's a plausible explanation. MR. BLANCHARD: It's a shock to the system. You're not expecting to find that loss of footing because -- well, I suspect that most of the time -- most of the time, there is a thin film of foam on the surface, so that if you were the person walking through there, you would never know whether you're about ready to walk off the edge or not. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Questions for Mr. Blanchard? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I -- again, I'm probably being too simplistic. Do you think, Mr. Blanchard, that this is a problem that could at least be improved or that -- that could be helped by just some signage that danger, you know, drownings have occurred here, something like that? I -- that's -- that's what I think -- MR. BLANCHARD: Well, we have had signs there. Now -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But they haven't said, people have drowned here, and that gets your attention. MR. BLANCHARD: Well, I agree with you that there were not neon lights there. They were not direct to the issue that fatal -- fatalities have occurred, but I'm not really sure where you're going to put them because most of the people -- well, some of the people are going to be walking up from the south, some from the north. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Might take a couple of signs. MR. BLANCHARD: Well, you're going to put signs out on the front edge of the beach or in the edge of the water? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I guess I think that maybe -- MR. BLANCHARD: I think that's a complex thing, you know. I've heard people say, well, people shouldn't walk there. Well, that -- that doesn't work -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, I don't think -- MR. BLANCHARD: -- and to a degree, I'm not sure that signage can ever come directly to the point. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just wondered what your opinion was about that. I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Further questions for Mr. Blanchard? Seeing none, Frank, thank you very much for being here. Second speaker, please. MR. FERNANDEZ: The next speaker is Mr. Brad Cornell an then Nancy Payton. MR. CORNELL: Morning, commissioners. My name's Brad Cornell and I'm here on behalf of the Collier County Audubon Society as its president. I'm also speaking, I believe, on behalf of many folks who have shown up this morning to make their -- their feelings known about the -- the bird habitat that is in this area that we're speaking of. Many of these people are sitting in the back wearing green ribbons and I encourage you to look back there and -- and see what they're here for, and concerning the Big Marco and Capri Pass Inlet Management Plan, I think we need to consider a number of points talking about safety, and this is including all the issues that might be impacted by a safety solution. This is unique shore bird and wading bird habitat, and it's the only one between Fort Myers Beach and Flamingo. It's been said that the Ten Thousand Islands, which -- of which there are not ten thousand, there are many fewer than that, would be very suitable for all of these birds, why don't they go there. Well, there aren't any beaches there, so -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Cornell, but as I read the inlet management study, it recognizes that and says to work with state agencies on that particular issue, so where is the -- where is the rub? MR. CORNELL: On which particular issue? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As I read the recommendations, it says, work with the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission to establish an interagency agreement to resolve remaining issues regarding the management of the Sand Dollar Island shoals as a wildlife habitat and recreation area. MR. CORNELL: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm trying to understand where we're falling short on that. MR. CORNELL: Well, where we're falling short is that we're not -- as a county, I don't believe we're fully recognizing the value, the habitat values that this area has, and I'm basing that conclusion on -- on past pronouncements from this board, from various members of this board, and this board collectively has not been fully supportive of the critical wildlife area, the Big Marco Pass critical wildlife area, so based on that past position of this board, I'm -- we are concerned as an organization, and I believe many members of the public are concerned that there's not going to be full recognition of the habitat values of Sand Dollar Island and the Big Marco Pass -- the Big Marco critical wildlife area, so that's why I'm bringing these points up. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask a question? MR. CORNELL: Sure. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I stopped on my way in as your group was sort of organizing in the parking lot, and what I understood was that green ribbons today signifies support for the agenda item. In other words, you're not -- if I'm understanding the discussion between the two of you, I believe your -- your groups are in support of the staff recommendation, am I right about that? It's really a fundamental question, I guess. MR. CORNELL: Not entirely, because there was encouragement for discussion about safety issues, and I don't believe that was fully addressed, and Mr. Blanchard who spoke before me fleshed out a little bit more of the discussion which might be involved with that, and that's what we're here to sort of proactively give our input to, and because it does impact this area and because you are looking for some safety solutions, I believe, so -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How do you feel about signs? MR. CORNELL: I believe signs would be a very appropriate solution to our safety problems, and that is one of our recommendations is that -- that signage and perhaps a flag system, education be the solution to safety problems. On all of our beaches in Collier County and in Florida, people need to be reasonably responsible for their own safety. Another place you could look would be Wiggins Pass. There have been a number of drownings up there and I could say pretty surely that one of the reasons that there are drownings there and that it's hazardous is that that pass is dredged regularly. It's being dredged right now, and if it wasn't so deep and the water wasn't so swift, it wouldn't be so dangerous, but I don't hear any suggestion that we stop dredging, so, you know, we have to be reasonably responsible for our own safety, my point, so signage and flags would be very appropriate. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Cornell, I'm afraid I take exception with what I think is misinformation on your part. Saying that this staff -- or this board collectively has not recognized the importance of the CWA on Sand Dollar Island would be to ignore every annual action this board has had since I have been on it in establishing, agreeing to and working with both the Conservancy locally and the state and the Fish and Game Commission for the establishment and posting of a CWA. There has never been a move, in the three years I've served here, for this board to abolish the CWA collectively. MR. CORNELL: I didn't say you were going to abolish it. I just said that you weren't fully supporting it, and based on -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, we may not be supporting it to the extent you would like it, but to say that we are not supporting it, I think is misinformation, because every year we have approved it, and last year, Miss Payton sat in my district office and we talked about the -- the cross-use of making sure it's protected for wildlife and making sure pedestrians can get through it at reasonable intervals so that they don't trample it, so they don't go in areas they shouldn't. I thought that these were appropriate measures, and if I remember correctly, Miss Payton even agreed, so to say that we're not working with, concerned about or not doing enough is an opinion, but I don't think it's a valid one, based on our actions collectively as a board. MR. CORNELL: Okay. That is your opinion, but I'm here to say that, proactively, we're afraid that in the discussion of safety issues, which is a new issue now, because since your discussion with Ms. Payton and other discussions that this board has had concerning the Big Marco Pass critical wildlife area, two women have drowned and that has raised this whole issue to a new level and now there's greater scrutiny being put on the solutions, and I think that proactively, we need to consider the importance of it as a unique habitat for these shore birds and wading birds. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just -- let me just see if I understand, and maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it almost sounded like you said wading birds are a higher priority than human beings' safety? MR. CORNELL: Did I say that? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's pretty much what I heard, yeah. MR. CORNELL: That is not what I said, and please be quiet. That's not what I said, and I'm -- what I'm saying is that we need to recognize the importance of the unique habitat values for these shore birds and wading birds and -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As we've done every year. MR. CORNELL: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. CORNELL: I would say also that, in looking for solutions to safety problems, that recognition needs to be foremost in our minds and also recognizing that people need to be reasonably responsible for their own safety when they go to the beach. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And let me -- I've just got to interrupt to say, you know, I don't think that there is, other than rhetoric, a great deal of disagreement among the members of the board that what we're looking for is a balance of protection of people and the critical wildlife area and that we need to take appropriate safety measures that don't unnecessarily impinge on the wildlife usage of the area, and I don't think you're going to find anybody up here who says that that's a terrible idea. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What I was trying to highlight is that what we're -- this isn't proactive. It's actually reactive to comments in the paper by members of the public, and I don't know if members of this board actually signed on or not to it, but the idea of filling this area, that is not before this board to consider, and when it is, I think that -- or should it be, then that discussion is entirely appropriate. What I'm afraid of is there's kind of a mobilization for a non-issue, the non-issue of filling a lagoon, which this board is not, sitting here today, willing to consider. So I think it's -- it's fair to state that that is not an issue on the table at this point and the creation of any committee to look at how to make this a safe place for people to be is a reasonable thing, and in the end, reasonable considerations will be made, so I just don't want to fight a non-issue at this point. I think that's -- MR. CORNELL: I agree, but you have to see things a little bit from your constituents' viewpoints -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think I do. MR. CORNELL: -- and the speaker who -- Mr. Blanchard, who spoke just before me, pretty much discounted the value of signage. We heard him, and that would raise, well, what do you want to do, and we did not hear what he wanted to do, but presumably that would involve filling in the lagoon or perhaps building walkways or bridges or things of more of an engineering type solution, and we're very opposed to those sorts of solutions and that's why I'm bringing this up now is because I'm not sure how your discussion is going to -- to go after I sit down, but I want to make sure that you know that the Collier County Audubon Society and many people in the public are very concerned that you're going to change the character, the physical character of that bird habitat. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman, can I -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry? COMMISSIONER BERRY: I just have a question here. I was called yesterday in regard to this particular issue and removing it from the consent agenda and bringing it over to the regular agenda. When I read through this, the first thing that I read had to do with the fact that this was going to be a submittal made to the state, and so I felt, frankly, that it was probably appropriate to leave it where it was. The second part, I understand what it said under the recommendations, the second part about discussing and so forth of establishing a task force, and frankly, when I read that, I thought that that was a little early. That it might be more appropriate after this goes to the state and they act on it and do whatever they're going to do, and when it comes back, then the appropriate thing would be at that point in time to talk about the task force. I was also asked in a discussion about the filling of the lagoon and all these kinds of things, and I said, I don't believe that's the issue that we're dealing with today, that this is strictly something that is going to the state for a submittal and nothing more than that. I said that, to me, would be a regular agenda item in regard to what we're going to do with that particular area down there and that was not the issue today. So that's the reason I'm a little confused about this and I don't think -- I'm not -- I'm not going to argue with Mr. Cornell or Miss Payton or Mr. Blanchard because that's not the issue and -- and I think that -- that we're getting sidetracked here on what we have, and I agree, you're -- you know, you're welcome to state your case, but I don't think that that's relative to this particular issue. Maybe -- if I'm wrong, fine, correct me. I've been wrong a lot of times, but I just -- I think we're off track here and I think we're not staying with what we're supposed to be with here. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That was the hopeful point I was making is that I think a lot of people are concerned about something they read in the paper stated by a citizen. Well, when that person sits on this board making those decisions, then maybe it is an intended act by this board, but at this point, this board is only entertaining what's before us today. That's the point I was making. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Exactly, and I'm not -- I'm not entertaining anything about filling any lagoon or anything to do with that and am dealing with signage and -- and, I agree with you, of personal responsibility. I'm so happy to hear you say that because I -- I feel very strongly about that in a lot of different areas, so, you know, I -- I just think that we're off track here. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed. Any further questions for Mr. Cornell? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, but I -- I think I should probably weigh in a little bit on this myself. As probably the commissioner who's had more intimate dealings with this subject over the years, I think Mr. Cornell's comments were certainly inappropriate that this board has not recognized the value of the critical wildlife area, which, by the way, we -- we feel that -- this board feels that if the issue were pressed in a court battle, we could probably prevail that there is no critical wildlife area there. Nonetheless, we have supported the volunteer service of the county to assist the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission in posting and protecting the wildlife in that area, even though we don't feel that it is a critical wildlife area, and for Mr. Cornell to indicate otherwise, I think is disingenuous and -- and certainly not appropriate, but we also need to recognize that this particular piece of sand didn't exist until about six or seven years ago, and Tiger Tail Beach, which is that area in that photo, is the only public beach front park on Marco Island and it has been so for over a quarter of a century and it remains to this day the only public beach front park. Now, to say that we are not to -- going to provide for the health, safety and welfare of our beach going public on our only beach front park on that island, I think is an amazingly asinine comment, so MR. CORNELL: Excuse me. Excuse me. May I respond to that? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Your time's been up for ten minutes, Mr. Cornell. MR. CORNELL: But I never got a chance to say what I had come up here to say. I was interrupted in the midst of saying my -- my comments, was I not? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We did ask questions. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Miss Filson, please give Mr. Cornell two minutes to complete his comments. MR. CORNELL: I just want to respond to that because I felt that that was not a very fair comment, Commissioner Norris. I'm afraid I don't know -- I don't know what to say except to say that -- that we are here in very -- very genuine terms to discuss something that is important to all of us, and it is hard for us to tell when things come up on an agenda as a consent item or as an add-on at the last minute, so we never know what exactly -- what position is going to be -- or what action is going to be taken on certain commission -- on your regular agenda days, and so that is why we have to find opportunities to communicate with you as best we can and this is why I'm here today, and I did not say that -- that you did not support the critical wildlife area, but I do hear that you -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Would you like to read the record back? MR. CORNELL: I said -- well, not -- you don't support it fully is what I mean. What you're saying by saying that it's not a critical wildlife area goes against what you just said in that you do support it. A critical wildlife area is established for the protection of those birds and their habitat. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Cornell, the term critical wildlife area is a legal distinction, a legal designation. We don't feel that that legal designation exists or -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Just a minute. I -- I didn't mean to talk while you're interrupting, but let me go ahead. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Go right ahead. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Proceed. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The point is that even though we may feel that way, whether we're right or wrong, we've been cooperating with the Game and Fish Department to protect the wildlife there all these years. MR. CORNELL: And I would recommend that you continue to without COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's exactly what we do intend to do. MR. CORNELL: -- without changing any of the physical character of that system, please. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But for you to come up here and indicate that we're going to do something different or -- or try to lead the public into believing that we are is just not the right thing to do. MR. CORNELL: I'm just gauging things from -- I heard Commissioner Blanchard (sic) -- or I mean Mr. Blanchard before me -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Frank, you've been demoted. You're now a commissioner. MR. CORNELL: So you -- you considered his comments. I just felt like you should consider ours, so thank you very much for that consideration. (Applause.) COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just a -- a point of inquiry, what I wanted to -- and I apologize for interrupting, Commissioner Norris, but as you were speaking, you kept saying that we don't feel that that is an official critical wildlife area, and I don't know, did we take a vote on that? If we did, I hope I voted in the minority if that was COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, we would expect you to disagree with the board. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry, you don't mind if I finish speaking, do you? Thanks for giving me that chance, but my question was, does somebody -- can somebody tell me, has the board taken an official vote on whether or not it is the board's position that the CWA exists or not? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't think we have to. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. So then in -- I would appreciate it, unless we're going to take that vote now, if you wouldn't represent that we don't -- you know, we believe as a board that the CWA does not exist, because I don't. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think -- excuse me, folks. I think the valid element in all this discussion is the fact that we, as a board, every year, have supported the posting and have been involved in the posting and protection of what the state is referring to as a CWA on Sand Dollar Island. There's no need to have a legal battle when we're all trying to accomplish the same thing, but it's always a concern of mine when there's an effort to rally the public with some level, any level of misinformation that does not coincide with past board actions or future board actions, and that was my concern today, because I've sat here in support, as has Commissioner Norris and everyone else here, with the exception of Commissioner Berry who wasn't here on the items, supporting the posting of the CWA, so I think that is equally important as anything else that's being said today, and I don't want that being lost in the shuffle. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker's Nancy Payton. MS. PAYTON: Good morning. Nancy Payton, Florida Wildlife Federation. I would like to submit to the record statements from 34 individuals who did meet this morning prior to the board meeting, and I see there's some additional ones that have already been turned in, and it reads, Dear Commissioners, please register me in support of the Big Marco Pass critical wildlife area, Sand Dollar Island. It is a community asset that must be protected. I urge you to address safety issues through educational programs, instructive and information -- informative signs, warning systems and other creative solutions that will not negatively impact this fragile and important wildlife habitat. Thank you. And I submit those for the record. It is -- it is our feeling that there can be a balance met and that, yes, people can continue to go out there and enjoy that, but also we can continue to protect that important habitat area, and I acknowledge that the commission has invested, through the Tourist Development Council, $19,000 in at least one advertising campaign to promote Marco Island as a bird sanctuary, and in this October issue of Audubon Magazine, TDC funds paid for this wonderful statement; Man has not completely taken over the island. However, Marco is still a sanctuary for more than 200 species of birds, especially those that live near the water, including herons, egrets, ibis and osprey, and what we're here today is -- when this issue is discussed by the task force, when it comes back before you, please keep in mind the importance of that habitat and the community asset that is there. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You actually left out one, snowbird, so that makes 201 '- MS. PAYTON: Yes, yes. (Applause.) MS. PAYTON: That's Blanchard's job, to watch out for the snowbirds. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Hiss Payton, a question, and I'm recalling something, I think, that was in the newspaper. There's been discussions of even a boardwalk. Do you -- and just -- I don't know -- I'm not asking for support or whatever, but do you know of any community that has been able to get a boardwalk permitted to a barrier island, because I read it and thought '- MS. PAYTON: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- well, that makes a lot of sense, but the idea of getting it permitted is probably next to zero? MS. PAYTON: Correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are you familiar if that has occurred anywhere else? MS. PAYTON: Well, I made a statement in the newspaper that it was worth exploring and I did explore and found that it was unrealistic -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MS. PAYTON: -- because of the dynamic system, permitting issues and whatever, and we are promoting other types of activities and feel that the commission maybe ought to be looking at all its beaches. There was a near drowning recently at Clam Pass, and viewing our beaches as a resource, a community asset and educational opportunity, that maybe there ought to be programs that Parks and Recreation develops around Tiger Tail Beach, the birding opportunities, there are dolphins there, there are manatees there upon occasion, and turn that into a positive situation and a destination for people to go and enjoy, but also realizing that it's a fluid, dynamic natural system and we have to be alert when we go out there. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Questions -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'd like to thank Hiss Payton for her comments recognizing that the county commission has done a number of measures over the years to protect this area for wildlife. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And hopefully we'll continue. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hey, we can be nice. That's good. MS. PAYTON: It was the luck of the draw today, I think. Thank you. HR. FERNANDEZ: We have another one, Hr. Gil Erlichman. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that's our final speaker? MR. FERNANDEZ: That's our final one. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm sorry, I'm sorry, Ty Agoston. MR. ERLICHHAN: Good morning, commissioners. My name is Gil Erlichman. I live in East Naples. I'm a taxpayer and elector in Collier County. I never expected to speak to this issue this morning, but it is a non-issue, as Commissioner Berry said and -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Gil. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That was fast. Sue's not at her post. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Time flies when you're having fun, doesn't it, Gil? MR. ERLICHHAN: -- and I'm going to contribute to the waste of the commissioners' time this morning by just making a few remarks, but as I -- to restate, this is a non-issue for the commissioners to be subjected to the harangue from certain people here, prior -- prior to my coming up to this podium, I think it is a waste of my time too, and I would make one comment. When it comes to the issue of the safety, health and welfare of human beings versus animals, I place human beings first. Thank you. (Applause.) MR. FERNANDEZ: Next is Ty Agoston, and that's the last one. MR. AGOSTON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Ty Agoston. I live in Golden Gate Estates and I'm speaking for myself. Let me just echo Mr. Erlichman's comments and add one additional issue. I don't think it's a waste of time. I believe that the environmental community marches out here today in order to foreclose a given future action that you may take that they don't agree with and prepare you for a possible headline tomorrow saying the same issue was covered and foreclosing those same avenues, and Miss Mac'Kie will get another headline tomorrow supporting the environment -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ty is my press agent. He proposes those every week. MR. AGOSTON: And, you know, I find it very curious that the environmental community never mentions the value of humans and, you know, the literature abounds about the importance of the environment CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Come on back to this, Ty. MR. AGOSTON: I'm -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All right. MR. AGOSTON: Essentially the whole issue here is the environment, attacking whatever future action you plan to take. So I mean, I can support, you know, any further, but I'm not going to. Thank you very much for the opportunity. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Ty. MR. FERNANDEZ: No further speakers. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've got a question for Mr. Huber, pretty much my standard question. As I read item one on the first page of this, continuing ongoing monitoring programs and supplement with additional monitoring, and it goes on down below, even more additional environmental monitoring, what are we doing with all this information we're gathering, and we've had this discussion a couple of times and sometimes we have clear answers and we very clearly understand why we have it and sometimes no one can tell us what we do, so what do we do with all this information that we're gathering and spending money on? MR. HUBER: For the most part -- in fact, particularly the monitoring for the Hideaway Beach growing project, for instance, that happens to be a permit condition -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agreed. MR. HUBER: -- for that construction. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Which, by the way, has been a tremendous success. Hats off to the engineers, Humiston and Moore, I think, were involved with that, so I've heard a lot of good things about that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But particularly with Commissioner Hancock's comments on the island situation, just realizing that Mother Nature is gonna change those, the monitoring of Coconut Island, we then do what with? MR. HUBER: Well, that would relate to the other item further on back, item number -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Five? MR. HUBER: -- five, if indeed that would become part of the inlet management plan that's finally adopted by DEP, none of these -- all these things really will be -- if DEP considers them appropriate, then be incorporated into the inlet management plan, and for your information, normally the average time frame for adoption of the inlet management plan by DEP after they receive the study has been about two years. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Twenty-six years. MR. HUBER: And the -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Two years? They're speeding up. MR. HUBER: The adoption of that plan will also be the subject of a workshop conducted by DEP locally before they actually adopt a plan, so this will come back into the public forum probably many times before the plan's adopted. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And then after our long discussion on the wildlife usage of Sand Dollar Island, what do we do with the monitoring that we do there? Final part of the first item. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Last sentence, item one, after section 6.34, additional environmental monitoring to include documentation of wildlife usage of the Sand Dollar Island emergent shoals. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Apparently one thing we do with it is advertise in Audubon Magazine for -- to use it as a tourist attraction because that is the kind of data that we use, so -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do you really think the TDC reviewed all that before placing that ad? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just as soon hear from Mr. Huber on that. MR. HUBER: I think the intent there would be to utilize that in forming -- you know, as a basis for the interagency agreement or, you know, resolving the issues associated with the critical wildlife area in that particular area. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you explain to me, in that case, what is environmental monitoring? Does somebody go out there every day and count birds? Does somebody go out there once a week and count birds? What are we spending -- how much money do we spend on that and what are we exactly getting for whatever that amount is? MR. HUBER: Well, there again, that goes to -- under, you know, my comments under the fiscal impact, you know, as far as generating the cost associated with that and an actual scope of services, that would only be done, you know, subsequent to acceptance of the study and -- and proceeding with those particular items, so -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you give me some -- MR. HUBER: I think, you know, as far as counting the birds, I think we have a source already that, you know, Mr. Below (phonetic), you know, that's basically his job. He's out there all the time, you know, surveying the birds and counting them and what have you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Five days a week? MR. HUBER: I'm not sure if it's five days a week, but I do know he -- he performs that function. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think the place we need to look at that is when it comes back in a budgetary form to see what costs are associated with it, because the benefit I see to doing that, to some degree, is when the state -- and we begin having discussions on the CWA, if they're necessary, if a state officer goes out there on a day and sees a certain usage and determines that to be the long-term pattern for the season, it would be good to have information to say, well, that either is or isn't representative of what really goes on out there. So some of that, I think, is good, but I -- I agree with the question, we need to know how much, how often and what the cost is. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree with you, Commissioner Hancock, I just -- I know we spent thousands and thousands of dollars monitoring Lake Trafford and look where we ended up with that. Somebody was watching that and we were paying them to do it and it still ended up being a mess and we're not sure how to correct it, though we're giving it our best effort at this point. Monitoring, if we have a particular goal in mind, a particular purpose, is fine, but I think the point is, we need to have that. MR. HUBER: Definitely. You know, I think -- that's why I said that before we would start performing any of that monitoring, that I would intend to bring it back to the board for approval as far as the scope of that work. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good point. Further questions for Mr. Huber? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I make a motion to approve the staff recommendation. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Can I ask the motion maker to remove items five and six from staff recommendation, preliminary design for stabilization of Coconut Island? I think it's too premature to look at a design for stabilization, and six, the wildlife habitat creation issue. Kind of like the boardwalk, the chances of getting it permitted are pretty narrow. It may not be wise to expend funds in that direction. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: At this point, Mr. Huber, would we be just asking the state basically for their opinions on those two issues because we're just submitting to the state? I wouldn't mind hearing what they've got to say, but I don't want to start spending staff time or money on either of those two options. I agree with the chairman, so the effect of taking them out or leaving them in is what? MR. HUBER: Well, I'm not sure whether, you know, if we took them out at this point, whether the state would, you know, in their review and preparation of the inlet management plan -- at least if they're left in, they're going to have to consider them, you know, and if they're taken out, you know, that consideration is gone, so -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And if they're left in, the state will require us to provide information on them before the issuance of any permit in the future. That's my problem. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Realistically, we're not going to stabilize that island. I've got to agree with you. It's a waste of time. It's a waste of money. I don't even know why we would want to pursue it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My -- it sure sounds logical to me that we would not -- you know, don't mess with Mother Nature, but I -- I am a little troubled by taking those staff recommendations out without hearing some testimony on the issue, other than just my common sense feeling that those are not good ideas. That's my only -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We can't let common sense interfere with government action. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We can always do those things on our own and submit them or review them, but you've heard me say it a million times, it's -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know, the stick. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- the size of the stick we give the state to beat us with, and if we put in here that we're going to do those two things, some, you know, hoveled bureaucrat is going to make us do them whether we decide down the road they're beneficial or not. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see Mr. Humiston, I wonder if you want to -- MR. HUBER: Yeah, Mr. Humiston has a comment on that. MR. HUMISTON: Having those alternatives in the plan doesn't bind the county to any future action. What the state would look at is, if at some time in the future, one of those alternatives became something the county wanted to look at, the state would look to see if -- if it was consistent with the inlet management plan and it would assist in facilitating the permitting at that time. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But if at some time in the future the county wanted to consider that, there would be nothing to prohibit us from submitting it to the state at that point, would there? MR. HUMISTON: No, there wouldn't. You could go through a process to modify the inlet management plan. It would simply be a little longer process than if it were already included as an alternative in the plan. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm concerned about the opposite of what you said, which I've -- you know, the state -- all the sudden it becomes a mandate, and that happens all too often, so I'm a little concerned. If I'm hesitant about moving forward on them, I certainly don't want to give it to the state and let them control that direction. That's my concern. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I'd like to know that, but, Mr. Humiston, just -- do you have a professional recommendation to us about whether they should be in or be removed? MR. HUHISTON: We included that simply because, in the history of this inlet, we've seen some changes go on that have caused some large scale impacts to Marco Island and the disappearance of Sand Dollar Island is something that could trigger some very large scale changes there, so we thought that that should be in there as something that the county could consider in the future if some of this monitoring data that's being collected indicates that it would be an appropriate activity. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But you don't have a problem with taking it out now until we collect the data, and then make a determination of what our tack might be, and then if necessary, add it back in? Do I understand that to be -- MR. HUHISTON: I would say that's correct. As I said before, having it in there does not bind the county. We just thought that it would -- it should be in there at this point as some -- in case at some time in the future it was something that needed to be considered. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. I agree with Mr. Chairman to remove those. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. Discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five, zero. At this point, we need to go ahead and take about a ten minute break. I'm going to ask all the commissioners to stay in your seats. We need to get a quick picture for the annual report by direction of Miss Filson, so let's adjourn. Back in ten minutes. Adjourn -- excuse me, recess. (A recess was had.) Item #BE1 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND AND COLLEIR COUNTY FOR A TEMPORARY INTERIM CITY MANAGER - APPROVED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good morning, again. We're all back. If I could ask you to -- to end your individual conversations so we can go ahead and get on with the business of the meeting this morning. *** Our next item up on the agenda is item 8(E)(1). This was an add-on item regarding an agreement with Marco Island and Collier County referencing an interim city manager. Mr. Fernandez? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, motion to approve the item. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: One question very quickly. Mr. Fernandez, you and I had a discussion regarding liability, that while Mr. Camp is under the temporary employ of the City of Marco Island that he be covered in full and in total by the City of Marco Island for any and all decisions. Has that been resolved satisfactorily? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We raised that issue with the County Attorney's Office and we've been assured that the indemnification language in this agreement fully covers the county and Mr. Camp in that regard. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Although we don't expect any heavy lifting, does that include workmen's comp? MR. FERNANDEZ: I defer to Mr. Weigel on that. I assume that it does. MR. HANALICH: Mr. Chairman, the indemnification provides that for -- this would be for any negligence, willful or wanton or intentional conduct of the city. It -- otherwise, Mr. Camp will be covered by the county's insurance for other things, not the fault of the city, including, I think, workers' comp. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Unless, of course, the claim in a workers' comp case results from some negligence on the part of the City of Hatco. I mean, if he causes his own fall or injury, then he's under our workers' comp. If they cause it, he's under theirs. MR. HANALICH: The theory being, he's being treated as a county employee, but if someone on the city's staff, through their fault, causes harm to him or whatever, then as for the city, it would indemnify us. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Can we get him a driver while he's down there? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Does that workers' comp, would that include severe browbeating? MR. HANALICH: We can put that in if you'd like. One other comment, just perfunctory. On page one, there was a typo on the last whereas, and I just ask that your motion include in the second to last sentence on the page, will accord best with geographic, economic population and other factors. Typo there. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll amend my motion to reflect that. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And a second or whichever one of us it was. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: With the understanding that our only exposure really is workers' comp and individual insurance issues with Mr. Camp, I can support the motion. Any further questions? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just -- just -- I hope that we don't see the second three weeks. Three weeks is great. I really hope we see that we can only afford to spare him for three weeks and not for six. That would be troubling at budget time next year for me if we -- if we got six weeks -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: That was, in fact, the intent of my discussion with representatives of the city, that this be a very brief assignment, and during that time, I pledged our support to help them find a more permanent interim manager while they conduct their permanent search. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't think we have enough fat on the edges in our budget to -- to let Mr. Camp be anywhere for more than three weeks, so we'll -- we can't count this as vacation, huh? MR. FERNANDEZ: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Just checking. MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, this was supposedly before the Marco City Council last night. I have not heard from Mr. Cuyler. I assume they approved this version. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Any further questions on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Item is approved. Spirit of cooperation brimming. Item #9A RESOLUTION 97-443, ORDERING AND CALLING FOR THE INITIAL ELECTION OF MEMBERS TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LELY COHMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT BY QUALIFIED ELECTORS, TO BE HELD BY PAPER BALLOT ON JANUARY 6, 1998 - ADOPTED *** Item 9(A) under County Attorney's Report -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion we approve the item. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion? Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Brief discussion, thank you. Both Ramiro or I could provide this, but Mary Morgan, Supervisor of Elections, has asked that the record and your approval, if that be such today, reflect three conditions, and that is that the district, meaning the Lely Community Development District will pay for the cost of said election, that the district will ensure that the elections offices are able to use the clubhouse within the district as the poll site, and that the district will pursue a legislative act changing the date for its elections to occur simultaneously with regularly scheduled state elections, that is, in even numbered years, and I recall that -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think that's -- MR. WEIGEL: -- Mr. Volpe, on behalf of the district, had pledged those things to you previously. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Any further questions or discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five, oh. I need to make an announcement at this point. We received a phone call from the blood center in the hospital. They are in dire need of O positive blood, so anyone who's here or anyone who's watching, any county staff employees, there is a dire need for O positive blood today. County employees, you can call Barbara in the property appraiser's office at 8143. Any member of the public who has the ability to assist, if you would please call the Community Blood Center. Again, that's O positive blood, so we appreciate any assistance you can give. I'm sure it's someone in our community who's in need. Item #10A DIRECTION RE PROPOSED BAYSHORE-AVALON MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT - STAFF DIRECTED TO CREATE HSTU *** Next item on our agenda is item 10(A), board direction regarding the proposed Bayshore-Avalon municipal service taxing unit, which I hope I don't offend anyone, but can we come up with a name other than B.A.R.T., because I keep thinking the Simpsons? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They've been teasing me about spending too much time with Bart, you know, and I don't know, but I -- I want to pass down for your information, just a very tentative, at this point, map of the Bayshore-Avalon area, and then I -- I know that the County Attorney's Office is going to introduce the concept of H.S.T.U., but just generally let me tell you that this is one of the many exciting things that's happening in East Naples. Stay tuned. It's going to be a whole new community and it's coming from the ground up. This is a group of people who have been working for about six months to begin the process of redevelopment. Frankly, I told them that we were spending our money this year on the Davis Gateway triangle. They're not deterred by that. They promptly raised $10,000 and are on their way to $15,000 to hire, privately, a consultant to do what would otherwise be spent public money on the divisioning process. There's just a great deal of enthusiasm for this, and hopefully some support on the board for creating the mechanism of the H.S.T.U. so that we can move forward in the next calendar year to decide how much and on what to spend money. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Move the item. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. I'm sure we have some registered speakers on this. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I just have a quick question on this, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry? COHMISSIONER BERRY: Miss Hac'Kie, could you -- do you have the little map? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Could you just define some of these roadways here, because due to my age, I can't read this. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I understand. I can't -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Due to your age, I can't read it either. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What we basically have here is adjacent to what we are seeing as the Gateway triangle area. If you come down the East Trail, this is Thomasson, Bayshore Drive. It bisects this triangle. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. Yes, ma'am. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And we go over to item -- you know, and these are -- these are to be defined in the H.S.T.U. development process, but this is sort of a working map that we've been using. The impetus was with Bayshore Drive residents, that people who live in and around Bayshore recognized all the improvements that the sheriff has caused to happen in the area, and as we discussed this, it has been expanded into the area off of Thomasson and all the way up to 41 and -- and down, so -- so this is a working map, but generally bisected by Bayshore Road. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The process will be -- this area will be finitely nailed down and brought back to the board at a final public hearing, so all those that have objections at that point can be heard in addition to today. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely, and the process, just for people in the audience who are here, because although I did send out 2,000 letters, apparently I didn't have a perfect list because there are a lot of people who didn't get letters. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The postage budget saw that hit. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, sir. I'm sorry, but it's really important, but the -- the goal today is to create a mechanism for the M.S.T.U. to be put in place before the end of the calendar year, so that during the next calendar year, we can decide, A, do we want to tax. That decision is not being made today, but by creating the M.S.T.U. before the end of the year, we have the option of making that decision in 1998. If we fail to do that, the next available time is 1999, and that's the reason for adding this on or -- you know, getting this in before the end of the year. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If -- if you opt to go ahead with it, October 1 of next year, we can actually be going ahead instead of waiting an additional year. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Exactly. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are there any further questions of Commissioner Mac'Kie or staff on this item? With that, let's go to public speakers. MR. FERNANDEZ: You have four speakers, Mr. Chairman. The first is Bill Neal and then David Carpenter. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those that are present that are not registered to speak but are here to support the item, please raise your hand. Let the record reflect about half the room. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Ask how many are opposed. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And those -- those opposed to the item here but not registered to speak? You're registered. All right. Let's go ahead and go to public speakers then. MR. NEAL: Now that our friends from Marco have got the commissioners all in a good mood, we'd like to address you. First, I would like to say good morning to you, commissioners, and good morning to staff and good morning to the folks that came out from the Bayshore-Avalon area, and you saw their hands, so we have a pretty good representation. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As much as we all know who you are, the court reporter doesn't. MR. NEAL: I'll get to that, too. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. NEAL: But I wanted to say to you before I did that that we had more people here, but they had to leave and so -- by the way, my name is Bill Neal. I know most of you through my work on the productivity committee, which is a volunteer organization, and I must tell you I enjoy that work very much, but that's not what I'm here to talk about. I'm here to represent another volunteer organization that I'm on, which Commissioner Hancock, we will change from B.A.R.T. to something else, but it is the Bayshore-Avalon Area Redevelopment Team that I'm representing. Some weeks ago -- as a matter of fact, some months ago, a group of concerned residents in the area formed a little group and expressed getting rid of the enigma, the stigma, the reputation, the image that carries around on the Bayshore area. We determined that the sheriff and his department have done a tremendous job in cleaning up the prostitutes and the drug folks and they were getting a lot of publicity from it, and we thought we'd like to see a little different kind of publicity as far as Bayshore is concerned because a lot of us really enjoy living there, so we formed this committee in conjunction with working very hard with -- with the county and the county staff who has guided us through this process now over the last five or six months, and that brings us here today to -- to ask you for your cooperation. As our commissioner mentioned, through the private sector, we raised sufficient dollars to do our own study. We're asking you now for further guidance and assistance in completing the rest of this by approving this M.S.T.U. We know that this can be a win/win situation for everybody. We know we can do it because we know we live in probably the prettiest area in the United States or the world that you could find, and we don't need the stigma of what we have as far as Bayshore is concerned to live in this county, so with your help, with your assistance, with some hard work of a lot of folks out here, I know we can do that, so we ask you to approve the M.S.T.U. and God bless you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. (Applause.) MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. David Carpenter, and then L.N. Ingram. MR. CARPENTER: Hi. Dave Carpenter, president of East Naples Civic. The Bayshore area received a tremendous blow back when the City of Naples, over seven acres of mangroves, shut down the concept of Sabal Bay. It's made it difficult for this area to come back up. The people in the area want to make the changes, want to do it right and are willing to tax themselves to do it. That's kind of a unique situation in Collier County. We're 100 percent in favor of the formation of an M.S.T.U. There was talk at one time about should Bayshore be tied in with the triangle redevelopment. The feeling was, that because of the magnitude of the triangle situation, that that might actually hold back redevelopment in Bayshore. An M.S.T.U. fits in nicely at a time when we're waiting almost on a weekly basis now for a proposal for the dredging of Haldeman Creek to enable larger boat access back into the creek and increase the value of those properties that adjoin the feeder canals there. You put these two together and you folks are gonna see a heck of a different community when you drive down Bayshore Drive, and I certainly urge you, and the civic association urges you, to get behind this and let's get the M.S.T.U. in gear so they can get going as fast as they want to. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Carpenter. (Applause.) MR. FERNANDEZ: Larry Ingram, and then James Lennane. MR. INGRAM: My name's Larry Ingram. I'm one of the property owners in the area and I'm here on my behalf, as well as the behalf of the people who own Gulf Gate Shopping Center. The problem we're faced with is you have put us in two districts. The Davis Boulevard triangle district juts down out of Davis triangle and takes in lots 37 and 38 of Naples Grove and Truck Company's Little Farms Number Two, of which I'm one of the owners. There are three owners -- actually four owners of properties in this -- these two lot areas and we oppose being put in this district because we are already in another taxing district. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Although, Mr. Ingram, your point's very valid, but the -- the response is that both of those districts are currently very malleable. Neither of them are created, and certainly it's nobody's intention to put you in both. MR. INGRAM: Okay. Well, let me -- let me also finish. There's a secondary problem with this. Of course, first, we don't want to be in both districts. Another thing I think you have to look at, everyone talks about, we don't mind being taxed, but I think if you look at the properties in this district, most are paying little or no taxes at all. This is not a commercial district. This is a residential district with middle class homes, most of which, by the time they take a homestead exemption, pay little or no taxes. The classic example is the mobile home park that's about halfway down Bayshore Drive. I did a survey at another meeting two years ago and there were 110 lots in this development and only four paid any taxes, and I think if someone does their homework, you're going to find that this district has -- probably the majority of the taxes paid in this district are paid by the people who own commercial property such as myself, and I don't -- there's nothing you can do about it. Homestead is part of the constitutional amendment, but on the other hand, as a commercial property owner, I don't think I should bear the expense of carrying out a plan that all the residential property owners want but are not going to be paying for. The only way you can ensure that everyone pays is through a special assessment. There are no exemptions from special assessments, and that was the issue with the mobile home park. The mobile home park occupants were trying to get the East Naples water sewer district paid for through ad valorem taxes rather than special assessments, as they were ultimately paid for, because they knew that out of 110 lots, only three lot owners would have to pay anything, and we're right back to that in this situation. You have people who are asking for this who are not going to pay for it, and unfortunately for me, I'm one of the ones who's going to have to pay for it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Ingram, people in Windstar would be surprised to hear that they're not paying any taxes. MR. INGRAM: No, I said the majority are not. Windstar is not a majority of the residences in this development. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And you may be surprised to know that the -- that the total assessed value of -- and Mr. Fabiano (phonetic), I see you back there and he will know this better than I, but I think two hundred and fifty million dollars is the total assessed value of MR. INGRAM: Assessed value doesn't mean anything until you back out homestead exemptions. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I understand. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Sir, sir, your point is heard, but it's incorrect. There are only 900 properties in the entire county that don't pay any taxes, period. So to say -- MR. INGRAM: Well, I can assure you -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me finish. So to say that a majority of properties in this area don't pay taxes -- MR. INGRAM: Pay little or no taxes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, there's a reason you pay little taxes. If your home's only worth $35,000, you're probably not making a killing in the stock market. MR. INGRAM: Well, you know, I'm not making a killing in the stock market either and I have trouble renting my property because of the drunks and derelicts from St. Hatthew's House that the Sheriff's Department can't clean up, and now you're trying to put me in a second taxing district. I'm already paying more taxes than -- these two properties are probably paying more taxes than anyone in the district and it is not something from which we will benefit. One of the items was landscaping. There are no medians abutting this property. The medians start south of lots 37 and 38. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And there's actually discussion of even narrowing portions of Bayshore into two lanes at some point so that there can be some median -- some landscaping along the sides of Bayshore. I urge you -- I haven't seen you at any of the meetings and I'd urge you, please, to participate, because -- MR. INGRAM: Well, I put in my own landscaping. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Excuse me. Excuse me. MR. INGRAM: I spent $30,000. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Sir, when someone else is speaking, you generally let them finish before you start. MR. INGRAM: Ditto. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because there has been a great deal of -- of discussion about those issues, and we would urge you and welcome you and ask you, please, to participate in the process, because you've raised very valid points about the -- the double district and that's certainly going to be solved, but frankly, the Gulf Gate Shopping Center is one of our problems. It's the entryway and it's a big problem and we would very much like for you to participate so we can work together toward a solution. MR. INGRAM: Well, I have been going to the Davis Boulevard triangle meetings because we were put in the triangle area, and my primary concern is that here, I don't know who drew these imaginary lines, but they're putting us in two separate taxing districts -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that won't happen. MR. INGRAM: -- and to that, I object. Thank you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I -- I agree with the two taxing districts issue, but the suggestion that this commercial property won't benefit at all from the improvement of those two areas is absurd. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Since Mr. Ingram doesn't want to be included in the taxation of this redevelopment district then we could also exclude him from the benefits. I think that might be more problematic -- MR. INGRAM: That would be fine. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And then we could leave you with the drunks and whatnot running off business from your commercial property and that's what you seem to indicate -- MR. INGRAM: The district is not going to take care of the drunks. The Sheriff's Department has to do that, and to date, they haven't. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to call the question. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Ingram. Are there any additional -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We've got one more, I think. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Another speaker. I'm sorry, Mr. Lennane. MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. James Lennane. MR. LENNANE: Morning. Jim Lennane, 4228 Gordon Drive and an owner of 4820 Bayshore. I don't want to be on a negative edge here in any way at all because this is probably the most positive interaction between government and private enterprise I've ever seen. We have a group down there, of which, luckily, we do have a few homeowners, but we are principally commercial property owners all along Bayshore. We put this organization together. We're the ones that are willing to tax ourselves, and contrary to Mr. Ingram's position, we are not homeowners down there who are going to escape taxation. We are people who are going to bear the full brunt from which we have no exemptions. It's this group that raised, I think we've now raised over $10,000 from ourselves to pay for Cherette (phonetic) to even go forward beyond the M.S.T.U., but in general, as I said, this is about the best interaction I've ever seen and I believe we are so heavily supported in this as recognizing that we are willing to bootstrap this operation with our own money, because I personally have been to John Norris before and other people saying, can't we get some money down there, and the answer's always no, no, no. Okay. So finally, with the help of staff and of Commissioner Mac'Kie we've decided -- we've looked inward. We're willing to self-assess at the maximum. We're going to be raising $600,000 a year for three years. This is going to make a major impact on Bayshore. Beyond that point, I view that, as I've said before, as capital investment. This is seed money to get something going. The next step is, I think we're going to come right back and ask for a CRA, a community redevelopment area, where when the earnings start to come back from this, when the payoff begins to come back and the capital's invested and the valuations go upward, we're able to retain a significant amount of that money for even greater improvements, things like burying the utility lines, parkways, bike ways, complete new look and feel for the entire area. So this is not just a short-term thing for us. We believe that over the next ten years, coming from this starting point, we're going to be able to develop one of the finest areas in Naples. It's ripe for it. Its users are willing to pay for it. All we ask now is permission to do it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And Mr. Lennane, I -- (Applause.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- when I look at redevelopment efforts along Bayshore, I think the community in that area needs to say thank you to you and many others that have gone in and invested not just time, but money into the hope that this area will become something far better than it was when you put bricks and mortar in the ground, and I'd like to suggest that Gulf Gate Plaza follow the lead of everyone else on Bayshore Boulevard and do the same thing. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any more speakers, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: No more speakers, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: With that, I believe we had a motion and a second on the floor on this item. Is there further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, I'll call to question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five, zero. Thank you to all of you who have attended. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's 11:15. I do have a change on the agenda to mention. Mr. Brock had an engagement and had to leave. We have -- folks, if I could just ask your assistance to hold your discussion until you're in the hallway, it would be helpful. Thank you very much. Mr. Brock had an engagement, so his has been scheduled for 1:15 when we return from the lunch break, assuming we have a lunch break. Item #10B LANDFILL SITING AND ALTERNATIVE - STAFF TO RECEIVE RFP'S FOR OUTSIDE TRUCKING *** Let's go to item 10(B), landfill siting and alternative, an add-on -- or excuse me, at the request of Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve the item. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And this is simply to look at the trucking hauling cost of the available whatnots out there for a period of 20 years or greater? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll give you the 30 second synopsis, and if there are public speakers, we can go to them, but quite simply, we've had a long process trying to find the appropriate siting, but repeatedly in the past several months, from a number of different sources, the idea of trucking has come back and back. We did look at trucking as part of our bid process. I don't want anyone in the public to think this has never occurred to us before, but in an effort to be very careful and cover all our bases and to look at that group -- those groups that have said they can do it considerably cheaper than they could two years ago, there's no harm in answering the question. Mr. Russell has said we can do this, and Mr. Weigel and a few hours' staff time as far as putting together a bid and we'll have the answer to our question. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's amazing what competition does, because two years ago, there was one source ready to make a bid on trucking, if I remember correctly. Did we have two? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We did have two. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. But since then, times have changed, permits have been issued and the cost may be going down, so thank you. I -- I had individually requested that we take a look at this also, so I'm glad to hear it coming to the board level. Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Just to add for your record, I don't know that it requires any action on your part, but I've had some discussion with our retained counsel, Neighbors, Giblin (phonetic), in this regard, and if the board should endorse going forward with this, I would utilize them to assist us in the fine-tuning of the RFP. I believe, based on my discussions with them, we can find some potential significant economies, both in the RFP return process, and if it should go beyond that, if the figures look good, in the negotiation process beyond that, and again, that will not be very time requiring but I'd like to let you know we'd do that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Did we utilize Neighbors, Giblin in the total RFP package when we asked for everything under the sun? MR. WEIGEL: No, we did not. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I guess I have to ask, if we did it large scale then and are actually looking for a piece of it now, why we would pay outside counsel? I -- seems like -- seems like it's a little backwards. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Pulling out of the last one and take a few paragraphs, plug it in. MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think -- I'm just saying that I think that without great detail here, we can achieve some economies in what we bring back in our solicitation. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Couple of thoughts on that -- MR. WEIGEL: We will not be paying -- essentially be paying very little for their assistance at this end of this, but they have some information that -- based on a relationship with them, if we formalize it briefly with them, they can assist us and I think that we will be paid back many-fold in both the response we get in the RFP that goes back and from that RFP as it's set up, any potential negotiation that would come after that. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I think that when we're looking at a multi hundred million dollar idea over the course of 20 or 30 or 50 years, a few thousand dollars is -- is good money invested. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Board liability started cropping up in my head. When you're dealing with trucking things out of county to another place, there's tremendous liability associated with that and I think I -- I reverse my position. Commissioner Berry? COMMISSIONER BERRY: You're looking at January as the date for the return information back to us? MR. WEIGEL: Well, I -- with my discussion with David Russell, I think that that is what we'd be looking for. It might go a little beyond that, but I would think that January is the date because we've got a lot put together already. COMHISSIONER BERRY: I understand. That is my concern. I'm just wondering, because of all the holiday schedule, particularly this week, and then you get into December and so forth, what kind of a hazard that's going to present to us. MR. WEIGEL: Yes. Well -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I bet the folks at Neighbors, Giblin will still work if we pay them between now and the first couple of weeks of December. MR. WEIGEL: They don't get holiday pay. We have a -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, it's not that, but it's getting it out and getting the responses back from the people that -- MR. WEIGEL: The response -- pardon me. I didn't mean to -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, that's -- I just was concerned because of the holiday time frame that we're into now that this seemingly has a -- sometimes a detrimental effect in a lot of different areas and I just -- I was wondering if that was too soon. That was my only concern about it. MR. WEIGEL: I think that we can certainly target for that with a good likelihood that it would be that time. It might go a little bit longer, but quite frankly, notwithstanding there's a general advertised solicitation, we know where, for the most part, where the entities and the locations are where this may be possible and we'll be directly mailing and communicating with them anyway to get them on the process very quickly. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And considering the way the vultures have circled in the past weeks since this issue came up and went on the agenda, I don't think them being aware of it is going to be a problem. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Not that they're -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That will cut my daily phone messages by two, and because there's an RFP pending, that means any communication with any potential vendors at this point on this matter needs to come to an end for the members of the board. Once an RFP is even entertained, that's a requirement. With that, we have a motion on the floor and a second. Is there further -- we have speakers. I'm sorry. MR. FERNANDEZ: A1 Perkins and then Ty Agoston. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's hurting my hearing aid, not that I have one, with this feedback, but -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Fernandez is calling to address the feedback issue. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thanks. MR. PERKINS: Good morning, commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, people at home. A1 Perkins, Belle Heade Groups, resident, taxpayer and voter. I've been to most all of the landfill meetings and I've listened to the numbers and I've listened to the people and I've watched the consultants getting paid. We're up to a million bucks for the pay to the consultants, and we have yet to resolve a fact. Now, this morning, you're discussing putting out and receiving bids about trucking the garbage out of the county. If you're going to take and entertain that, I also want you to entertain the possibility of recycling and composting -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Perkins, the item before us today is to request bids for trucking outside the county. We are not going to open this up to every idea and concept out there on the issue of waste disposal today, so although I appreciate the hand out here, I don't think it's appropriate for this agenda item. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me answer the comment very specifically as, no one, anywhere along the line, has alleged that composting is cheaper than it was two years ago or that recycling is cheaper than it was two years ago or that any other areas are less expensive. We did a bid process where we looked at all of those. From a number of different sources the question having to do with trucking has come forward. The agricultural industry has had discussions with these folks. Civic groups have had discussions with these folks. The haulers themselves have come forward and have, to my understanding, though I haven't seen them, have laid forward some contracts that are actually cheaper with other communities that are cheaper than the bids they gave to us two years ago. So it appears there may be a very different situation with the trucking industry. There's no appearance of any change in the others. We have looked at all those, and so I don't know that we need to go back and reinvent the wheel with that. MR. PERKINS: Well, as I read the agenda, it says landfill siting and alternatives. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Perkins, I've identified the issue we're discussing today and the parameters and I'd appreciate it if you'd stay within them. MR. PERKINS: That's considered censorship, isn't it? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No, it isn't, and if you're done, you can have a seat. MR. PERKINS: I'm not done. I'm gonna take -- I demand my five minutes, which I am entitled to under the -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No, sir, not under this item you're not. You are under public comment on general topics, and even then, sir, you must at least stay on task with issues that involve county government. MR. PERKINS: I passed out to you a tax statement from Broward County based on a single family house, because we're talking about money, four hundred million dollars going in. That's a residence on a 100 by 100 foot lot -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You are off task Mr. Perkins. MR. PERKINS: Okay. The garbage is the same. What I'm comparing is what the average person is going to have to pay when we take and change this whole method. Right at the present time, we're paying $110 a year, okay. That reflects what they're paying in Broward County. Now, when we truck garbage or any debris from Naples to Pompano Beach and pile it in a 255 foot high landfill, and you're going to tell me that -- that statement that I gave you is within seven miles. We're talking about a lot of money all of a sudden. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I guess we'll have that answer when the bids come back, won't we, Ai? MR. PERKINS: Yes, but just remember, they generate enough methane over there to supply electricity for 150 homes. Where I'm coming from on this thing here is you have to take into consideration, first of all, if we take and let a contract out, we no longer have control of that system. The roads, the insurance. Mr. Hancock, you brought up a very important part, the liability -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Uh-huh. MR. PERKINS: I mean, big time. Let's face it, when you put trucks on the road for any period of time, the insurance company can tell you the potential of -- and the amount of accidents they anticipate happening. Drivers' times, truck replacement, leche dripping all over the place, transfer stations all over this community. Take a good look at what you're doing on this thing, and the way it looks with this transferring it out, you want to put the garbage in somebody else's backyard, not ours. You better keep the problem at home here and fix it yourself. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Perkins. MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Ty Agoston. MR. AGOSTON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Ty Agoston. I live in Golden Gate Estates and I'm speaking for myself. I want to make a protest in the way we are handling the information flow on the handling of waste in Collier County. I had been here last Wednesday and listened to a presentation of the consultants for the landfill. There was a very heavy pitch at the beginning looking for public input and the public outrage and what have you. The statements projected onto the wall could not be read. There was a gentleman in front of me who was a little older than I, he had his hand around his ear to hear the presentation, and the segments I could catch, I did manage to understand that we went from three hundred and fifty million projected costs to four hundred and fifty million projected costs. Mr. Chairman, we are talking about embarking on a different aspect of the same problem where getting information is absolutely impossible. I spoke to the gentleman from the consultant, asked where is the information available, and I was assured that it was in every public library. I can count that far. I went to the public library. There is no information in our public library for 1997. The last information that was input into the public library was in 1996. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ty, again, not to discount what you're saying, because I do have some concerns there if this is accurate, have you expressed these concerns to Mr. Fernandez's office? MR. AGOSTON: I just did this morning, but I publicly have stated or TAG has expressed very strenuous interest, which is a large amount of money and it's a large amount of public expenditure and I believe that it should be dealt with publicly. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No one's gonna disagree with you, Ty, and you're bringing it to our attention. You've brought it to Mr. Fernandez's attention. Again, the same problem is that this is an issue of, are we going out to get bids on trucking out of county, which is being done as publicly as anything can be, so that's the item before us. MR. AGOSTON: Mr. Hancock, this is not the first time I have said this. I mean, I have said this last year. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I understand. I'm telling you -- MR. AGOSTON: We're looking for information and we can't get it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Fine, we hear you, but we need to hear you in the appropriate place on the agenda. MR. AGOSTON: Where? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: General comments. MR. AGOSTON: I went on general comments last week, last year. We are looking for just plain information, and I am not trying to be -- I know nothing about waste management. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Then we -- MR. AGOSTON: I'm not planning to learn. I know a little bit about financial projects. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ty, Ty, please. Ty, you're on the wrong part of the agenda. We are talking about trucking out of county right now and whether to go out to bid. I've got to stay on that. MR. AGOSTON: How could you make a decision -- how could you expect public comment on the advisability of you going out to get bids when you cannot get any basic knowledge, basic financial information on the balance of the issue? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman -- MR. AGOSTON: You're looking for informed comment, you are looking for public input. Where are you gonna get it from? You going to get it from Mr. Fran Stallings who sits on the board, who's part of the Wildlife Federation? Is that where you're looking to get the information from? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ty, you're on a separate issue. The issue is, we had a bid for trucking out of county when we first looked at the options. We now know that things have changed, that some of those bids are lower, so we're requesting to get new bids. We are supplanting existing information with current information. If there is a problem that you cannot gain access to public documents, then that is a serious problem and one which Mr. Fernandez is going to address immediately. MR. AGOSTON: Mr. Hancock, with due respect, sir, I disagree. If you're going to have an agenda and expect the public to comment on a proposed action and you do not supply the public information to make an informed comment on that action and you say that it doesn't belong to the agenda, I mean, it -- I disagree. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ty, do you object to our seeking additional information on this? MR. AGOSTON: Not at all. I object to not being able to make an informed comment -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ty, Ty, I'm not going to argue with you. Ty, I am not going to argue with you. MR. AGOSTON: Okay. I appreciate it. Thank you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I can answer his question very simply. We've had 23 public hearings. Information from all of those is in the library system. We've only had two meetings this year. One of those was last Wednesday. One of those was a month ago. A month ago, no technical memorandums were approved, no new additional information went in. It was a review to bring us back to speed because we hadn't met in 11 months. The information that was approved last Wednesday at the meeting you were at will be a part of those technical memorandums, but the reason why, up until that time no new information from 1997 was in there is because we haven't had meetings until a month ago in 1997, and until last Wednesday, didn't approve any new information to go in those reports. So I'm sure that since last Wednesday that has been included in there, and if not, it certainly will be this week. I know there were some typos that they went to clean up. We don't even have our copies of that back yet, but to suggest that the public information or the information isn't available to the public is -- is mistaken. Everything that has been approved to date, with the exception of last Wednesday, is readily available, and as soon as the typos are corrected in last Wednesday's report, that will be available too. I don't even have my copy yet, Ty, because they haven't cleaned up all the typos yet, but everything is available. It's in the libraries, communities centers. It's in a number of locations, including our office. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Mr. Fernandez, additional speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: Stan Olds. MR. OLDS: I'll try to stay on the subject. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That would be tremendously helpful. MR. OLDS: Well, I wrote a long speech here, but I'll condense it to a few words. I realize that you've been, well, considering every avenue of consideration for the landfill, but I guess my deep concern is that about the financial and the environmental impact on our future generations, the children and grandchildren and so forth, and I think you do too. It's not that it's something new, but I thought I had to get up here and say something because so many other people are saying things too. Well, that's not a good answer, but long-range effects also involve our pocketbooks, as well as pure water and clean air, so I just urge consideration of all other possible solutions, along with incineration, composting, recycling and the other three sites. Now, I know you're talking about hauling and trucking, but you will get around to these other things too, I hope. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, yes, there's actually a date set for that information to be presented. MR. OLDS: What's that now, January -- no, December 13th? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: December 16th, and this is not being done in lieu of, we're not throwing out sites we've looked at, the two year process we've gone through or the money that's been spent on that. We're trying to do the two concurrently because this issue has come back up. I really don't see the board revisiting the recycling and composting. They're not a viable option. We've already looked at all of those things. Trucking, it appears some of that may have changed. If it has, great, we can approach it. If it hasn't, great, we'll have a clearer answer, but that is not being done instead of. Finalizing our site rankings will be done concurrent with. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: To answer your first question, we have continued to receive information from everyone who ever thought of handling waste, and from everything I've received, the issues that are mentioned, such as composting and additional types of recycling, financially, the picture has not changed. The only one that financially has changed from information I've received is hauling. That's why this is being brought up. So we're just trying to update our information on those areas that have had some change. That's really the extent of this item today. We will look at everything in total before any decision is made and that will be done at a public hearing. MR. OLDS: I realize that and I just wanted to bring out my opinion anyway. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Stan. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, before we call the items, two things I want to mention. One, I think the intention of the bid is to look at a long-term contract. One of the pitfalls of hauling is, if it's a short-term contract, you can be lowbailed, and once you're into that phase, it's tough to re-up again in a short period of time and you could have -- you run the risk of that price going up considerably, so we're looking at a long-term bid. Also, the numbers in the paper the other day were a little misleading and we need to talk about comparing apples to apples when we say what the projected costs may be at a new site or at the existing site versus hauling. The costs in the paper for landfilling included in the reserve fees that we put on each time, because for hauling did not, so it wasn't comparing apples to apples. It's just, as we go through the process in December and January, we'll sort that out and I think all five of us are aware of that, but I want the public to be aware that those numbers weren't comparing apples to apples. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is there any additional questions or 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: Thanks, Commissioner Constantine, for adding that, bringing that up. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks for the second. Item #11A DISCUSSION OF THE COURT ADHINISTRATION CONTRACT AND THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT - TABLED UNTIL 1:15 P.M. *** CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Can I get a motion to table item ll(A) to 1:157 COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So moved. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: clerk at 1:15. Hotion carries five, zero. We'll see the PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS *** We are to public comment on general topics. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Ty Agoston. MR. AGOSTON: One of my favorite topics -- my name is Ty Agoston. I live in Golden Gate Estates and I'm speaking for myself. We see a constant stream of presentation from environmental groups representing themselves as representing the vast majority of the people. I'd like to probably focus on the National Wildlife Federation because most of the literature I have read about them, I find very displeasing, trying to be polite. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me, Ty, you understand, I'm not going to let you kind of go after another organization. You need to draw -- MR. AGOSTON: I am not. I am referring to -- Mr. Hancock, I'd like to direct the comments I make to the subject at hand, and I have heard a presentation today from the Wildlife Federation, and I believe that it's mostly appropriate for me to make a remark about the organization, being that you have questioned it and Mr. Norris has questioned them as to their expertise and what have you, apparently you put a lot of value in their opinion. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, I -- I wouldn't go that far. MR. AGOSTON: Well, you don't ask me. You ask them, so I'm talking about in relative terms. Contrary to the media opinion, the Wildlife Federation does not have a local Collier County chapter. They do not have meetings -- I'm sorry? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What are you sorry about? MR. AGOSTON: Somebody's -- I don't -- anyway, they do not have a local chapter as per Hiss Payton's testimony at the last meeting or the meeting before that. At the same time, they have a paid representative promoting their agenda. They are sitting on various county boards, apropos, the landfill, Mr. Fran Stallings who is not even a county resident, he is associated with the Wildlife Federation. I'm not sure whether he gets paid or not and I don't want to get into that rat hole, but the fact of the matter is that we are listening to his opinion in regards to the landfill. Why? Who are these people? Their president have expressed a disdain for the concept of private property. Private property is what this nation was founded upon, you know, free enterprise and the whole nine yards. These people will make you a recommendation and that recommendation has a hidden agenda. I protest the hidden agenda and I also protest the fact that they can come in front of you representing themselves as a citizen. The newspaper called it, they represent the public, in an editorial. What public? They do not represent the public. I think that green space fight a few months -- few months, it's now a year, clearly indicated that when people are given the honest options, okay, we should have green space and you're going to pay for it, to have expressed an opinion. Ladies and gentlemen, you know, to my mind, I am as concerned for the environment as anyone, maybe more so. I have grandchildren. I'd like them to live well, but for them to come here and misrepresent themselves and you apparently accepting it is what I protest. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Where did you get the information they don't have a local office? MR. AGOSTON: Right here. Miss Payton -- somebody here brought up the issue and Miss Payton said they have a Lee/Collier County that contains 1,500 members, and we can trace back the information on the records, but it was -- I mean, I was sitting here and that was said. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We asked the question if -- if they had regular meetings here, how many people they had from this area and so on, and I think her answer was they have actually a statewide board and they had one or no members, I can't remember which, from -- from this area. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But it's not like the Conservancy where there's 5,000 people in town that are members? MR. AGOSTON: That's right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. AGOSTON: That's all I'm saying. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: A1 Perkins. MR. PERKINS: It's still morning. Good morning, A1 Perkins, Belle Heade Groups, citizen, taxpayer. My topic is television and the media. You heard everybody talking about the lack of information and we have the system here in place, though we're not utilizing it to its utmost. Students from the college can operate this equipment just as well as anybody else can, and under public access we can take and have students come in here and have it be instructive and actually have school. The reason why I'm bringing this thing up is, on Wednesday at the landfill meeting here, prior to that, I think the HPO meeting was taking place and it wasn't being broadcast. It's important. The landfill meeting wasn't broadcast and it was important, and that went from -- the HPO moved out of here at four o'clock. The landfill meeting moved in at four o'clock, moved out at six o'clock, and another group was right behind us. We're not utilizing the vehicle that we have to inform the public. Then along comes new Marco Island City. Where they stand as far as the TV systems, the availability and whatever needs to be addressed. We need to be able to get this information out verbatim, just the way it stands, no spins and no twists from the Naples Daily News or any other new media. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Perkins, and we encourage you to attend all Marco Island City Council meetings. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Especially if they're on Tuesday. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. Just kidding. Okay. We are -- do we have additional public comments? MR. FERNANDEZ: No other comments. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Now we are through the morning part of our agenda. Let's go ahead and take at least the first item under advertised public hearings. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe more. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, maybe more. Item #12A1 RESOLUTION 97-444, APPROVING A PROPOSED AMENDHENT TO THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN FOR TRANSHITTAL TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COHMUNITY AFFAIRS, RE PETITION CP-97-02, BRUCE ANDERSON AND ROBERT DUANE REPRESENTING JIM COLOSIMO, TRUSTEE, REQUESTING A NEW DISTRICT TO BE KNOWN AS THE PINE RIDGE ROAD MIXED USE DISTRICT AND BY INCREASING THE MAXIMUM AREA ALLOWED FOR CONDITIONAL USES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF NAPLES GATEWAY PUD ON THE NORTH SIDE OF PINE RIDGE ROAD - ADOPTED *** Item 12(A)(1) under advertised public hearings, comprehensive plan amendments, consider transmitting to the Department of Community Affairs for review petition CP-97-02, Bruce Anderson and Robert Duane representing Jim Colosimo, Trustee, request to amend the Golden Gate area master plan. Okay. This is to transmit. This is not quasi judicial, so Miss Layne, good morning. MS. LAYNE: Good morning, commissioners. Lee Layne, for the record. This is a two-fold petition. The petitioner's requesting to add a new district adjacent to the Pine Ridge interchange activity center called the Pine Ridge Road mixed use district and also to increase the maximum acreage allowed for conditional uses. This is a 12.79 acre parcel. The eastern, approximately, two and a half acres will be wetland, and the rest will be left in its natural state. C-1/T uses would be allowed only on the eastern portion of the property, and then conditional uses allowed on the entire site. The petitioner has proposed some restrictions on the property. One, that it be encouraged to be submitted as a PUD. There would be landscaping, signage, screening and buffering. There would be no access onto Livingston Woods Lane. A minimum landscape buffer along the north and the west property lines of 75 -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm terribly sorry to interrupt, but we've had two or three of these in the same area. These restrictions are consistent with what we've done on the other PUD's in that same general vicinity? MS. LAYNE: This is not a PUD, Commissioner. This is an amendment to the master plan. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's the question I asked though? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are the conditions placed on it similar to those that have been placed on PUD's that have come in on the same corridor? In other words, apples and apples? MS. LAYNE: I don't know about the bufferings. I think this may be a little bit larger buffering than -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe I can ask Mr. Anderson that question because I already know the answer, but I want it on the record. MR. ANDERSON: For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson on behalf of the petitioner. To give you a succinct answer, yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If I remember correctly, Mr. Anderson -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Could you shorten that answer down? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Could you be more concise in the future? If I remember correctly, the people in Livingston Woods were not at all unhappy with office type uses, which is what this amendment is all about. Anything else outside of C-i/T, which is commercial one transition, would come back in the form of a conditional use in a public hearing; is that correct? MR. ANDERSON: That is correct. It may come -- it may come in the form of a PUD. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. But it would be a fezone and with notification, public hearing? MR. ANDERSON: Oh, absolutely, yes, sir. MS. LAYNE: Right, and it could also be conditional uses of the estates, not necessarily just C-1/T. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. MS. LAYNE: And then the one other amendment to the master plan was, right now, conditional uses cannot exceed five acres. This would allow those that are adjacent to the activity center or to the -- this new district to go larger than the five acres, and the Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 2nd, did recommend transmitting this to DCA. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Do we have further questions of staff or the petitioner? Do we have additional registered speakers, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: No, we do not. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We do not. I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Move the item. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five, zero. Item #12B1 ORDINANCE 97-73, RE PETITION PUD-89-19(1), KAREN K. BISHOP, OF PMS, INC., OF NAPLES REPRESENTING MR. WILLIAM SCHWEIKHARDT, TRUSTEE, REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE DONOVAN CENTER PUD, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST INTERSECTION OF INTERSTATE 75 AND IHMOKALEE ROAD, CONSISTING OF 47.0 ACRES - ADOPTED WITH CHANGE *** We are to item 12(B)(1). This is a quasi judicial matter, and for that reason, I'd like to ask all members of our staff, members of the petitioner, and any members of the public here to speak on petition PUD-89-19(1) to please stand and raise your right hand. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's your item, Miss Bishop. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We are at the point of swearing people in. Are there people in the hallway that need to be sworn in, Miss Bishop? She's nodding yes. Let's get them in here then. Again, all those individuals here to speak on PUD-89-19(1), please stand and raise your right hand. Let's get something together here, folks. If you're here on 89-19(1), stand and raise your right hand, please. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is their opportunity. If they're not here -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Madam court reporter, please swear them in. (Speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Arnold? MR. ARNOLD: Good morning, Wayne Arnold, Planning Services Director, presenting the item. This, again, is a fezone from PUD to PUD for Donovan Center PUD. This property is located at the southwest corner of Immokalee Road and 1-75. There are a number of changes contemplated within the PUD with reference to some of the -- the land uses. There were some similar uses that were also discussed, including used car sales, amusement, recreation services for indoor type recreation, social service agencies and U.S. Postal Service. Staff, in that list of additional uses, is recommending that you do not adopt a used car sales component to this PUD for that intersection, as it is one of our keynote signature intersections into our community. There were some other provisions for interconnection with the Stiles PUD. This PUD also establishes the maximum number of dwelling units for a parcel of land, 140 dwelling units for that PUD. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Arnold, not to cut you off, but my review of this looked like this is a substantial improvement updating, bringing this PUD more into line with how they're currently approved. It was rather an old one that had a lot of the wiggle room that used to be left for developers to -- to make future decisions that you basically tied them down to in this revised document. It looked to me like a big improvement. Are there flags besides the used car? I think that's a great one. MR. ARNOLD: In our opinion, no, there were not. Everything they've asked for is certainly consistent with the comprehensive plan. We believe that change, as well as some of the architectural theming that comes out of this as well is just bringing the whole PUD up to more current standards. COHMISSIONER BERRY: And the interconnect, that was something that was -- MR. ARNOLD: Very significant for us, yes. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Which is critical. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Real positive improvement, it looks like to me. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Question on tract 8, the residential. When we were looking at projected dwelling units and so forth, was this parcel anticipated to have any residential impact? MR. ARNOLD: I can't speak specifically, but it probably was, to some degree, although in the previous PUD it wasn't specified exactly the number of units. The seven units per acre that they achieved for this total parcel of land is maybe higher than typically seen lately, but it is adjacent to the interstate and that 1-75 corridor, probably not an unreasonable expectation to seek that type of density, again, consistent with our comprehensive plan's density. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Questions for Mr. Arnold? Seeing none, let's go to a representative of the petitioner, Hiss Bishop. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hiss Bishop, if the board is comfortable with everything in here except the used car sales, are you okay with that? MS. BISHOP: Yes. I have one change though that may not be reflected. I gave it to Ron and since Ron's not here -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Who are you? MS. BISHOP: I'm sorry, Karen Bishop. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The proclamation lady, as we call her today. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's right, the park lady. MS. BISHOP: Parking space would be good. Anyway, earlier today we were reading the language of the shared access area and one word is in there that -- the word south, and we need to delete the word south. It's share between east and west people. There is no one to the south, so -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, it was just a correction? MS. BISHOP: It was a typo, so we needed to remove that one word from page 20 in the transportation section. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. MS. BISHOP: That was it. Everything else was fine. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Arnold, do you agree with that change? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Any questions for Hiss Bishop? Are there any particular residential plans or are you just looking for the numbers so that you can plug it in for future use? MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir. They probably are looking at apartments at this point because of its proximity to a commercial facility and 1-75. You're not going to see the typical condo type of stuff there, but right now -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seven is kind of in no man's land. You get up to six in a certain type of home, and then when you go to the next one, you start -- it just -- seven to ten is a range that really doesn't get used that much. MS. BISHOP: I know, and of course we didn't -- that was what was there before, so we didn't make any changes. We were happy with what was there before. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In that proximity to 1-75, I can't see any reason to reduce it much more than that. MS. BISHOP: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Questions of Hiss Bishop? Seeing none, thank you. Any additional registered speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: There are none. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, move the item, minus the used car sales. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) Item #12B2 ORDINANCE 97-74, RE PETITION PUD 86-10(4), BARBARA A. CAWLEY, AICP, OF WILSON, MILLER, BARTON & PEEK, INC. REPRESENTING OWEN M. WARD, TRUSTEE, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM PUD TO PUD FOR THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS STILES, BY AMENDING THE PUD MASTER PLAN FOR PROPRETY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF IHMOKALEE ROAD (C.R. 846) APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF 1-75 AND IHMOKALEE ROAD, CONSISTING OF 18.13 ACRES - ADOPTED *** CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Next item is petition PUD-86-10(4), Barbara Cawley of Wilson, Miller, Barton and Peek representing Owen Ward, Trustee, fezone from PUD to PUD. This also is a quasi judicial matter. Members of our staff, members of the petitioner's team and anyone here from the public to speak on this item, please stand and raise your right hand. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: May I pause you for a second? I just realized we didn't make any disclosure about the last item for communication. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let's put that swearing on hold. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm making a retroactive disclosure that I have had contact, but I'm basing my decision solely on what I heard right here in this arena. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ditto. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The same for me. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't recall having contact on it, but -- COHMISSIONER BERRY: I had contact with the petitioner. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- but I base my decision on the information presented here today. Okay. Let's go with item 12(B)(2). Again, I'm sorry, individuals here on that item, please stand and raise your right hand. Madam court reporter. (Speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good morning again, Mr. Arnold. MR. ARNOLD: Good morning. Wayne Arnold, Planning Services Director. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to disclose that I don't think I've had any conversations with anybody about this item. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I am going to base my decision solely on the information presented here. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As am I. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry? COHMISSIONER BERRY: I've had some contact with the petitioner. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think I did too, so I'll say, yes, I did, and I'll base my decision on the information presented today. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Quite an impression on you? COHMISSIONER BERRY: In a series of things. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It was more than three days ago, so you never know. Mr. Arnold? MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. This project is known as the Stiles PUD and our intent here is to adopt a new PUD with a new master plan. The significance of this is, it is adjacent to the prior agenda item, Donovan Center. Again, one of the things contemplated here is to have an interconnection with the Donovan Center. Again, this is located on the Immokalee Road corridor about a quarter mile west of 1-75. There are certain uses permitted here. It's pretty typical with interchange activity center type uses; motels, hotels, restaurants, et cetera. There are also, you can see from the executive summary packet, a comparison of current provisions to those that are proposed and some have no similarity. There are others, as noted. Staff is supportive of the changes, have no -- no late recommendations to make to you, other than that as supported by the Planning Commission and -- and our staff recommendation, which was to support the amendments as proposed. We believe -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Despite the areas of no similarity, you don't have any concern? MR. ARNOLD: Out of those, no, we did not. