Loading...
BCC Minutes 08/04/1998 R REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, August 4, 1998 LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRPERSON: Barbara B. Berry Pamela S. Hac'Kie John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine Timothy L. Hancock Robert Fernandez, County Administrator David Weigel, County Attorney Item #3 REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDAS - APPROVED WITH CHANGES CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning. I'd like to call to order the August 4th meeting of the Collier County Board of Commissioners. We're pleased to have with us this morning Reverend Ted Sauter from the North Naples United Methodist Church. If you'd rise for the invocation and remain standing for the pledge. REVEREND SAUTER: When I was asked to pray today, I wasn't sure if I was supposed to pray that all the hurricanes miss us or if the traffic that's on the road today that's as bad as January five years ago should go away, or if the elections go well for everyone, or if you have any -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm for that third one. REVEREND SAUTER: -- controversial zoning issues come up, that there's peace and quiet. But we want to take a moment to ask for God's guidance and blessing upon our community, so let's pray together. Our God, we may have different concerns and needs, different interests and perspectives, but we're a part of a very unusual and wonderful community. We're thankful for men and women who through the years have helped create this wonderful place. And even as we celebrate that success, we ask that we might be mindful of those who don't have quite as many blessings, those who may suffer, those who are left out in pockets of poverty. We also ask that you be with our commissioners. We thank you for their faithful service, for their integrity. May they think and work together with wisdom. And be with those who present issues today, that they might present themselves clearly and thoughtfully. Bless these people as they work together. In your name we pray, Amen. (Pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Reverend Sauter. Mr. Fernandez, do we have any changes to the agenda this morning, please? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chairman. The first is to add item 8(D)(1), which is approval of agreement for auditing services. That's RFP 98-2794. Staff request. Second is to add item 16(B)(19). This is award contract bid number 982830 to Zep Construction, Incorporated for construction of the new Airport-Pulling Road bridge structure at the junction of Immokalee Road. The next is to move item 8(A)(6) to 16(A)(21). This is a request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements for the final plat of Park Place West. Staff request. The next is to continue item 16(B)(12) to the September 1st, '98 meeting. It's to approve the transfer of property from Collier County to the State of Florida to satisfy the requirements of permit number 11-00368-S. Request of Commissioner Norris. Also, I'd like to note for the record, item 16(B)(6), the project number, should read number 70040. The number in your packet is incorrect. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No changes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I regret to inform you, I have two changes. 16(C)(2) I have a brief discussion on. I assume that will become 8 -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: (C)(2). COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- (C)(2). CHAIRPERSON BERRY: 8 (C) (2) . COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And also, I'd like to add item 10(B), just a brief discussion on our budget hearing scheduled for 9-9, September 9. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Would you say that again? I just didn't hear you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Brief discussion. Actually, I want to check something with our dates, that's all, on the budget hearing. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And what was the first one, Tim? I'm sorry. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It was 16(C)(2). CHAIRPERSON BERRY: 16(C) -- wait a minute. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That becomes 8(C)(2); is that correct? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Becomes 8(C)(2)? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. All right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No changes. But I want to recognize and thank Hr. Ilschner and his department for putting 16(B)(9) on the agenda today. It's a project that the folks in Willoughby and Palm River have been waiting about 10 years for. And also I want to thank this board for finally getting it done. We'll see construction later this year. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Wonderful. I do have an item that I'd like to add, and it probably should come under 10 -- would be probably under 10(C), and this is the county administrator's evaluation. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, is that it? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I hope so. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll move approval of the agenda and consent agenda as amended. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second for the approval of the agenda. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries unanimously. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I'm sorry, that motion did include the summary agenda -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- so it's spelled out, but it -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, consent, summary and the regular. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct. Item #5B EHPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Moving on then to proclamations this morning. We have none. But we do have service awards this morning, which I am pleased to present. We have a number of these awards. We're going to start with the people who have been with Collier County for five years. Starting with Chris Carlson, wastewater, for five years. (Applause.) Chris, congratulations. Thank you. Tammy Smith? (Applause.) Tammy's been with us in the information technology. Congratulations and thank you. Judith Kraycik, in real property, five years. (Applause.) Terry Long, in the water department, for five years. (Applause.) COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Looks like we had a big month in the water department five years ago. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you so much, Terry. James Wyatt, in the water department as well. (Applause.) Congratulations. Thank you. J. Quinn, Jr., in the water department. (Applause.) Congratulations, and thank you very much. I think the other individual, I need to check that pin as well. I think the last pin that I gave out, I think it was the wrong pin. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They get the raise that goes with the ten years? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Parley Egbert, and Parley's in parks and recreation. (Applause.) Congratulations, and thank you so much. Bryan Thurston, in facilities management. (Applause.) COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You know what I have to say? I love it when their supervisor starts enthusiastically applauding. That's great, Brian. Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does that mean he's glad you made it through this far? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Batty Erickson, in the water department. Batty? (Applause.) COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I want to know who's watching the water this morning. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Congratulations. And one more in the water department. William Heckathron, five years. (Applause.) We'll make sure that William gets his pin and certificate. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He's watching the water. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: He's watching the water, that's right. And for 10 years, Doylene Matron, in the planning services department. (Applause.) John Conti, in OCPM, 10 years. (Applause.) Congratulations. Thank you. And Don Jeffrey, parks and recreation, 10 years. (Applause.) Item #5C1 CHECK FROM REPRESENTATIVE BURT L. SAUNDERS FROM THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND THE FLORIDA COHMUNITY TRUST TO BE USED FOR COLLIER COUNTY PARK IMPROVEMENTS - PRESENTED That concludes our service awards this morning. We do have another presentation. If we could have Representative Butt Saunders come forward, please. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Good morning. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Good morning. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: I come with a few gifts. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We like that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: The first is a ceremonial check in the amount of $100,000 for the South Naples Community Park. This is a matching grant fund. This is for some facilities like a baseball field, nature trail, and these facilities will connect up with Naples Manor to provide some neighborhood facilities. And it's with pleasure that I present this to the chairman of the county commission. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. And I gladly accept. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Pam says we can cash those, so actually it's 200,000. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You can cash those. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: 100,000. I'll see you guys. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: You can actually cash those, but the banks don't like it, because it kind of messes up their check machine. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's trouble there. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: I wanted to save the big check for last. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That was the little check? REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: This is a check in the amount of $857,095.53. This is for the Collier County Parks and Recreation Department for the Sugden Park for land acquisition and preservation. I am particularly pleased to be able to present this to the county commission and to the citizens of Collier County. I remember going back I guess about 10 years ago when I used to ski over there with John Grissoy and the kids, and they would humor me and let me ski with them on their shows, until my back got too sore, then I had to do things that were a little bit less aggressive. But this check is from the Preservation 2000 fund, and it's a check that I think is indicative of the leadership of this county commission in developing this park for all of Collier County; not just for the southeastern part of the county, but for all of the citizens of Collier County. So again, it's with pleasure that I present this to the chairman of the county commission. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. (Applause.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think that will get me a little further than Bonita Springs, so -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Great stuff happening on the east side of town. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I told him to come back next week with two more. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was -- I'll tell you what I told Tom Olliff. I was at Sugden Regional Park with my family this weekend. And even though the park's not done, as Tom says, what a beautiful facility. And it really made me proud to be there. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He, too. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Again, I'd like to say this -- much of what happened at Sugden Park took place before I ever got on the commission, and I want to thank the commissioners, in their wisdom early on, that saw the need and certainly the individuals in the community who saw the need to do something with this parcel of land and have made it an attractive place for all of Collier County to enjoy. So I certainly thank all the commissioners for that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Our community policing officer just happens to be the bailiff today. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Moving on then. That was -- I'd like to say, that was the fun part of our agenda. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, there's more fun. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Quakers' meeting has begun. Item #SA1 APPEAL OF CODE ENFORCEHENT CASE NO. 30910-012, 40705-024, 50727-024, 60530-033 - RECORD OWNER: JAMES J. AND ROSE MARIE BRODERICK - STAFF RECOHMENDATION APPROVED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Hoving on then to item 8(A), appeal of code enforcement case number 30910-012, and a whole bunch of other numbers. Good morning, Hichelle. MS. ARNOLD: Good morning. For the record, Hichelle Arnold, code enforcement director. I'm here to present to you a citizens appeal to our -- we have four liens against this one particular property for the accumulation of weeds, grass or other similar nonprotected overgrowth over 18 inches. This particular property owner is James J. and Rose Marie Broderick. The property is located at -- in section 16, township 52, range 26, in Marco Beach, unit 8, block 290, lot 13. The property was cited at four different times: Once in 1993, once in '94, another time in '95 and then again in '96 for excessive overgrowth of weeds, all times. Each time we issued a notice of violation, via certified mail. The notice was returned to us unclaimed. The property owner had moved. And the only record that we had was -- of their address was with the property owners -- I mean, with the property appraiser's office, which is what we legally are supposed to use to contact the property owner of record. The property appraiser's office did not receive notification of a change of address until March 21st of 1998. We were faxed over a copy of that notification, and all correspondence that we had or attempted to have with the property owner was made prior to that date. As of June -- I apologize, in the executive summary it says 1997, but as of June, 1998, the four liens that we have filed against this particular property had a total of 980 for the original lien amount, accrued interest of 314.97, for a total lien amount for all four assessments of 1,294.97. I need to note that the property owner attempted -- or contacted the county attorneyws office back in October of w97 to try to see whether or not they could do anything to modify the interest and the administrative costs accrued on this -- for all four liens. The county attorneyws office contacted me back in May, and I advised them that the only recourse I thought could occur was to bring this item before the board to modify or make any changes to the liens that have been assessed to the property. Their recommendation is to, at minimum, modify or not allow -- require the payment of the interest from that October, w97 date when the county attorneyws office had the case in their office. The property owner -- and Iwm not sure if hews here. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Right there. MS. ARNOLD: Oh, he is here. The property owner is requesting that all administrative fees and all interest be waived for the -- on the property, and that they only be required to pay $180, which is the cost for actually mowing the lot, $45 per lot. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How much administrative time do you suppose youlye put in since 1993 in your department on this? MS. ARNOLD: Well, we assess a hundred dollar administrative fee for the prep work for doing the bid-out and doing the paperwork for mailing, and then another $100 for preparation to send it off to lien. So therels 200 administrative cost for each case thatls assessed to the property. And then the interest thatls accrued since that time. It doesnlt count the administrative time that welve put in to prepare for this board meeting, but -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Nor the time for the officer to actually go to the site? MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ms. Arnold, the funds that are utilized to pay the contractor, what fund do they come out of? MS. ARNOLD: It comes out of a fund, itls 138911. Itls a fund that we have set up for all of our contracts for mowing or weed abatement or litter abatement. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What is the revenue source for that fund? Do we know? MS. ARNOLD: The actual number? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason I ask is I donlt know. MS. ARNOLD: The actual -- oh, whatls the total amount? COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: No, the general -- is it -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The revenue -- COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: -- property taxes? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, itls a general -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So the property taxes are what go into this fund -- MS. ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- to be used to pay until -- so in essence, to date the property owners in all of Collier County have paid for the mowing of this lot? MS. ARNOLD: Right, correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Because it's a general fund item, does the money in this account accrue interest as it sits there, as a rule? MS. ARNOLD: The money in our account? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It better. Dwight Brock's investing it. You'd better be hearing some interest on it. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, it does. Yes, it does. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So not only has the taxpayer funded the money, but the taxpayer has lost the interest income that this money would have generated over the time, which is the reason why we charge interest on these -- MS. ARNOLD: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- do I understand this correctly? MS. ARNOLD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And did -- as we went through this where there occasionally -- we're human, we'll make mistakes on noticing and whatnot. As you've reviewed this, were there any mistakes on noticing that we could have avoided? Were there any inconsistencies in our process -- MS. ARNOLD: No. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- throughout this whole -- MS. ARNOLD: No. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- this entire time? MS. ARNOLD: No, the only error that occurred is that the property owner didn't notify the property appraiser's office. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And Mr. Weigel, it is clearly the responsibility of the property owner to notify the property appraiser of a change of address. Is there anything in state statute that says they must do it within a certain time frame, or is it voluntary? MR. WEIGEL: I don't recall anything in the statute, but our conversations -- and the county attorney met with them on more than one occasion -- was that he claimed that he had listed a property address change with the tax collector, which we have no control or knowledge of, nor ability to confirm, quite frankly, so -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And do we have -- did he produce a copy of that letter? MR. WEIGEL: It was not done by letter, is my understanding. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: All right. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Madam Chair? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a quick question. I under -- I know that we're staffing code enforcement items for Marco Island at this point, but is this our jurisdiction? Is Marco the property? MR. WEIGEL: It is for -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is Marco Beach? MR. WEIGEL: Well, at least for the balance of this year it is. But these are liens that have arisen over past years where the county obviously had jurisdiction over the unincorporated part of the Collier County. These have not arisen since incorporation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: New code compliance cases occurring after incorporation of Marco Island would go to the Marco City Council. MS. ARNOLD: Correct. MR. WEIGEL: Michelle? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. All of these, though, state from MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, these are -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- 1993 to '96, so that -- MS. ARNOLD: These are all liens that were done prior to incorporation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have the petitioner here? Please. MR. BRODERICK: Good morning. My name is Mr. Broderick. I moved to Florida in 1993 from Patchogue, New York. I notified the post office in Patchogue of my new address, which was 821 Magnolia Avenue. And from -- I found out later they only hold those changes of address for approximately 30 days. In the meantime, I was having a house built. When the house was completed six months later, I moved to Shenandoah Court, on Marco Island. I notified the property clerk's office when I paid my taxes; I filled out the change of address form. And every November, apparently in 1993 -- I was never receiving these notices that -- this is the first notice I received, which was last June. And that I took care of immediately. And then the following October I received four different notices stating that I owed for past cuttings, so I went to the code enforcement to find out, and they explained to me that the notices were being sent back, no -- they couldn't find me, no address. I've been living on Marco since 1993. Every November when I pay the taxes on both my properties, I filled out a change of address form for that lot. And I declared my domicile in 1993, I changed my license in 1993, I've been to jury duty three times since I'm here, and I paid my taxes on this property every November to save a few dollars. Now, if I would have been afforded the opportunity to take care of the situation, I would have done it immediately. I mean, while I was living in New York, I used to get the notices, and I used to take care of it immediately. I received one notice of overgrown trees; it cost me $1,800 to have the trees taken down. On another occasion I received a notice of a dead palm tree; I had to contact someone to take care of that. All I wanted -- you know, apparently the county was cutting the lot. Of course we got to pay for that. But as far as penalties and interest, I was never afforded the opportunity to take care of the situation. This is the first notice I've received, which was from June of last year. And like I said, every November, when I paid the taxes on both properties to save a few bucks, I would explain to them, I never received the tax notice on Hazelcrest. They'd say fill out this form, and I filled it out. The last year that I paid the taxes, they finally had it correct. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do I understand you correctly, you said that every year since 1993 when you received your tax bill, you filled out a change of address and it was just ignored by the tax collector until apparently this year? Is that your contention? MR. BRODERICK: Exactly. Every November I would pay my taxes at the Winterbury tax office. I would explain to them I'm paying the taxes, but I never received a notice on my lot. They'd look it up, they'd say, "They're sending the notices to your old address in Patchogue; fill out a change of address form." Which I did. I did every year. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You said you've lived on Marco since 19937 MR. BRODERICK: Since July of 1993, yes, sir. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you periodically mow the lot yourself? Do you -- MR. BRODERICK: I do. I do. I've been maintaining the lot myself. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess I can understand your complaint about filling out change of address and not being noticed. However, living on Marco, and a piece of property that's more or less a minute or two from your house gets to 18 inches, I mean, obviously we're not watching it close enough, we're not complying with the county standards. So I guess, you know, we have got to make up for the funds we have lost, because I can't ask the taxpayer to fund this, so I'm looking for something fair here, sir. I just have very little to hang my hat on. The tax collector keeps tax bills, doesn't he? Doesn't -- don't COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm sure they have a record. I have a question. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. Mr. Benedict (sic), do you have any way of substantiating that -- your claim that you tried to change address all those years? MR. BRODERICK: Excuse me, sir? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Do you have any way of substantiating your contention that you -- that you attempted to have your address corrected every year since '93? MR. BRODERICK: Every year when I paid the taxes I filled out a change of address form. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, I understand that. MR. BRODERICK: And I changed my license. If they wanted to find out where I lived, all they had to do was look at the -- who was paying the taxes. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that -- MR. BRODERICK: Every time I went to look at the lot, it was fine. If it wasn't, I would cut it. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: My question is, do you have any proof of that, or anything that you can show us? MR. BRODERICK: They don't give a receipt when you fill out the change of address form. I filled it out every November at the Winterbury tax office. I mean, if I was afforded the opportunity to take care of the situation -- code enforcement, the county attorney, they said they were going to investigate this. I asked them to please look at my prior record. Every time I received the notice, I took care of the situation immediately. That's all I'm asking for. All I wanted was the opportunity, which I never received. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Question. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Broderick, I just don't know what the procedures are. What is the appropriate way for notifying a change of address that would have triggered our ability -- I mean, did he do everything he was supposed to do, or is there something he failed to do? MR. WEIGEL: Well, the tax collector's office and the property appraiser's office, although they work together on the property aspects of county government and assessment and taxes, we are obliged to use the property appraiser's record of ownership. And there's a good reason for that. The fact is that in the dynamics of changes in ownership of property, it is the property appraiser's responsibility to show those changes and make them of record when he's notified of that, for all of the interests, financial, lending and others of the county, et cetera, the property records. The county -- the tax collector doesn't have that same link with the recorded records and notices of liens and things of that nature. He's a cog in the process of sending out billing, but does not have the same obligation, responsibility, and clearly is not referenced in our ordinance, nor in other ordinances of other jurisdictions typically as the place that government or others go to find a change of address. Mr. Broderick may have gotten his tax bill mailing changed by notifying the tax collector, but that does not put the property appraiser on notice, nor anyone else, which commonly uses -- it's the common practice that the property appraiser's office is the office to note changes of mailing address or changes of ownership. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So if I -- if I decide I want to -- tell me the process under which I would know that I'm supposed to notify the property appraiser of my change of address. MR. WEIGEL: The circumstances? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, what are the circumstances when I should notify the property appraiser? MR. WEIGEL: Well, if you buy a parcel of property, it's going to happen automatically with the recording of the documents of title. But -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And when I -- but you know I'm a real estate lawyer, and when I -- MR. WEIGEL: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- fill out a deed and it has a grantee, I ask them where do you want to receive your tax bill. And that's the address for property taxes that you put in on the deed. MR. WEIGEL: That's right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So that's the address that's -- the official address of the property appraiser's office? MR. WEIGEL: Yes, that's correct. And remember that the tax collector sends the tax bill, but he doesn't send other information unless there's other information that becomes a part of the tax bill, such as capital improvements, special assessment liens and things of that nature. But he's not a conduit for everything else that may flow to an owner of a particular parcel of property. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So if somebody moves and they want to -- they have -- the general public should know that you should be notifying the property appraiser when you change your official address? MR. WEIGEL: Well, that's the best business practice, clearly. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I knew that, but -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But at the same time, you know, were you receiving other mail? I mean, you said, you mentioned that you had filled out a change of address for up in New York. MR. BRODERICK: Yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Were you receiving other mail that had gone up there and then was coming, or -- and how long a period of time were you receiving that mail? MR. BRODERICK: I can't say offhand, but it was -- I found out later on they only hold that card for a 30-day period. And then when I moved from Magnolia, I also filled out a card for Shenandoah Court, on Marco Island. But I feel that if there was a lien on my property when I paid the taxes, it should have came up in the computer. They should have told me immediately. I mean, this has been going on for years. I've been paying the taxes -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's how the system works. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I was going to say, would that necessarily show up? MR. WEIGEL: No. There really -- a lien -- a lien can appear on property by the filing of a document in the property records, such as on the fourth floor here of the county office. But the liens that appear on tax bills are not every lien, such as judgment liens and business issue liens and things when they come in the normal -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: This is the Lorenzo Walker case again. That he bought -- remember Lorenzo Walker bought a property at tax sale and said, "You mean there was a lien on the property that I didn't know about that the county had imposed for clearing and mowing the lot?" COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, the difference being that he bought that as a tax deed knowing there was -- I mean, that's why they're selling those. This is there's a lien and nobody wants to -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, no, my point is that just that this happens all the time, that people assume that all the liens are on their tax bill, but that's a bad assumption to make. And we've dealt with this problem over and over. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm afraid this is also perhaps a case where the systems are not all linked up. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I agree. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And it could be -- it's an intercommunication kind of thing with the systems not being linked. So when something happens, all that information does not appear in one particular place. If the tax collector was to know that this was a problem, he would have to be accessing information from all the other departments to know that there was a problem, it appears. Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, the -- yeah, there's a lot of things about this that we could discuss for -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- quite an extended time, but there's two unfortunate things here I assume that we're going to have to deal with. One of them is that it is the property owner's responsibility to make sure that his address of record is correct on his property. Unfortunately that appears not to have been done. And second of all, unfortunately Mr. Broderick has no way of helping us verify that he did attempt to correct the records. MR. BRODERICK: I don't know if they keep records -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me, sir, I wasn't quite finished yet. So he -- in the absence of him being able to substantiate that, I don't see that we have any choice but to -- well, I'll make a motion that we approve staff recommendation. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion. Do I have a second? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to second that. I have a question for Ms. Arnold, if I can. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Go ahead. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What was code enforcement -- this is appeal of code enforcement's decision on this. What was the nature of discussion they had? MS. ARNOLD: This didn't go before the code enforcement board. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This did not go to them first? MS. ARNOLD: No. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So it was a pretty short discussion, then. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Limited. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to support the motion, Mr. Broderick, simply because it's not that I don't believe you, sir, but we don't have a rash of people that have made change of address at the tax collector's office that hasn't occurred and whatnot. It's not that I don't believe you, but if anyone stands at that microphone and says but for four years I tried to change my address and we don't have any proof of that, then I'm using general tax dollars to pay interest for things that the general taxpayer didn't create, so it puts us in a bind that -- I wish there were a better way to do it, but absent information in front of me that says somebody on our side goofed up, I've got to -- I've got to defer to the general taxpayer. MR. BRODERICK: I should have been afforded the opportunity. I should have received a notice. I paid my taxes every November. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, sir, but -- MR. BRODERICK: And if -- someone from code enforcement or wherever should have checked the computer. It's in the same building. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The official -- the official record that we operate from is in the property appraiser's office. That is the official -- he's the one that certifies tax rolls to this board. He is -- and those tax rolls are what we use on an annual basis. The tax collector is a function that stems off the property appraiser's rolls to send out tax bills, not to ensure the accuracy of the property appraiser's tax rolls. So unfortunately you went to one place, apparently, you didn't go to the place you needed to go to, and that's why we're here today. MS. ARNOLD: Can I ask for clarification? Is that 'til October, '97, or is it as of June, '98 for the interest? Because the recommendation from the county attorney's office was 'til October, '97, from the time that they had it in their office. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: My motion was to uphold staff's recommendation, is that it's to pay the liens and interest up to October, 1997. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I guess, you know, I'm going to have to agree, there's nothing else we can do. But what I'd like to do is to -- have you met with Mr. Skinner and Mr. Carlton about the problem, or people on their staff? I'd suggest that you do that. I think that the tax collector and the property appraiser could -- would like to know about this communication error, if there is one. And -- MR. BRODERICK: Sure. It should be put on one computer. I mean, if I'm being billed for taxes, they should at least let me know that they put a lien on the property. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I think my point is, Mr. Broderick, that that is put on computer, if you did get it done, and it was your responsibility to do it and it didn't get done. So -- MR. BRODERICK: Well, how -- you know, I mean, I did everything I was supposed to do. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Almost. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think we're covering ground that we've been over. MR. BRODERICK: I got the license, the docimile (sic), change of address forms, paid my taxes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But you didn't -- what you didn't do, sir, is you didn't maintain your lot in a satisfactory condition. That's really at the bottom of this. If you had mowed it before it got to 18 inches, we wouldn't be here today at all, and you wouldn't be paying any interest or administrative fees. And I don't mean to sound cold about that, but that is your responsibility under -- MR. BRODERICK: It is. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- the county ordinance. MR. BRODERICK: It is. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If that had been done -- MR. BRODERICK: No, it is my responsibility. Every time I received a notice, they can check, I took care of the situation. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, and I think, too, Mr. Broderick, you know, when you look at this and you see 1993, '94, '95, '96, that indicates something -- I mean, obviously after the first time, you knew there was a problem. MR. BRODERICK: That's four cuttings in three years is really not that much. I mean, I'm cutting that lot twice a month now, or once a month. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Call the question. MR. BRODERICK: That's really not that much. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The bottom line, Mr. Broderick -- MR. BRODERICK: When I went on vacation -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, sir, I understand. The bottom line is it comes down to personal responsibility, and we all are responsible. I will call the question. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. And I would suggest that you go talk to Mr. Skinner and Mr. Carlton. MR. BRODERICK: And where are they located at? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tax collector and property appraiser. Next building down the sidewalk. Item #8A2 BERKSHIRE LAKES MASTER ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED REQUESTING A WAIVER OF THE APPLICATION FEES REQUIRED FOR SUBMISSION OF PETITION FOR ZONING RELATED DEVELOPMENT ORDERS - DENIED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Moving on then to item 8(A)(2), Berkshire Lakes Master Association, Incorporated, requesting a waiver of the application fees required for submission of petition for zoning related development orders. Mr. Hulhere, good morning. MR. HULHERE: Thank you. Good morning. For the record, Bob Hulhere, planning services director. This is a request to waive certain land use petition fees. Actually for a minor PUD amendment for the Berkshire Lakes homeowners' association. They are requesting to amend the PUD to eliminate the requirement for a provision of hurricane shelters, because those provisions are no longer legally required based on the current DRI thresholds. As has been past practice in all such cases, staff does not recommend approval of a fee waiver because of policy implications. It's really a policy decision for the board. I do not know if anyone is present from Berkshire Lakes to speak to this issue. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know if any -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know if anybody's here from the community. I know this has been a bone of contention since about '93. There were certain requirements in place that then have gone backward and forward. We had one gentleman from the RPC come here in 1993 on behalf of Mr. Higgs and try to scale back the amount of hurricane shelter space that was required, and said it's not necessary. A year ago, two years ago, the very same gentleman from the RPC stood up here and stood up at the regional planning council and talked about what a shortage there was of hurricane shelter space in Collier County. So I think not only am I not interested in waiving the fees, I'm probably going to have a problem with the change they're suggesting. MR. MULHERE: It is absolutely substantiated. According to the regional methodology, there is a shortage of hurricane shelters in Collier County. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But there's nobody -- MR. MULHERE: And all of Southwest Florida, for that matter. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If there's nobody else here to speak on the subject, I'll make a motion to approve staff recommendation to deny the request. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second to deny this particular request. Is there any speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Then I'll call for the question. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Thank you, Mr. Mulhere. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Now here comes a good one. This is a wonderful -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that an indication of how you may vote on this one -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- Commissioner Mac'Kie? Item #8A3 RESOLUTION 98-294 NOMINATING THE IMMOKALEE COMMUNITY FOR A FEDERAL GRANT KNOWN AS THE RURAL EHPOWERHENT ZONE DESIGNATION - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Item 8(A)(3), adoption -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Move the item, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- of a resolution to nominate the Immokalee community -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- for a federal grant known as the Rural Empowerment Zone Designation. Fine presentation, Mrs. Cacchione-Cuyler. Got to get -- that's a lot to say. Anyway, I think we do have a speaker that we need to afford the privilege of speaking. He's made the trip over here. So, Fred, we'll allow you to say a few words. MR. THOMAS: Thank you. Good morning. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning. MR. THOMAS: Good to see you folks again. As you know, we applied for an empowerment zone designation several years ago, and because of the politics at that time and the condition of other parts of the country, we did not get any of the benefits of that. We started steps toward going after another empowerment zone designation, and I want to take this time to say publicly that we're very proud of the work that Barbara Cacchione, especially Deborah Preston, Cheryl Shandowsky -- MS. CACCHIONE: Lewandowski. MR. THOMAS: -- Lewandowski, to help us make this effort this year. We've had tremendous support on all segments of the community. We didn't have any problem getting the minority and the poverty qualified people involved in the process. And quite frankly, the kinds of ideas and thoughts that are coming up in this process are similar to the ones we had when we first did the process some time ago. We're swimming slightly upstream because a lot of the other empowerment zone communities, because of large industrial bases, have been able to start some of the work, even without funding, and we haven't had that same luxury. I just want to thank you for your continued support and remind you that we're an agricultural community, and we know that agriculture is kind of tenuous. But there's an investment that you can make in the industrial growth of Immokalee that will pay guaranteed benefits down the road. We know from the American Farmland Trust Fund that any dollar of residential taxes that you collect, you have to pay back a dollar and a quarter in services, but any dollar of industrial taxes that are paid, you only have to pay back 37 cents. And that will -- any investment you make in Immokalee to help the industrial growth of Immokalee or the tourist growth of Immokalee will pay big dividends back to you in the long run. Hopefully the empowerment zone will help gel all this together and bring it together so that we can make things happen. I just want to tell you all thank you and we're going to continue to keep you abreast of what's going on and work with Lake Trafford, the empowerment zone, Main Street and all those things. Those of you who have not been to Immokalee recently, you need to come visit. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Things are happening. MR. FERNANDEZ: Fred Thomas. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Barbara, is there anything that -- MR. THOMAS: I'm sorry, my name is Fred Thomas. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there anything as a board we could do to enthusiastically support? Send individual letters? Do we need to ask the community to send letters? What could we do to support the request? MS. CACCHIONE: Within the next three weeks, we'll be asking the community for those letters of support. All our legislators, the EDC, the business community, the Immokalee community, and we will be approaching the board individually for letters of support. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll amend my motion to include the word enthusiastically. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second will amend to include enthusiastically. But I also want to say that Mr. Thomas, you hit on it, there are a series of things that have been going on here, and I keep waiting for all of them to come together at a given point and watch things really happen. And I think this may be the glue that brings all that together. So it's -- I'm really looking forward to some successful work on this issue here. MS. CACCHIONE: There is one slight change to the resolution I'd like to bring to your attention today. The Indian reservation property was previously excluded, and that was due to the federal regulations required that in '94. That requirement's no longer in place, and we would like to include that reservation property, because it is very much part of the community. And we'd just like to amend that map to specifically include the Indian reservation property and include them in the population thresholds for poverty level. And they do meet the thresholds for that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And this is a reservation recognized by the federal government? MS. CACCHIONE: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, any other questions or comments? Do we have any other speakers on this item? MR. FERNANDEZ: No other speakers, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Thank you all for being over here. MR. THOMAS: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good luck. Item #8A4 ESTABLISHMENT OF PARAMETERS FOR THE INTERCHANGE MASTER PLAN FOR ACTIVITY CENTER #9 AT THE INTERSECTION OF 1-75/CR-951/DAVIS BOULEVARD - STAFF RECOHMENDATIONS APPROVED WITH CHANGES CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Hoving on then to the next item, establishment of parameters for the interchange master plan for activity center number nine at the intersection of 1-75 and County Road 951/Davis Boulevard. Good morning. MR. WEEKS: Good morning, commissioners. I'm David Weeks of your planning staff. You've just read what the objective of this petition is. By way of background, October of last year, significant amendments were made -- adopted by this board through the comprehensive plan, specifically including the future land use element. One of those amendments calls for the creation of an interchange master plan at activity center number nine, which is, as you stated, the intersection of 1-75 with County Road 951, and also including Davis Boulevard, also known as State Road 84. The master plan is to start off with a vision statement, identifying what the intent will be. This is a gateway entrance into the Naples urban area. It is only one mile inside of the urban area, for those travelers coming from the east coast, heading into the general Naples urbanized area. This is the largest of all of the 19 activity centers in the county. It is presently approved for approximately -- that is, the existing zoning allows for approximately two million square feet of commercial development, and also, approximately two million square feet of industrial development. Plus, there's a potential for an additional 106 acres to be rezoned to commercial, which would add as much as an additional 900,000 square feet of commercial. So this is a large activity center, it's in an -- in the future will be a very intensely developed activity center. An interchange master plan needs to accommodate traffic concerns, needs to accommodate design standards, being a gateway into the community, to present a positive image. Staff has met with some of the property owners or their agents within this activity center, and from that initial meeting staff sees that there is not 100 percent agreement on exactly what should be included in the master plan, and that's why we're here before you today is to seek authorization to include the items listed under recommendation in the executive summary. A second matter that is intimately related is the fact that the Golden Gate Health Park PUD is located within this activity center. It is subject to the PUD sunsetting provision in the Land Development Code. You've previously considered this PUD and directed that the property owner bring forth an amendment to that PUD during the month of -- by October, I believe it's the 8th, of this year. Because the interchange master plan cannot possibly be finished by that point, we are recommending that the submittal of their amendment be delayed until 60 days after the interchange master plan has been adopted. That gives the property owner the opportunity to participate in the interchange master plan and then subsequently amend their PUD to comply with that master plan. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Weeks, on that point, didn't the same folks, when sunsetting came up, ask to be delayed to be consistent with the growth management, with the interchange master plan? MR. WEEKS: Yes, they did. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Did I remember us hearing that item? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: There was something. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, there's -- MR. WEEKS: They did. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- they would support your recommendation in that regard, I assume. Am I right, Mr. Weeks? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, thank you. I thought that you'd said it as if it were a bone of contention. I misunderstood. MR. WEEKS: The contention has to do with some of the specific items, I believe -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. WEEKS: -- to be included. And I know there are some representatives here that may wish to speak this morning. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. WEEKS: Our recommendation is as stated in the executive summary. And unless you desire so, I won't bother reading off the list, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. Any questions from the commissioners? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just procedural. I'm sorry I didn't really understand everything in the staff report, David, but what you're asking for here is authorization to go forward and develop this interchange activity center master plan, and you're asking us to sort of define the parameters of it, but you're going to bring it back to us at some later date? MR. WEEKS: That is correct. Today we're only seeking direction as to the parameters of what to include. It will have to come back before -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: In other words, these are the elements that are going to be included in that master plan? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Things that you're going to be looking at. I know I for one was looking at the transportation and access, which we've certainly talked about before at activity centers, and that, in my opinion, in that particular area is going to be really critical -- MR. WEEKS: We agree. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- because of the 951 area and 1-75. So whatever you can come up with that's creative along there, we certainly need that. Along with that whole area needs to be really pulled together. It kind of looks like it's going in a lot of different directions at this point. The architectural standards I think will have a lot to do with that, along with the landscaping and those kind of things. Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Weeks, I want to ask under the item of uses, the recommendation here is basically for -- you're asking them -- you're asking for the board to approve that these elements be elements of an interchange master plan; is that correct? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. In number one, you have amount and type of land uses, mixture and percent of land uses, location of uses. What we have done in the past is that it seems -- this board's collective concern seems to be where's it going to be, how big is it going to be and how close is it going to be to other uses. In other words, kind of the special relationships and then the visual appearance, height-wise and whatnot. When we start talking about mixture and percent of land uses, I think I understand what you're saying there, but I would -- when somebody comes in with a PUD to say 40 percent of my -- will be commercial, whether it's commercial or industrial is something that the market eventually will weigh out. What the concern is, where is the industrial going to be, because it is a different kind of use, where is the commercial going to be, and how much actually occurs within that, is really governed more by our open space requirements, by our parking requirements and whatnot. And what I think we may be doing there is creating a situation where people have to amend their PUD's for very minor fluctuations in the percentage side. So I'm more interested personally -- I'm more interested in where's it going to go, how many acres are going to be devoted to it, and what are its physical characteristics going to be as far as impact to things around it such as height, outside storage and whatnot. I think those are probably more important than trying to quantify numerically how many square feet or percentage of total square feet is going to be in a certain area. I think the whole floor area ratio thing comes into that. And floor area ratios are very difficult. So I'd like to see, when mixture and percent of land uses -- I don't think that's really -- mixture, yes, but percent of land uses, I think we end up tying things down that the market will decide later when all we really care about is where you're locating, what kinds of uses, and what mitigating elements in your plan are going to deal with the impacts of those uses. MR. WEEKS: The reason staff included that as a suggestion is because we recognize that the types of uses -- it's one thing to say will allow 50 percent or 40 acres or some particular number of commercial. But the type of commercial can have a considerable impact, of course, on the size of development, the amount of parking spaces and certainly the traffic impact; if you have 10 gas stations at this intersection versus four as a cap. And that was the kind of thing we're thinking of. That's just one example, and there could be other uses. And maybe some uses we may want to promote and some we want to keep down, but that was the rationale that staff was using. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Don't disagree with it. I just want us to stay away from the numerical game there that causes -- that draws hard lines far too early in a development process that have to be amended later, when what we're really looking for is really more of what impacts are going to occur and how to mitigate those impacts to the rest of the community. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't disagree with anything you're saying, Commissioner Hancock. I just want to be sure that we give staff as much flexibility as possible. I would like to see numbers like the maximum number of gas stations or -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. No, I think we're saying the same thing. What I'm talking about is to say 40 percent of my land use is going to be commercial. What does that really mean? I mean, if you're asking for -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Forty percent of what? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think the physical location is where we have begun to really focus, and height and physical characteristics more than percentages. That was my point. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because what I wanted -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree with you on gas stations. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What I wanted to emphasize is I support everything in your recommendations, Mr. Weeks, with emphasis on the location of uses, emphasis, strong emphasis, on the landscape theme as a gateway, and strong emphasis on the unified signage plan. Traffic of course is critical, but I trust the process to take care of that One. But you're marching exactly to the drum that we've instructed you to, as far as I'm concerned, and that is to come up with a uniform plan that makes these not look hodgepodge. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have any speakers on this item? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, we have one speaker. Anita Jenkins. MS. JENKINS: I waive. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: She's waiving. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: She waives her -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: She physically waves. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: She's waving. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: How nice of her. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve staff recommendation. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to approve the