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The only one I had a question on was electrical repair shops, the automotive portion of that. I know radio, TV, I don't really care about, but could that be like a rewind facility or -- MR. ARNOLD: I'd have to check the specific SIC code group, but I believe that's just repair shop, which is -- means that you could do installation or repair of radio, electrical equipment, pretty much any COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The automotive is just radio -- automotive radio type things? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct, that is not automotive repair. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Under automotive repair, I don't think our commercial standards apply in the sense that I'm picturing service bays facing the roadway. I would like to have those either screened or facing away from Immokalee Road if they're a part of the project, for the simple reason that that's not something, if we're talking about, you know, landmark or -- or identity, as you come off the interstate, I don't think that's something we want to present to people is open maintenance bays in a service station. MR. ARNOLD: We can certainly craft some language and insert that in the appropriate -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Does the board agree with that as a -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I do. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Certainly do. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good catch. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The other -- are there any further questions for Mr. Arnold at this point? Seeing none, let's go to the petitioner, Miss Cawley. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is she going to talk us out of it? MS. CAWLEY: Good morning. Barbara Cawley with Wilson, Miller, Barton and Peek for the petitioner. I have nothing to add. We support the staff's recommendation and we've worked very hard with the Donovan PUD for our joint access and with the staff to craft the language that brings us into compliance. This is an old PUD that we're just modernizing and we appreciate your support. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any problem with my service bay amendment? MS. CAWLEY: Absolutely not. No, we have a common architectural theme that we've agreed to and we'll follow all the -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There's not a shown interconnect, although your roadway is on the property line. Is there any opposition to an interconnect by the adjacent property owner? MS. CAWLEY: You just passed that adjacent property owner and it is actually straddling the line, more or less. I mean -- and we have an agreement required in the PUD that we're going to join cross-easement -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Single point of access? MS. CAWLEY: Single point of access, that's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. That's what I wanted to hear. MS. CAWLEY: It will be very positive for everyone. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any questions for Miss Cawlay? Seeing none, do we have any speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'll move the item, including the Hancock bay amendment. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Sounds like a piece of legislation. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five, zero. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There will be no dredging of Hancock Bay. COHMISSIONER BERRY: But we're going to fill it. Item #12B3 ORDINANCE 97-75, RE PETITION PUD-96-11(2), KAREN BISHOP OF PMS, INC., OF NAPLES, REPRESENTING PELICAN STRAND LTD., REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE PELICAN STRAND PUD FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADDING A COHMUNICATION TOWER, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 75 AND IHMOKALEE ROAD (C.R. 846) - ADOPTED *** CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Next item, 12(B)(3), Petition PUD-96-11(2). This is Pelican Strand Limited requesting a PUD to PUD amendment. Again, members of our staff, members of the petitioner's team, the petitioner, and any members of the public here to speak on this item, please stand and raise your right hand. Madam court reporter. (Speakers were sworn.) COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I've had no communication with anybody on this item. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris indicates none. Commissioner Berry indicates none. COHMISSIONER BERRY: No, I have had -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You have? COHMISSIONER BERRY: Yes, I have and I have a question regarding this. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Once again, I'm gonna say I don't -- it doesn't look familiar, so I'm going to say I haven't had any contact. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Not with the petitioner, per se, but connected with the item, all right, let me put it that way. I guess that makes sense. I have not had any contact with Miss Bishop. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Arnold? MR. ARNOLD: Wayne Arnold, Planning Services Director. This, again, is a PUD amendment relative to the Pelican Strand PUD, the purpose of which is to amend that document to allow for the installation of communication towers in that PUD. We believe that, given the locational requirements in there, that no communication tower would be within about 425 feet of any residential tract within that PUD. There, of course, is certainly a growing need by our cellular communication providers to have coverage throughout the area and this is a relatively large -- large and long PUD adjacent to 1-75, which that's probably where we're going to see those towers. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I read the item as saying a communications tower. I've heard you twice now say towers. MR. ARNOLD: I apologize. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just want to make sure -- MR. ARNOLD: The intent is for a singular tower, that's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Up to 170 feet? MR. ARNOLD: Up to, I believe -- excuse me for one second. Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I just wanted to verify that. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And for sight lines, for those of us who aren't in the planning business, if you're 400 some odd feet away from a tract and looking at a 170 foot tower, how visible is it from a residential tract? About like that? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Almost as big as Mick Jagget in a stadium show. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a frame of reference I can understand. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Glad you can. COMMISSIONER BERRY: There is some concern over the location of this tower on the property. Can you say -- or tell us where it's going to be located on the property, northern end, southern end? MS. BISHOP: Karen Bishop for the petitioner. It's going to be on the southeast corner of the commercial tract, the closest to the intersection of 1-75 and Immokalee Road area. COMHISSIONER BERRY: Okay. So that would be the southern half of the commercial tract? MS. BISHOP: Yes, ma'am. COMHISSIONER BERRY: Okay. That's all I needed to know. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any further questions of staff or the petitioner on this item? Seeing none, are there any speakers on this? MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There being no speakers, I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Move the item. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five, zero. We need to -- we need to be back no later than 1:15. Let's go ahead and do it at one o'clock. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, can I ask a question? Do any of these other items look like they're going to take long? We have some people sitting here. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I was going to ask, what item -- the individuals in the audience are here on which item? MR. MULHERE: The -- the next item, I believe, Dominick Amico and Mr. Mike Bruet were in the audience, but I do not see them here now. They may have gone to lunch already. Mr. Anderson is here on behalf of the following item, which would be -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We don't care about him. We're talking about the group of people -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, we're more interested in knowing what the public -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman, we have speakers for 13(A)(1). COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to take that one out of order then and consider that one before we take a lunch break. Item #13A1 RESOLUTION 97-445, RE PETITION CU-97-23, GEOFFREY G. PURSE REPRESENTING FAITH COHMUNITY CHURCH REQUETING CONTIIONAL USE "1" OF THE ESTATES ZONING DISTRICT FOR A CHURCH FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 22ND AVENUE NW AND OAKES BOULEVARD, CONSISTING OF 4.99 ACRES - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, seeing as how the break is an hour and they've been sitting here all morning, let's go ahead, if there's no objection from the board, go to item 13(A)(1), Petition CU-97-23, Geoffrey Purse representing Faith Community Church. This is, again, quasi judicial, so everyone here that is registered or wishes to register to speak on this item, I need you to stand and raise your right hand, please, without dropping everything. Okay. Madam court reporter. (Speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I have had no contact or communication on this outside of some written correspondence in support of. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Neither have I. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Same disclosure. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I haven't had any contact. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Nino, good morning. MR. NINO: Ron Nino, for the record. Petition CU-97-23, I ask this board to approve a conditional use for a church on 22nd Avenue. Within your executive summary package, you'll find a representation -- on page six of your executive package you'll find a little representation of the existing conditions that -- that are relative to the subject site. You'll find that 22nd Street is -- is on the end of a stub street that -- that terminates a non-estates area. We're dealing with an estates zoning district. The property is contiguous to an activity center called the Brentwood PUD, which is a commercial -- an approved commercial development, although it is currently undeveloped. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: As much as I appreciate your having rushed over here, Mr. Nino, this looked to me like the perfect location for a church and I didn't have any big problems with it. COMMISSIONER BERRY: And it's not too far located from another church that was just completed. MR. NINO: We think it satisfies the criteria for where churches ought to go. We wouldn't be standing before you recommending a church unless it were on an arterial or a major collector road. For all practical purposes, we think this accomplishes that. The Planning Commission was unanimous in their endorsement of this recommendation to you, and it certainly satisfies, from our point of view, the conditions precedent to allowing a church in a -- as a conditional use. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have any letters of objection from -- MR. NINO: We received no letters of objection, nor written communications of objection on this petition. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I do have one question. On Oakes Boulevard, do we have a sidewalk or bike path that runs north and south on Oakes currently? MR. NINO: No, we don't. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If we did, I was gonna ask for a sidewalk out to Oakes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, we do. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Yes, you do. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We do? MR. NINO: I've driven the road, but I guess I neglected to see COHMISSIONER BERRY: But this is a little off of Oakes. I mean, this is a good bit west of Oakes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's one piece of property. The reason I ask is, in the past, and again, trying to be consistent, when it is in an area where there are residences around it, my concern is that for that period, an hour here, an hour there where the traffic flow is constant, there needs to be a place off the street for kids and whatnot to be, so I like the idea of having a sidewalk along the residential property from the church to Oakes, so that if cars are streaming up and down the road at those very limited but -- those times, there are places for kids safely to be. Again, because there are homes built around it, so my only request is that from the entrance of the church to Oakes Boulevard, that there be a requirement for a sidewalk to be constructed, again, just looking out for the safety of the kids that do live in the immediate area. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What's the estimated cost of something like that? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't know, per linear foot on sidewalks. MR. NINO: Is there an engineer in the house? I can't give you the per linear foot cost for sidewalk construction -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me also ask the question, this is on one of the little, as you put it, stub streets that back up -- are there any homes there now on that stub and what would be the maximum number you can have there, because I think it would only be -- MR. NINO: There is -- there is currently -- yes, there is currently one residence on the south side of that street, and on the very end of that street is an accessory structure which could be demolished and an additional house could be placed and meet the minimum standards of two and a quarter acres and 150 feet of frontage, so there could be -- there is one now. There could be one more. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It seems like a lot of cost for two homes, I know. I'm just -- I'm trying to be consistent in that if you buy that home and you have kids, it's a little bit of a concern. Maybe it's not worth the cost. I wish we had a cost estimate on it, but, Mr. Arnold, can you offer any assistance on this? MR. ARNOLD: Wayne Arnold, Planning Services Director. Our engineering staff had recently been involved in calculating some numbers for sidewalks. Depending on the condition of the ground and how much prep. work has to be done, the prices we're looking at range anywhere from ten to $20. Low side, $10 a linear foot. High side, about $20 a linear foot. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How many feet are we talking here? MR. ARNOLD: Five foot wide sidewalk. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Linear feet? MR. NINO: We're talking about 400 feet. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So we're talking about a $500 cost? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Five thousand. MR. NINO: No, 5,000. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Minimum, five to 10,000. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. I'm afraid I can't support that in that area. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, it's a little -- well, okay. I'm just -- MR. NINO: I think actually we're talking about 8,000, twenty times 400. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's too much for a fledgling church to have to add -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is this a brand new building? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It would be, right? MR. NINO: It would be a brand new church. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I appreciate where you're trying to go with this and trying to maintain consistency, but I think with the fact that there would only be a maximum of two homes there, we have a minimal concern. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Again, for the sake of consistency, without the sidewalk in it, I'm having a tough time supporting it, but I, alone, can't kill this, so I -- and I don't want to, so I'll try and be consistent, but I certainly understand that that's an excessive cost. Any further discussion on this? Okay. Do we have anyone from the petitioner's team that would like to offer anything at this time? MR. SHUCK: I'm Roy Shuck, pastor of Faith Community Church. I would just like to say, I've heard a lot of horror stories about coming before Mr. Nino's office and the Planning Commission and the county commissioners, and I'm here to tell you as a taxpayer and a property owner in Victoria Park, I certainly have learned a lot from it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I had a -- a pastor come up to me once and ask COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Could we give him another five minutes? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I had a pastor come up to me and say they had heard the same thing, that churches were not welcome in Collier County, and I thought, my God, you know, if you go out and try and locate one in the wrong place maybe, but -- you know, I said, there are two people you don't like to say no to and one of them is God, so anyway, I would like to ask the pastor, if I could, I want to support the petition, but if there's a determined need for a sidewalk or bike path, would the church consider assisting financially in accomplishing that? MR. SHUCK: Well, I would ask you which side of 22nd are you talking about? If you're talking about the north side, there's only one property that can be built there and, you know, if you're talking about the south side, then there is a bike path that goes all along Oakes Boulevard. You are correct about that, and it is a very nice, wide path. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What I'm saying is, rather than put the onus on your back to say it's all yours to do, which is a little unfair with the cost, if the neighborhood comes back and wants to do a sidewalk or the residents want to do one, would the church have a problem being a fair share contributor to that? MR. SHUCK: No, we wouldn't. We're a community church and we want to do whatever it takes to enhance that community and make them feel good. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's enough to let me support the application myself. Further questions? Any registered speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: Bud Matthews. MR. MATTHEWS: I'm happy with the situation. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Matthews waives his right to speak and gets two bonus points for doing so. Any other registered speakers? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Move the item. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and several seconds. We'll say it was Commissioner Berry on the second, Commissioner Constantine on the motion. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five, zero. Thank you. (Applause.) Item #12B5 ORDINANCE 97-76, RE PETITION PUD-90-32(1), R. BRUCE ANDERSON OF YOUNG, VAN ASSENDERP & VARNADOE, P.A., REPRESENTING ASHLEY SERVICE STATION, INC., REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "PUD" AND "RHF-12" TO "PUD" FOR PROPERTY KNOWN AS "ASHLEY'S SERVICE STATION" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PURPOSES OF ADDING LOT #19 TO THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PROJECT; ELIMINATING ALL SERVICE STATION REPAIR USES AND CONVERTING THE EXISTING SERVICE AREA INTO A FAST FOOD RESTAURANT AND REVISING THE MASTER PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY AND 47TH STREET, CONTAINING 1 ACRE, MORE OR LESS - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have one that we can get through, I think, rather quickly, and that will give us exactly an hour for lunch and leave less when we come back to accomplish. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I may be the lone one here, speaking of task master, but it seems to me that we could probably finish all of these in time for Dwight's thing and then be out of here after that's done. COHMISSIONER BERRY: No. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. You've been outvoted, so let's -- because the folks at -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would go with that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm a lunch break guy today. I'm going to get awful crabby without some food. *** 12(B)(4), the representatives have left, so let's go to 12(B)(5). I think this is a fairly straightforward one. It is quasi judicial. All folks here to speak on petition PUD-90-32, please stand and raise your right hands. Okay. Madam court reporter. (Speakers were sworn.) COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, this is kind of a no brainer. Mr. Ashley owns a Mobil station in Golden Gate, has a couple of bays for auto repair. He'd like to change that over to a drive-through HcDonald's similar to the one you see in the Pine Ridge/Vineyards -- Crossroads Plaza, whatever that plaza is. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great idea. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I understand everybody's supporting this, including, is it the Golden Gate Chamber? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Civic, the chamber, everybody's behind it, and just -- sometimes when people build and develop things, we have criticisms for developers. I've got to tell you, Mr. Ashley made a number of promises to the Golden Gate Civic Association about six or seven years ago when I was president and he has kept every single one of them, so I'm sure whatever he says he's going to do here, he will as well. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So he'll be a candidate for the cloning process? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Absolutely. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have had some discussions with the petitioner. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As have I. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: As have I, but I'm persuaded by what I hear in this meeting today. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Likewise, I met with the petitioner and base my decision on the information presented today. Commissioner Berry, similar disclosure, I assume? COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think so. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I sense a direction from the board here. Mr. Bellows, is there anything you feel hard pressed to get on the record outside of what's presented in our packet today? MR. BELLOWS: Just that the Planning Commission recommended approval. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Anderson, is there anything you just need to say at this moment? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If he comes to the microphone and says no -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Your client's not happy that you're coming up. MR. ANDERSON: No. I just want to make clear that -- that it is not for sure a McDonald's. We are in negotiations. That's all. Bruce Anderson, for the record. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Drive-through food. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I may have to reconsider. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The fewer McDonald's, the longer I'll live. Any speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Move the item. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ladies and gentlemen, we will adjourn for lunch. Please return at 1:15. (Recess taken.) Item #11A DISCUSSION OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATION CONTRACT AND THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT - COURT ACTION TO CONTINUE TO COMPLETION; PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE TO LOOK AT BUDGETARY ITEMS THAT THE CLERK HAS JUDICIARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL OF AND TO LOOK AT ALL CONTRACTUAL ISSUES INVOLVING THE CLERK AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'd like to welcome everyone back to the Board of Commissioner meeting, also being subtitled the Clerk's Autodent deal of the century. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Or the Hac'Kie Taxi Services are Us. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Who says constitutional officers don't work together, you know? One of you breaks down, the other one picks you up, and it works out beautifully. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Fate. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: On the agenda we had a time certain for 1:15, and that clock's obviously wrong, because we were supposed to be back at 1:15. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess we missed that item. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How did it go, Dwight? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm going to ask that we have a motion on the table -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So moved. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- Item ll-A. It was moved by Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seconded. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Could you hold on a second? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Opposed? (No response.) Item ll-A is our item that is currently on the agenda, discussion of the court administration contract and the responsibilities of the Clerk of the Circuit Court. With us we have the Clerk of the Circuit Court, Mr. Dwight Brock, having a fantastic day so far. MR. BROCK: Just wonderful. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good afternoon, Dwight. MR. BROCK: Good afternoon. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Fernandez, how do we -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman, if I may just offer a couple of introductory comments. This matter is on the board's agenda in a follow up to your previous discussion last week on the subject. At that time the board considered the question of whether it was appropriate to refer this matter to the productivity committee. In that discussion, it became clear that it was appropriate to ask the Clerk and -- discuss the matter with the Clerk and ask the Clerk for his approval before that referral was done. We were able to make arrangements to have the Clerk appear before us today for that discussion. Again, the issue is whether or not the Clerk concurs that it would be appropriate to refer this matter to the productivity committee, and then once that decision is made, if the answer is in the affirmative, I think there should be some discussion about the scope of what is in fact referred. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed. To set that stage, two members of this board have served on that committee, and Commissioner Berry currently is the chairman or the -- excuse me, the board liaison to the committee. In essence, Dwight, I know you have worked with them in the past on different things that were -- they were in your shop getting information but nothing -- MR. BROCK: I'd love to have anybody -- you know, anything we can do to put this to bed, get this resolved to be amenable to everyone, that satisfies everyone's concerns, and all of the input that we can get certainly would be appreciated. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In that case, I think the question now is let's at least more narrowly define the scope to the problem or issues at hand, because I know there were two that we discussed: One is the pressing matter with the circuit court and so forth; and the other is you and I have discussed trying to kind of standardize communication between the board's function such as those of the county administrator and the county attorney's office and the clerk's office, because it seems that sometimes when the flag goes up the pole, we're so late in the game that it becomes more problematic than if we had had that communication early. So as much as we can define that, I think that's another area that if we had a standard process by which all things that ultimately the Clerk reviews had a chance to see early in the process, then that would help things out in that regard. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Your mixing metaphors is just confusing the heck out of me. Flag up the pole, late in the game. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I tend to mix them, but at this point I'm just overusing them. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to -- along the same lines, I've got a question that needs immediate attention as well. And this was -- I was going to bring it up under BCC communications, but it fits this perfectly. That is last night at grocery shopping for our Thanksgiving items, a gentleman stopped me in the grocery store who is a vendor who has done some work for our folks over in the courts and who still hasn't been paid. And we were under the impression -- I was under the impression that our stop gap measure we did a couple of weeks ago would take care of that. And these are -- and in this case he's a small vendor, he's a small shop. That's a big chunk. He's get several thousand dollars apparently out and he's carrying that in the meantime while we try to work this issue out. And I'm wondering how we can address -- I'm told now we have about $60,000 in bills that still aren't being paid, many of which are to small vendors. And I'm wondering how we can address that in the meantime. We need to deal with the big issue, but how do we take care of those people who in good faith came and tried to do service for the county for an agreed upon price? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sounds like Christmas money. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: For the sake of discussion, let's go ahead and try to work first on the issue of the existing court administration contract issue and through items like that, try and define what we would ask the productivity committee to look into, and then go to the broader issue of communication after that. Does that sit well with the board? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wouldn't the question for the productivity committee merely be can you identify potential solutions to the standoff, for lack of a better term, between the Clerk and the court administrator about how court budgets should be handled? Isn't that -- I mean, I would like to just ask them in their experience have they seen problems like this and solutions that they might have to offer. MR. BROCK: Commissioner, I welcome their assistance in whatever capacity that they can provide assistance in trying to resolve the global issue that we're trying to deal with now. But in addition to that, you know, I welcome the assistance of the productivity committee -- or would welcome the assistance of the productivity committee on a continuing basis to work with and communicate with the Clerk to assist the Clerk in resolving issues that might -- we might be confronted with on a continual basis. I mean, if we can create a line of communication, direct them to work with the county attorney's office, my staff and my office and your staff and your office trying to resolve this, I mean, that's great. But from a more global perspective, I welcome the relationship of working with the productivity committee in assisting us with anything that we do. I always have and will continue to believe that the more minds you can put together, the better the solution is going to be. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Brock. Mr. Fernandez, and possibly Mr. Weigel, we know that there is a court action filed between the 20th Judicial Circuit and the Clerk of Courts; is that correct? MR. WEIGEL: Yes, and the Supreme Court. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, and Supreme Court. Does that deal narrowly and specifically with the issue of payment of court administration costs, or is it broader than that? MR. WEIGEL: I think really that's the essence of the issue there before them. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So no matter what we sit down with the Clerk and talk about potential solutions, it's the 20th Judicial Circuit that would have to be party to that solution or else that particular court matter -- that court matter would continue, but that doesn't mean that the Clerk would continue not to pay bills. If we found a way that satisfied you, I mean -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The parties could dismiss the suit by mutual agreement if there were a reasonable solution like us adopting a budget or whatever else would solve the problem. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, that's what I'm saying is it requires the cooperation of the 20th judicial circuit to stop that particular action. So I'm -- I guess I'm looking for a single path here. And -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Do you mean the judges or the Clerk when you said -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The judges. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. Because he's the 20th judicial circuit, too. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I meant the chief judge -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- who filed the action. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just trying to get my -- okay. MR. BROCK: I suspect before we could meet, there's going to be a resolution. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So it seems to me that there is the issue of if there -- this is one area where there may be a contractual problem with the Clerk's office. There may be others. And that really was my intent of the productivity committee is to -- not just this in singular, but in those other relationships where there may be potential problems. MR. BROCK: We need to work in concert with one another. And I think your suggestion that we communicate early and often is a good one. And the productivity committee may very well be a mechanism that will facilitate a process to make that happen. And on a lot of different issues. I'm going to have to jump over to Commissioner Constantine's issue. Even though they're interwoven, they're somewhat different. There are a lot of people out there who are vendors for court administration in the past that have bills that are in existence. You know, even though we have 45 days under Florida's Prompt Payment Act, you know, the purpose of -- on November 4th of us coming forth and getting the stop gap provision was to ensure compliance with the Prompt Payment Act. Now, everything since November the 4th has not been paid. A lot of these vendors had been paid on a biweekly, three-week basis in the past and had come to rely upon it. And now then they're confronted with a different set of circumstances. And, you know, it makes life difficult changing in midstream. And we would like to continue the process of ensuring that everybody's able to live, especially around the holiday season, and we would like to get those bills paid. My staff suggested to Mr. Fernandez, I think last week, Bob -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Friday. MR. BROCK: -- that we go through that same process again, if we could, to try to take care of that problem and continue to work on a resolution that everybody can live with. I think Mr. Fernandez was reluctant to do that because of the litigation that was pending, and, you know, I understand that and I respect that. But it would certainly be nice if these people weren't having to suffer as a consequence of our actions. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've got to make sure I'm clear. You said since November 4th no one has been paid. Meaning on work done since November 4th, or meaning no money went out since we did the stop gap measure? MR. BROCK: Since bills were submitted. All of the bills that had been submitted to the clerk's office on -- I think it was on November 4th, maybe; it may have been the Friday before November the 4th. But all of the bills that had been submitted at that point in time to the clerk's office for payment were paid on, I think, November the 5th. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because the gentleman who stopped me last night indicated that some of the work he had done prior to that still has yet to be paid. MR. BROCK: If the bill had not been submitted to us at that point in time, even though the work had been completed, that may very well be true. One of the things that you can do is if you would let us know, we will let you know when the work was done and the bill was submitted. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MR. BROCK: Or we could go through the process of doing that again. I have a list prepared. I don't have it with me, but we prepared a list when we talked to Mr. Fernandez of those same -- going through the same process to try to get those people paid. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry? COMHISSIONER BERRY: I'm just confused. When we approved this stop gap measure that we did, what did we approve? MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that you approved the bills that had been submitted to that point in time that had not been paid. In order to resolve -- MR. BROCK: There was a list submitted, Commissioner. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thirty-six thousand. MR. FERNANDEZ: It was a specific list of invoices. COMHISSIONER BERRY: Okay. What I don't understand is, why didn't we do it for an all -- kind of a this is going to cover it until this litigation is taken care of? I personally don't believe that we ought to be in the middle of this whole thing, and suddenly we are in the middle of it. That was my reason, when I suggested about the productivity committee, number one, I believe that this issue ought to go ahead and be settled one way or the other. If it goes to a full-blown court proceeding or whatever happens, that's not my determination; that is out of my hands or our hands as a commission. I would assume that that will be handled on a separate -- in a whole separate matter. Anything that is affecting a relationship between the clerk's office and this county commission is what I suggested that the productivity committee ought to take a look at. If there is anything that currently or in the future -- any contracts that we have or anything of that nature, that it seems like they ought to be able to, if they're willing to do so -- and apparently I think they are; and if Mr. Brock is willing -- that they should be able to sit down and take a look at that and see what the problems are that relate -- where we fall apart here. And this is my concern. And I feel like we are really being brought into this, and I don't think it's a position that we ought to be in. I think -- and I feel very badly, because I think it's a terrible precedent to get a reputation, particularly from the county standpoint that we don't pay our bills. And I don't care what the reasons are for them, but I don't like that. I think that does not speak well for us and I think it sets a heck of a precedent out there. People in the future -- I wouldn't do business with Collier County. If you have to stand and wait for your money and if you're a small vendor, you can't afford to do that. Now, we're talk on one hand -- I mean, this is getting off the subject, but we talk on one hand of wanting to promote the small entrepreneur who's out there trying to carry on business, and yet we're cutting his legs out from underneath him by something that is going on that we don't have any control over. And this is a situation that is between two other bodies, actually, and not this county commission, and I don't want to be, as a county commissioner, brought into this situation. We didn't create it, okay? We didn't create it. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think we did. COMHISSIONER BERRY: I don't think we did, Pam. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, when we changed our process in 1995 where we had always done a regular budget for the court, it's that change. Whether it's our fault or should have done it differently or we should have gotten different advice, it's at that moment that the situation was created, because there was no longer a budget submitted. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You're talking fiscal year '95, fiscal year '96. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Were the bills paid in '95? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Best I know. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Were the bills paid in '96? MR. WEIGEL: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Then what is the problem in '97 is my question. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: This is '98. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Or '98? MR. BROCK: It was '96 when this process started. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I understand. That's a valid question. I don't understand -- MR. BROCK: I'll be glad to tell you where the process -- where the problem arises. I didn't create the problem. I didn't interpret the law that creates the problem. The Attorney General of the State of Florida interpreted the law that created the problem. If the Florida Supreme Court wants to opine that the Attorney General is wrong, that's certainly the Florida Supreme Court's prerogative. But the Attorney General opines that, where county funds are delivered to a non-county agency, association or corporation, although such funds may be used for a county purpose to be paid out of and distributed by such agency, association or a constitution or a corporation, this constitutional provision is violated, referring to a constitutional provision which is presently still in place. He further says that Florida statute sections 129-08 and 129-09 clearly contemplate that county funds, unless otherwise expressly provided by statute or the constitution, be paid out by the warrant of the County Commissioners, after the county claim has been audited and approved by the Clerk of the Circuit Court, where county funds are turned over to some non-county agency, association or corporation to be paid out and distributed by such agents, association or corporation, the spirit of the above statutory and constitutional provision violated in that -- were violated in that the county funds involved will be paid out without the approval of the board of county commissioners under the audit of the account of the Clerk of the Circuit Court. I have a hard time, confronted with that particular language, carrying out my constitutional and statutory responsibility of ensuring that the payments are lawful, under the scheme of things that have been created here. Certainly the Florida Supreme Court has the unadulterated right to interpret those provisions of the constitution in the statute contrary to that of the Attorney General. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When did the Attorney General write that? MR. BROCK: In 1956. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 1956. MR. BROCK: Correct. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So I go right back to the last question that the board had: What happened in 1995, '96, '97, now we're in fiscal year '98, that we paid the bills and suddenly this year you're looking at a 40-year-old interpretation? MR. BROCK: The Clerk of the circuit court's office was operating under the assumption, the erroneous assumption, that the board of county commissioners was approving a budget as opposed to a lump sum transfer. I looked at the adopted budget as provided by the budget office last year as a consequence of something else that transpired with the court agency; that being the submission of a bill for payment of goods and services, with a certificate that indicated they had been received and for a public purpose, when the contract for those services had not even been entered into. And in the process of researching that and at the beginning of the year when the budget roll took place in my finance department, no budget rolled out. And as a consequence of that, I consulted my staff, I consulted my legal counsel and I consulted the association, in which we were advised that it was inappropriate to pay it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, to pay that one item, I completely understand -- MR. BROCK: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- but what you're saying is the association of clerks, which is statewide, did they issue a directive to all county clerks? MR. BROCK: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Did that -- okay. MR. BROCK: This process only takes place in the 20th judicial circuit. Nowhere else does this process take place. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That includes Lee County, right? MR. BROCK: That's correct, Lee County and Charlotte County. That's the only place in the State of Florida that this process is undertaken. The Florida Association of Court Clerks entered an AMICUS Curiae brief on behalf of the Clerk of the Circuit Court with the Florida Supreme Court. AMICUS is a friend of the court. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: In support of your position that you should not be paying. MR. BROCK: That is correct. But, I mean, you know, that's an issue that the courts need to resolve. And I think we all agree with that. The burning problem that we have here is how do we deal with what we are confronted with on the local level. If the Florida Supreme Court ultimately determines that, you know, that's wrong, then we do something else. If they determine that it's right, we do something else. But, I mean, if we could put in place a process whereby as Commissioner Berry said, that we identify these issues and we talk about them and try to resolve them before they become a problem -- and the productivity committee may be a perfect vehicle to do that -- then I think we need to do that. Because, you know, it's not -- as Commissioner Berry says, it's not good for the county, it's not good for the clerk's office, it's not good for the courts for us to find us in this particular situation. I thought two weeks before, November the 4th, that we had a solution to this problem that was agreeable to everyone. When I initially encountered this problem, I went to the county attorney's office and I said here are my problems, here are my legal issues. Show me that I am wrong. And to this date, the only response that I have ever received from the county attorney's office is I can't. So I'm confronted with a scenario in which I have no alternative. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Brock, I know our corrective action isn't a long-term fix; however, just to be clear, the vote that was taken on line item expenditures, on specific things, you don't have any problem with that? MR. BROCK: Not as a stop gap measure. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're trying to solve the bigger issue. And I realize we're dealing with a couple different issues here and we need to deal with the stop gap -- with the overall issue, but Mr. Fernandez, why would we not want to do that again to at least be paying the bills of those vendors who in good faith have done their work? MR. FERNANDEZ: My reasoning for that is that something did change from the time that we approved the first list of bills to this most current request, and that is a writ of mandamns was filed, and now this matter is before that -- before the Supreme Court of the State of Florida. I didn't feel it was appropriate for us to take the same kind of action that we had taken previously now with this new fact in place. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The writ, however, references -- maybe I'm just not understanding, but references the overall procedure, and the Clerk has just said he doesn't have any problem with this particular stop gap measure as temporary corrective action. MR. FERNANDEZ: The writ cites in its body the fact that there were a number of unpaid bills, and they were pending. As I said, we were -- at the time we brought the initial list to the board, we were working out alternative solutions, and at that time the writ had not been filed. That's what's different about the request that we have now. Now that we have the writ on the record, the matter is before the Supreme Court, and I felt it was not appropriate to bring these before the board of County Commissioners, given those facts. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So the suggestion is that those vendors are just going to have to wait until the court hashes this out if we don't come up with a solution ourselves. MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, I go back to the original position that I took on this and that is that the contract that has been in place for a number of years has been sufficient authority for payment of vendors in the past and continues to be sufficient authority. That's my -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand, but, I mean, reality dictates we've got a disagreement within the county between the Clerk and this board, and that's going to go to court. And in the meantime, as we go into the holiday season, you have vendors who are sitting on a few thousand dollars in receivables. And I'm asking your suggestion; that is, that we -- that's just too bad. And until the issue gets settled and that your opinion, which I happen to share, but that your opinion, and until your opinion and the Clerk's opinion is settled, either on our own or in court, those vendors are just going to have to sit tight? MR. FERNANDEZ: My opinion is that we should not consider payment of those invoices until the Supreme Court decides this matter. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to need to hear from Mr. Weigel on that, because I'm not sure I agree with you there. MR. WEIGEL: The matter before the Supreme Court is a petition for a writ of mandamus, looking to order the Clerk to do an action which purportedly on behalf of the petitioner is required under law to be done. It's an extraordinary procedure. It receives expedited review and action by the court. In communications with the Supreme Court, Clerk's office, we know that the files and everything that has been filed to date is with the court itself. It's possible that a decision or at least the next step in the proceeding may be very imminent in that regard. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What would be the potential down side to us going ahead and paying our vendors if the court comes back and agrees with the Clerk? What happens? MR. WEIGEL: Part of a lawsuit before the court -- I should say the petition before the court -- is that there is not only a legal requirement but the immediacy of damage, irreparable and other damage that occurs by the Clerk allegedly not fulfilling those actions which the petitioner believes are required under law. And that there could be an argument put forward what that the partial or recurring payment of bills reduces the immediacy and potentially the desire of the court to rule on this in an expeditious manner. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess people actually being real people in the real world actually being able to pay their bills, their mortgage, their car payments, groceries -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Christmas presents. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- is more important to me than whether this is heard in December or February. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask a question related? I'm not sure I understood this, but it sounds to me like that our administrator takes the position that the contract is enforceable as written and that the Clerk asked the county attorney if he agrees with that or not, and the county attorney's office has said we don't disagree with the Clerk. So if you don't disagree with the Clerk, you agree with the Clerk, then you disagree with the county administrator. Am I getting that? MR. WEIGEL: Well, if you're asking the question, I welcome the question, because obviously to say we can't is a very succinct paraphrase from the dialogue that we've had with the Clerk. We recognize some of the issue that he raises at the same time, and we believe that it is a document that is legal, approved by this board two years ago. The record of the approaches to the board, both by then Chief Judge Reese, followed by the operational action agenda item of Mr. Neal Dotrill indicated that there had been interaction with the Clerk, specifically Neal, with his presentation to the board. So we believe that yes, there -- the Clerk has raised a legitimate issue. We don't believe that the forum -- we believe that the appropriate forum is within the court to determine whether in fact there is a breach of legality or not. So from that standpoint it's not just merely a question of saying we can't find fault with the issue that the Clerk has raised, but the question of whether the -- the bigger question of whether the agreement is drafted and which is utilized in the rest of the counties of the circuit for years is illegal by this -- by the determinations of this Clerk we think is appropriately determined in the forum of a court. And fortunately it's before the Supreme Court, so it should be handled rather quickly. MR. BROCK: Commissioner, an executive summary was prepared, not by me but by the county attorney's office. And I want to read you the language of the executive summary. "Regardless, it is the legal opinion of the office of the county attorney that Mr. Brock has raised valid concerns, and that the financial budgeting aspects of the current agreement could be vulnerable to legal challenge." COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Was this executive summary turned in for us? I don't know that I have a copy of that. And I'm thinking if it wasn't given to us, it's kind of a moot point because it was an executive summary for public -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But I would have loved to have had it. MR. BROCK: I mean, it was an executive summary that was agreed to by the Clerk, the county attorney's office. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But the point is -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: We don't have it, Dwight. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The point is, if Mr. Weigel -- if it's from Mr. Weigel's office, and he opted not to give it to us, I mean, I suspect from time to time I've put together more than one draft before I brought something to the board. I think this is a little unfair for someone who is arguing with the county attorney's office to bring in something from him that he didn't intend to bring, apparently. Maybe you did, Mr. Weigel, but -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman, I am the one that chose not to present that to the board. When I reviewed it, I did not accept it, did not approve it, and that's what began this debate about trying to find another solution, because I found that the solution being proposed was unacceptable to me. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I guess that's your prerogative. I just -- I'm disappointed that something that originated out of the Board of County Commissioners' staff is now being made part of the public record by the Clerk when the Board of County Commissioners' staff decided not to put it -- not to use this. Seems a little inappropriate for you to make a point now to get it in the public record so you can use it to argue your own side. MR. BROCK: Commissioner, it's not that I'm arguing it for my side. It was prepared by the county attorney's staff with an agreement that this would solve the -- be a solution to the problem. Now, you know, I have on not one occasion, but on multiple occasions made the very statement to the county attorney's office, here are my problems; if you will show me the fallacy of my concerns, we will back up and take another look at it. And the response that I have received consistently from the county attorney's office, not once, but on numerous occasions, was that we cannot. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you have a copy of that written correspondence? MR. BROCK: It was not written correspondence -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay, thank you. MR. BROCK: -- it was communications that took place between the county attorney -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But Mr. Constantine, Mr. Weigel has not said that that's not what happened. I think they agree that what they have determined is that this -- based on the information we have today looks like for the Clerk to make a different determination would require the Supreme Court to overrule, so to speak, the A.G.O. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think Mr. Weigel's explanation went well beyond just I can't find any fault with it, I can't. I don't think that was the answer. I think it was in detail and included some of what you said there -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- but it wasn't just a simple I can't. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I feel we need to come back to something that Commissioner Berry said. We are commingling two very separate issues. The first issue is one that does not involve the Board of County Commissioners at this point which is a filing by the chief judge against the Clerk saying that -- and this is the chief judge's words, paraphrased, you're not doing your job. You know, you should be paying the bills and you're not. MR. BROCK: The payment of bills is purely ministerial. The Clerk of the Circuit Court has no responsibility other than when somebody says to pay, to write the check. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: However it's worded, that's an issue. The circuit has taken issue with the Clerk's office and has filed action in that matter, that's one issue. What we are talking about here and what the person who approached you in the grocery store is talking about is exactly what Commissioner Berry said, is this board is being put in the crying towel position of having to make amends as a result of court action filed between two other parties, or else we somehow become the bad guy in this, that somehow we are the one standing between someone who's done work getting their money and not. And you invoke the concept of Christmas presents. Well, if it were January, would it be, you know, St. Patrick's Day beer money? I mean, you know, it really doesn't -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Valentine's Day. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, thank you. It really doesn't matter, I hate to say. It sounds cold, but the issue is an action filed between two parties and what our true responsibility is in that action first. And I think what we've heard from Mr. Fernandez and from Mr. Weigel is by continuing to provide stop gap measures, we in essence have the potential to delay the Supreme Court's decision and finality on this matter. In addition, I have a tough time understanding how if it's illegal for the Clerk to make payment, how we are, you know, avoiding -- overstepping those bounds in some way by saying, well, we'll pay for this, this, this, and this. Because in concept, what I'm hearing is when we approved our budget, we didn't have a particular line item budget for court administration. If we had, we wouldn't be standing here today. Is that a fair statement, Mr. Brock? MR. BROCK: That's an absolute, unequivocal fair statement. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If we didn't have it then, we still don't have it today. So what are we approving in comparison to? You know, we looked at this the way we looked at the health unit budget, which is you tell us what your expanded services are, you tell us what your costs are, you tell us what it is you want us to pay for and we say okay, we agree to that. And we did that, and that is on the record. It may not be a written line item. And maybe this a good time for Mr. Smykowski to refresh our memory, but I remember Mr. Middlebrook sitting there and us having a discussion about what are the costs, what are we paying for? So when it comes time next budget year, we go back and compare those things. So I just -- I think we are -- we're kind of getting the noose hung around our neck for being the bad guy when the best thing we can do to resolve this situation long-term is to allow the courts to take immediate action, which is what has been requested, and that's simply my opinion. It then gives us a clear path to act on. That's just -- that's my desire. I know it sounds a little mean spirited because of Christmas being around the corner, but that's not the intent. The intent is to resolve the matter. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, it's not about Christmas, and I understand, we do want to resolve the matter. I don't see us as being the good guy, the bad guy. I see the issue needs to be settled. If it gets issued -- if it gets settled in January, February or March, I don't really care. If somebody can't make their car payment, can't make their home payment, can't put groceries on the table, I do care. We have the ability to correct that, and I think we ought to. Maybe the majority of the board doesn't. And if we don't, let's move on from that discussion. But if we do, let's set a direction for it. Otherwise, it seems like the only other thing we've got to discuss, if a majority thinks that it's simply a court issue we're not involved in, then let's set a direction for our productivity committee and let's move on. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I'm interested in making the payments unless there's some serious repercussion to that, and so I didn't understand. I have two questions: One is I think the word was imminent, that we expect a decision imminently. When -- does the Supreme Court of the State of Florida issue decisions on certain days? I mean, when might we -- he just don't know, we're just waiting. MR. BROCK: I have no idea when they will rule. I can tell you that the process of filing the complaint with the direction to respond took two days, giving us five days, which is light speed. And now I expect a ruling -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Fill in that blank. I'm dying. Just give us your best guess. A week? MR. BROCK: Weeks. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Six weeks? MR. BROCK: I don't think it will be that long. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And Mr. Weigel, if we were to approve the stop gap again, it might delay that decision because the imminence would be -- I don't think that's going to happen. MR. BROCK: You know, I think it is the policy issue that is the more pertinent issue before the Supreme Court. You know, what is the responsibility of the court clerk, if everything has been wrong up to this point defining the clerk's responsibility? When I say that, all of the Attorney General's opinions, all of the court cases that have been handed down. There was one out of the First District Court of Appeals in which a judge went out and bought furniture, which is the same argument. The identical argument was presented by the county court judge, in the First District Court of Appeals in which said that this is a ministerial function of the Clerk to write the check. The First District said no, it's not, it is in fact a discretionary function that he is civilly and criminally liable for the payment of unlawful bills, and by such legislation, he is -- that he has a degree of discretion. If the Supreme Court wants to change that, then they're going to do it in a hurry. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask if there's support on the board for having a list of the currently unpaid -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- items presented to us next week for consideration? COMMISSIONER BERRY: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No, I'm still on the larger issue, personally. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay, if a majority isn't, then let's go on and deal with the productivity issue, and -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine, because we heard the Clerk say and our own attorney indicate that he thought it would be soon. If we're talking about a week, why are we having this discussion? I mean, let's just go on, like you say, to the productivity part. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, they don't always come to closure the way you want them to, but I would agree, I guess I hear the majority of the board say let the court action continue and let's deal locally with how to avoid these kind of things in the future. And I think that's the best function of the productivity committee. The manner in which -- it seems like on this particular matter, the manner in which the Clerk's office and the board communicates prior to final budget decisions is something that -- the manner in which a budget is presented -- Mr. Brock, let's take the court administrator budget. I take it you never saw that. You never saw what the board was going to be presented prior to the board adopting; is that correct? MR. BROCK: To my knowledge, I have never seen it to date, and got no budget roll. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Did you request one from them or from Mr. Smykowski? MR. BROCK: No. That comes through the budget office directly into my financial system. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Smykowski, is there a budget prepared? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. For the record, Michael Smykowski, budget director. We have provided Mr. Brock with a line item budget. The total transferred to the 20th Judicial Circuit this year was $3,089,200. We have supplied a cost center breakdown with individual line items by cost center, what makes up that $3,089,200. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that was part of our record when we made a decision. In other words, when we made a decision on that budget, that was part of the packet presented to us in which that decision was based. MR. SHYKOWSKI: No, you did not have the individual line items, you had the boiled down version of the three million. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The summary. MR. SMYKOWSKI: The transfer went from -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just like we do in every other department. We don't -- with the exception of the sheriff and a couple others, we don't look at line item by line item by line item, we -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's correct. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- have a summary of departments within that department. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So all we need to do to solve this problem is to officially adopt that budget. Then there isn't a problem. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Well, what are we doing? Didn't we do that during the budget process? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. We adopted a lump sum transfer to the court administration. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My recollection of my vote is that I adopted a budget. MR. BROCK: Commissioner, here's the 96-97 budget. Now, the line item, the only line item in 96-97 budget, the adopted budget book that was passed down, is that lump sum transfer. All of the other departments have the line items. That one doesn't. Now, the 1997-98 __ COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's the problem. MR. BROCK: -- tentative budget has the same thing. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's the problem. MR. SHYKOWSKI: In accordance with the agreement that says it shall be a lump sum amount. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, Mr. Weigel, what is the legal standing of the -- if you will, the working papers? And Mr. Smykowski, you don't receive just a line item amount, you actually receive the line item first and then present it in summary form; is that correct? MR. SHYKOWSKI: That is correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So that is a part of -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: What the board saw was just a comparison of the transfer. A year ago it may have been three million, this year it's three million, eighty-nine. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But the court administration office supplied to you a more detailed budget that you then presented a summary to the Board of Commissioners. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's absolutely correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Your summary was based on that detailed budget. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, what's the standing of that detailed budget if it was directly the source for which the summary was presented to the Board of Commissioners? Is it in fact a part of our budget document, or can -- or should it be inferred as the line item support information for the summary that we approved? MR. WEIGEL: Okay, let me ask a question, Hike, in regard to the detail that you had that was not a part of the summary that went to the board. Did that come into the record of the budget proceeding in any way? MR. SHYKOWSKI: No, not for purposes of the board workshop. MR. WEIGEL: So just for staff purposes that it was used? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. MR. WEIGEL: Well, it's not a part of the record, but then that just leaves the question for the court to determine if this is a deficiency or not in regard to the allocation that's been made. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Or we can determine it right now. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Even more so the courts ought to determine this. We ought to stay the heck away from it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, we had the same issue with public health. Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But the whole State of Florida does it one way and this circuit does it another way and we -- COHMISSIONER BERRY: COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: COHMISSIONER BERRY: COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: COHMISSIONER BERRY: COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: it goes away. That's not my problem, Pam. Yeah, it is. No, it's not. Well, let's do it -- That's why they're going to determine it. Or we could just adopt a budget and then CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a majority of the Commission wishing -- or requesting the court action seek completion so we know where that stands. The question now is that of the productivity committee, what role if any it should have in working with the Clerk's office and with the board. And it sounds like to me we're almost really coming into the communication issue all by itself. Because obviously my standpoint, I would have loved to have heard this -- you know, I know it didn't come up until you got a request, and you said Holy Jesus, it may not be right, but boy, if this had happened two months before we adopted the budget, we could have avoided all of this. So it may be most appropriate for us just to simply look and direct the productivity committee to look at the manner in which on first budgetary items that the Clerk is -- has a fiduciary responsibility for the administrative payment of -- see how I included both of those, fiduciary and administrative -- that we try to make sure that these type of glitches in the future don't happen by getting the Clerk's office to take a look at it before it becomes a part of the final adopted budget. It seems to make sense to me, but I'm not sure the best way to do that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great wall for productivity committee. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Fernandez, is there a gap in there that causes you some concern? MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chair, I think the point at which that coordination needs to take place is the point in which the original contract was presented to the board. It's been my approach to involve the Clerk in those issues that would involve the Clerk's acceptance of a new arrangement. It happens all the time with contracts. If you negotiate a contract and you negotiate some special payment arrangement, for example, if that's not acceptable to the Clerk, all the negotiation you've done up to that point in time is going to be neutralized by the fact that the Clerk is not going to be able to accept that particular arrangement. So I think it's appropriate to involve the Clerk in those discussions when you're discussing a new relationship or a new contract, a new paying arrangement that would involve the Clerk's acceptance of that new arrangement. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Which the -- MR. FERNANDEZ: That would be the appropriate time to do that, when you had that contract initially approved. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Which the former county manager told us that he did at the time. MR. BROCK: I read that in the record. That contract was never given to me. But let me say something on Mr. Fernandez's behalf. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, before he does that, are we working toward some end here? I mean, if we're not going anywhere, we can keep talking for another hour, but -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Actually, what Mr. Fernandez offered, if that is the policy of the county administrator's office, it addresses the need of including the Clerk on those decisions earlier in the process. MR. BROCK: And Mr. Fernandez has been exceptionally diligent in ensuring that that takes place as these things come up since he has been the county administrator. But, you know, I would appreciate the opportunity to work with the productivity committee with regard to resolution of this one particular issue to give us a basis, a working relationship, so that if we need them in the future, we have them as a tool in which we can both use. I mean, if the board would be willing to give the productivity committee the direction to work with the Clerk's office, and anyone else that they need to work with to try to come up with a solution to this problem with court administration and the payment of the bills, then, you know, if we need assistance in the future in trying to accomplish something, we have built a relationship that we are able to work with and we can come back and do the same thing. that would be my request of the board if they would be willing to do so. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think in order to narrowly define that, we may want to ask the productivity committee to look at this and other contractual payment issues with the Clerk's office that are either lump sum or otherwise by the board to make sure that not only in this case but that we follow a process that avoids this kind of a downstream rift in the future. So if -- I think that may be natrowed up. Because if you look through our budget, there are certain things, such as maybe we're paying the sheriff's office wrong, too, for all I know. But to look at lump sum and contractual payment obligations -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm pretty sure of that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And at that point also, if the Clerk has individual issues, that the productivity committee can be a resource to you on, those folks are always eager to do the right thing. So I think they would step up on that. Is that a comfortable direction? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It is for me. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Is -- I think we tried to cover that base. Are there any bases left uncovered at this point on this particular item? Mr. Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman, I understand your closure on this issue, and I don't want to reopen a discussion, but I think it's important that I do get something on the record of this discussion and that is the -- first of all, let me say that the solution that you've discussed here is of course acceptable to me. However, it's important that I clarify the question that was asked earlier and that is why don't we just adopt a budget. It's not as simple as that. The answer to that is there then becomes a question of where do you put that budget and under what fund structurally, where does it go in your budget, and then the issue that causes me concern is that if you in fact budget line items for payment of these employees, you're creating a category of employees under the board of County Commissioners that are not under the authority of the county administrator, and that violates your county administrator ordinance and it violates state law. So that's why I rejected that as the solution. It's not as simple as adopting a line item budget. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Dueling state laws. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Well, that, again, all the more reason to have the courts decide that matter. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Let the courts decide it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Dear Judge. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And then we're left with at least a -- hopefully a single direction from the courts. MR. BROCK: Thank you, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And Mr. Brock, thank you for meeting with me as we have in the past on these items. Okay, we are done with that one. Item #1284 ORDINANCE 97-77, RE PETITION R-97-6, DOHINICK J. AMICO, JR., REPRESENTING 3227 SOUTH HORSESHOE LIMITED, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "I" TO "C-5" FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN COLLIER PARK OF COHMERCE (EAST NAPLES INDUSTRIAL PARK) NEAR THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SOUTH HORSESHOE DRIVE AND AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD (C.R. 31) - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We are to -- we have been through several of the advertised public hearings. We are down to item 1284. This is petition R-97-6, Dominick Amico, representing South Horseshoe Limited, requesting a fezone from "I" to "C-5" for property located in the Collier Park of Commerce. Mr. Nino, good afternoon. MR. NINO: Good afternoon, sir, members of the Board. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Amico, are there any other members of your team that were here to speak that were not sworn in? MR. AMICO: (Shakes head.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: For the record, my name is Ron Nino. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry, Ron, I forgot the disclosure element. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No disclosure. I had no conversations. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I've had some conversations, but I'll base my decision on the information from the hearing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry? COHMISSIONER BERRY: I don't believe I've had any communication on this one. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Nah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: To be interpreted -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know how that will read. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- D-A-H, thank you. I also have had no contact on this matter. I'll base my decision on the information presented today. And now we're off to Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Thank you. The petition that's before you seeks your approval to a fezone of property currently zoned industrial to the C-5 zoning classification. Such an action is made possible under the provisions of the growth management plan, future land use element on two accounts: One, the definition for industrial is not exclusive to industrial but does include some aspects of commercial. And secondly, the future land use element provides that along the perimeter of industrial areas it is possible to zone the property to the commercial classification, exclusive of retail functions, which serve as a transitional area between the industrial area and our major arterial highway system. The property that we're dealing with is located on the northwest corner of South Horseshoe Drive and Airport Road. It is currently the site of -- it used to be the site of the old county building industry -- County Building Association, CBIA, and the proposal here would ask you to allow limited C-5 uses within this C-5 district, in keeping with the true requirement that no retail functions be allowed with the exception of restaurants, which is currently an authorized use within the industrial zoning district. In the opinion of staff -- and the planning commission reviewed this petition, and by a vote of eight to nothing recommended approval. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Nino, let's cut to the chase. What is the -- do you know what the purpose of trying to change this is? There are certain C-5 type uses that are allowed anyway, and industrial, obviously if that was the case, they wouldn't need to fezone it. What are they trying to achieve here? MR. NINO: They're trying to achieve a use of a beauty salon in a portion of the building which is currently not an authorized use in the industrial area. It is a personal service. And we are supportive of adding personal services as well as -- as the uses. If you add -- if you adopted the resolution, you would be adding the personal service category to the C -- you would be limiting the C-5 district to the personal services category. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Some people would argue that when I go to a beauty shop, it is an industrial service. I just wanted to -- MR. NINO: As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I can advise you that you will be hearing shortly an application as part of the Land Development Code amendments to add personal services such as beauty shops and barber shops as permitted uses within the industrial area. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me express to you my concern in general terms specifically to this, and that is, I don't know how many times Barb Cacchione has got up in front of us and told us we have a shortage of industrial space in the urban area. At least a half a dozen times she had told us that. And it was only two weeks ago, three weeks ago when we had the project up off Immokalee Road that again it was stressed that we have a shortage, and that was one of the arguments in favor of the new industrial park up there, the new industrial space up there, we just don't have enough. And so it doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to me that we would use up something we have a shortage of with beauty parlors and the like, further increasing the shortage. MR. NINO: However, ironically, the Collier Business Park, I estimate, is 90 percent C-5 uses. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know. And I've voted against several of them. MR. NINO: And we're only -- you know, we're talking basically here about a contractor's yard -- I mean, a contractor's office remaining in this building and a small part of it being used as a beauty shop, much like perhaps a small portion of the business structure that is next to the Collier development services would also, if that were to house a barber shop or a beauty shop. It's really -- we're really not eating substantial portions of the industrial area up with beauty shops and barber shops that save us all as employees the need to drive off the site -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Although it does two things -- MR. NINO: -- for that type of service. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It does two things: One, it does use up some space, regardless of how small a space that is; and two, it sets a precedent. Not a legal precedent, I realize, we don't have to do this other one, but it sets a precedent. If we do yet another fezone to get away from industrial and allow some other use, it just sets the pattern that much further. And I don't know how in good conscience we can sit here and say gosh, there's a shortage but we're going to ignore that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris may. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Nino, this seems to be a cumbersome way to attack a small problem. Obviously, I don't think any of us -- I don't know, but I don't think any of us have any objection to what's being proposed to put a beauty salon in this property, but I do share Commissioner Constantine's -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: He wants to know if his mike's on. Is my mike on? No, he objects. Oh, he objects? Yes, sir. But I think I would share Commissioner Constantine's objection to changing the zoning. Is there any way that we can allow this usage on a temporary basis until you do bring back the proposal for the change in industrial category that would allow personal services? MR. MULHERE: For the record, Bob Mulhere, current planning manager. As Ron indicated, in this current upcoming LDC amendment cycle we are bringing forward a proposed land development code amendment which would allow some of these personal services in the industrial district very limited; one of which is a beauty salon. Land is zoned industrial right now. If the Board chooses to approve that Land Development Code, then a beauty salon would be permitted and the zoning would not have to be changed. I want you to know, we discussed that with the property owner. They felt that on a limited application they wished to proceed with this fezone. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So you can come off the manufacturing line during your lunch hour, go get your hair done, and then go right back to the manufacturing line. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Very convenient. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that is -- that's the point. Because what's happening is the definition of industrial is changing, and this is more Commissioner Hancock's speech than mine because it's a planner's speech, but what we've traditionally -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I've got several different types of speeches. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll do this one for you, you can tell me what you think. That the change in what industrial zoning has traditionally been is to a more mixed use concept, to an office park, an industrial park, a business park, a commerce park, whatever you want to call it. And that includes a variety of uses that serve, you know, the restaurants and the beauty shops and that kind of stuff that serve the employees that work in the area. So this is -- they're just slightly ahead of the curve. MR. HULHERE: That actually will be brought forward to you on Tuesday at the very first hearing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I missed that concept, by the way. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was being sarcastic when I gave my leaving the line at noon sermon. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, the point, I guess then, Mr. Hulhere, going on my line that I was working on just a little bit ago is that if we wait three weeks from now, three weeks from tomorrow, this will all be moot, potentially. MR. HULHERE: It could potentially be, at least as far as the beauty salon goes. I can't speak for the applicant as to whether or not they had some other intention. It might have been addressed in the C-5 rezoning, but it is true that we are looking at some of those personal services. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And the other concern I always have is when you're changing zoning for a particular use, what if that use is discontinued, then what do you do? That's always the -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Question on the site. As I drive -- I drive by this every day, and it appears that there is -- what's been rezoned as C-5, you say there's an existing building? There's also room for additional construction on that site, isn't there? MR. NINO: Yes, there is. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Any additional construction, if this were rezoned to C-5, would that be subject to commercial architectural standards? MR. NINO: Yes, it would. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But if it's left industrial it would not? MR. NINO: Correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You just got my vote. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yep. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That faces the roadway, and any additional construction actually between the existing building and the roadway. And by rezoning to C-5, it's subject to commercial architectural standards? MR. NINO: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So we are going to entertain a change -- MR. NINO: That's right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- that would allow a use anyway, but this way I get commercial architectural standards. I'm in the fold. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you're -- MR. NINO: I might add -- I'm sorry. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you're talking about this specific site, though, aren't there some pretty strict requirements within the deed for that park of commerce? They have much stricter requirements for appearance than do other industrial parks. MR. NINO: I can't tell you that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: After driving around in there, they have a lot of buildings that -- not a lot, I'm sorry, some buildings that would not comply with the commercial architectural standards. I think our standards actually are a little more stringent than the deed restrictions, so although I understand the argument, I see a chance to make a yard herein instead of a foot, so I'm -- how's that for another metaphor? MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman, may -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You only used one. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. NINO: -- I add that in the event there is additional construction, there is a provision in the proposed ordinance that no access would be allowed onto Airport Road. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I can support it on that basis. Questions for Mr. Nino? Mr. Amico, do you have anything? MR. AMICO: Hi. Dominick Amico, with Agnoli, Barber and Brundage, representing Collier Enterprises. We were in agreement with staff's position on the ordinance and we're in agreement with the restrictions placed on the uses that could occur in the future. As you can probably tell, we were so well in agreement that they only sent the engineer to argue. I don't know if it would be -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The absence of an attorney is a real test of what you thought was going to happen today. MR. AMICO: That's correct. I'm not real certain at this point if we shouldn't request a continuance of this item. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think you've got -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion to continue it for three weeks, at the applicant's request. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, that's -- are you requesting a continuance, Mr. Amico? MR. AMICO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Because you're not sure you have four votes? MR. AMICO: That's correct. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Far be it from us to interfere with an applicant's request. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I'm in support of the petition. If anybody else wants to tell their position, it might help him make an informed decision about that. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't know if there's a motion on the floor, but I'll second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Table? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, if we have a second -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We'll continue it for further -- COHMISSIONER BERRY: We'll continue it? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You know what's going to happen then is we don't get the architectural, if this gets rolled into the regular industrial. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: He's just -- he's requesting a continuance. He's not withdrawing it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm arguing against it, though, because if we continue it, he'll withdraw it and then he'll get rolled into the regular industrial and we lose architectural controls and we lose that no access control. We got more -- we can get more out of him today than we can get out of him in three weeks. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're not asking for a withdrawal right now, are you? I mean, you're not withdrawing the -- MR. AMICO: No. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- item, you're just asking that it be continued? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But are you reserving the right to withdraw it if -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, of course. Any applicant can do that up 'til the time we vote. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're going to lose on this. We get less control in three weeks. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Actually, the reason I'm not going to support continuance is because I don't think anything's going to change in three weeks -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- other than the industrial classification, which again will void the architectural standard application, so -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The applicant is asking that his own item be continued and we're not going to allow it? COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, he's asking because he doesn't think he has the votes, and he doesn't know if he has the votes or not. And I think it's going to be pretty close. MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I'm reminded of another wrinkle. In three weeks is part of the amendments. The ability to zone property in a transitional condition will be deleted from the growth management plan. Therefore, this petition would no longer be accepted under the transitional availability that we now have. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So that knocks it out altogether then. MR. NINO: That's right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. There's a motion and second on the floor. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Don't do it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is there discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Aye. COMHISSIONER BERRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion fails. THE REPORTER: Who opposed, please? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Opposed is Commissioners Mac'Kie, Hancock and Berry. MR. AMICO: If I could, my understanding of the whole game plan here is that my client has a contractual purchaser for the site, basically the CBIA building and its real estate. His main intention is to open a contractor's office. As a smaller use of the existing building, he proposes -- and I believe it's a relative's wife or something -- to have limited beauty salon. It is an actual -- it's not -- it's not a possible use, it's a definite. If this zoning goes through, then the property closes and that's the use. It's not speculative in nature. That is 100 percent of my knowledge of what the proposal is for this site. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask Mr. Nino one more question. Clarify for me the discussion we were having about access on Airport Road? MR. NINO: No access to the existing building or any addition to the building would be allowed to directly access onto Airport Road. Exit or -- enter or exit. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that new construction and new building, too? MR. NINO: Correct. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But that situation exists today. MR. NINO: COHMISSIONER BERRY: COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: COHMISSIONER BERRY: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No, it doesn't. Not directly. There's a road. You have to go onto Horseshoe. You have to get on -- But that's what I'm saying -- Yeah. -- you can't get direct access to Airport Road from this building today. HR. NINO: Well, there would be nothing to prevent them currently from applying for a site plan, a member of -- a site improvement plan that would create some kind of access onto Airport Road today. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Who said that would automatically get CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The problem is the throat length from Airport Road. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: They never did it, because it's right on the intersection to begin with. They never did it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My point is it would be easier to permit or more in line to permit a right on red only off Airport Road than the proximity to the intersection of Airport and Horseshoe, having a full turn in there. I'm just saying, there's possibilities -- MR. NINO: Obviously, it would -- if any were to be entertained, it would be right in, right out only. But nevertheless, I think we would rather not have -- not even have that, right in, right out. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Based on the fact that this allows us to have the architectural controls and to -- and eliminates any discussion about access off of Airport Road, I move approval of the item. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second. MR. NINO: I would remind you, if they were to invest any more than 50 percent, the value of that building in remodeling, they immediately under the C-5 classification become subject to the architectural requirements. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Perfect. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Fernandez, do we have any speakers on this? MR. FERNANDEZ: None. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, I'll close the public hearing. There's a motion and second to stand on this matter? COHMISSIONER BERRY: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm going to support it, again. On the architectural standard side I think is the winning decision for me. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Me too. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a frontal comment I reiterate, although I'm going to change my comment a little. It was two or three weeks ago Collier Enterprises stood up in front of us and said there isn't enough industrial space, we need more industrial zone in the urban area and we're going to do it at X, Y, Z location. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think that -- wasn't that Baron-Collier Companies over the objection of Collier Enterprises? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think it's the other way around, isn't it? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Collier Enterprises is whatever the -- Collier's Reserve, and they were the objectors. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. And today -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Collier Enterprises is here -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is giving up industrial space. I just COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We hear that over and over from our staff, from our two well paid attorneys, and it doesn't matter that it's a only small space, it's just one more step of less industrial. I don't quite follow how we can logically ignore what our staff has told us. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. Where I took something away differently than you is the size and quality of industrial space. How much acreage is available for a single use? If you look at the Collier Park of Commerce, you have to aggregate two or three lots. And the other thing is there's no competition, so the price is pretty fixed. So I think there were a lot more factors in that in that the Collier Park of Commerce doesn't have available what was being asked for at Creekside. It was a different kind of industrial land. So I don't think we're discounting it. I think we're taking it in, we're factoring it and making a decision. My decision was different than yours, but my recollection and basis for it is different also. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think you're looking at an existing building, for one thing. It appears that they're not going to be tearing that building down, or if they are, it will be rebuilt with something very similar. But you're not looking for a large piece of acreage to place a larger type industry on. So in this particular case, I don't -- I disagree with you, Commissioner Constantine; I just don't think your argument holds in this case. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's the only time you'll ever agree. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is there any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, I call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Opposed? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries four one. Like it or not, you got what you asked for. HR. AMICO: Thank you, I think. Item #12C1 RESOLUTION 97-446, RE PETITION CCSL-97-3, HARRY HUBER FROM THE OFFICE OF CAPITAL PROJECTS MANAGEMENT, REPRESENTING THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION SETBACK LINE (CCSL) TO ALLOW FOR MAINTENANCE DREDGING OF WIGGINS PAS AND TO PLACE BEACH COMPATIBLE SAND ON THE BEACH AT LELY BAREFOOT BEACH AND DELNOR WIGGINS PASS STATE RECREATION AREA - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have completed other items on the agenda. We are now to item 12-C-1, petition CCSL-97-3. Mr. Huber from OCPH, representing the board. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hove the item. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Hey, any -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We could close the public hearing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have any public speakers on this? MR. FERNANDEZ: None. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll close the public hearing. Seeing -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Move the item. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A motion and second. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) Motion carries unanimously. Item #13A2 RESOLUTION 97-447, RE PETITION V-97-11, RICHARD K. BENNETT REQUESTING A TWO FOOT AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED REAR SETBACK OF 10 FEET TO 8 FEET FOR A DOUBLE FRONTAGE LOT LOCATED AT 4459 ROBIN AVENUE - ADOPTED WITH CHANGE Next item under 13-A-2, otherwise known as the Reischl item. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The last. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Sitting here all day, petition V-97-11, Richard Bennett requesting a two-foot after-the-fact variance from the required rear setback of ten feet to eight feet for a double frontage lot located at 4459 Robin Avenue. This also is a quasi judicial matter. All those individuals here present to speak on petition V-97-11, please stand and raise your right hand. Madam Court Reporter, would you please swear them in. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. And also, anyone -- any member of the public wishing to speak on this item needs to turn in a speaker's slip at this time. Mr. Reischl, good afternoon. MR. REISCHL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Fred Reischl, planning services. This is a request for an after-the-fact variance in Flamingo Estates subdivision. As you stated, this is a double frontage lot. On the south side is Robin Avenue, on the north side is North. And there is a -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Any objections to the request? MR. REISCHL: I've had no objections to the request at all. There is a 15-foot drainage easement. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. Mr. Fernandez, do you know if we have any public speakers on this item? MR. FERNANDEZ: We have no speakers on this item. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me ask everyone to hold a second. You need to take care of something? THE REPORTER: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Brief recess. (A recess was taken.) COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, it seems fairly simple. We have nobody here from the public to speak, we've had no objections on a 24-inch variance. The only question is it's after the fact and it's way, way after the fact. So I don't know how much time we need to be spending on it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The current owner did not create the issue? MR. REISCHL: Yes -- well, it was a contractor working for the current owner. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Twenty years ago? MR. REISCHL: Twenty years ago. And the planning commission, during their deliberations, asked me to put on the record that staff stipulation that Mr. Bennett apply for a new building permit not apply in this case. And they said that I should check with Ed Perico at the building department. Ed Perico said there would be no problem for a courtesy inspection for life safety issues. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I might point out that twenty years ago this was way out in Flamingo Estates. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Also, there's a road in front and back of the house, isn't there? MR. REISCHL: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the setback that we're talking about is to the north road, right, not internal to the subdivision? MR. REISCHL: That's the setback in question, right. And there is a very steep ditch back there. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Very deep. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I can live with that one. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Me too. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I will close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor -- MR. REISCHL: Is the motion with the deletion of the building permit? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, it is. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's been seconded. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) Motion carries five zero. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We are to item 14 on our agenda, staff communications. Mr. Weigel, anything in addition today? MR. WEIGEL: No, thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good answer. Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: I think I've said enough today, Mr. Chairman. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I concur. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I do appreciate your input and your work on the Clerk's matter. I thank you very much. We are to Board of County Commissioners communication. Commissioner Mac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have none. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing today. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry? COHMISSIONER BERRY: Nothing, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I had one item, but Gina from the newspaper isn't here, so I'll save it for another week. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: One quick reminder. After sending out a memorandum regarding our postal budget this year, our postage budget, we had some more things go out in bulk, and that budget is going to get dried up to the point that normal correspondence will not be allowed to occur without a budget amendment. What I'd like to ask is if you have anything that is out of the ordinary, that you be very cautious in how you send that, because we already have a couple of big mailings that went out this year, and I don't want to go to the reserves for Board of County Commissioners mailing costs unless it's absolutely necessary. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'll tell you just that some of those have been mine in association with the Gateway Triangle and now the Bayshore Avalon. What I have communicated with Mr. Cautero -- and he has taken the position that the budget amounts approved for the redevelopment efforts could include postage, and so henceforth that postage will be paid for out of those budget amounts and not out of the County Commission budget. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You may also want to look at those funds being reimbursed from the HSTU. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And Sue, maybe you could do that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, I just don't want to see our budget get too far out of line on those mailing costs. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the last mailing was paid for out of community development. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, I just wanted to make a reminder. And that's all I have for the day. Ms. Filson, do you have anything? MS. FILSON: I have nothing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: With that, we are adjourned. ***** Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner Norris, and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted: Item #16A1 RESOLUTION 97-441, GRANTING THE FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER, AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "SAN HIGUEL" Item #16B1 RESOLUTION 97-442, AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A JOINT PROJECT AGREEHENT WITH THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WHEREIN COLLIER COUNTY AGREES TO MAINTAIN PROPOSED HIGHWAY LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS TO SR 29 IN THE VICINITY OF SR 82 Item #1682 Moved to Item #885 Item #1683 BID 97-2744 TO CONSTRUCT SIDEWALKS FOR COUNTYWIDE PATHWAYS II PROJECT, (GEORGIA AVENUE, HARTIN STREET, TRAMMEL STREET AND LOHBARDY LANE/OUTER DRIVE) - AWARDED TO BETTER ROADS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $90,981.00 Item #16D1 BID 97-2747 TO REROOF BUILDINGS C1/C2 (TAX COLLECTOR'S AND PROPERTY APPRAISER'S BUILDINGS) - AWARDED TO COLLIER COUNTY ROOFING, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $124,148.00 Item #16D2 EHS AND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AUTHORIZED TO PREPARE AND ADVERTISE AN IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE FOR THE ISLES OF CAPRI AND THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICTS Item #16El BUDGET AMENDMENTS 98-059 & 98-061 Item #16G1 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the BCC has been filed and/or referred to the various departments as indicated on the miscellaneous correspondence. Item #16H1 APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO FINALIZE FISCAL YEAR 1997 DEBT SERVICE APPROPRIATIONS There being no further business for the good of the County· the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:45 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL TIMOTHY L. HANCOCK, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on presented or as corrected · as TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY HEATHER L. CASASSA, RPR and CHERIE R. LEONE, RPR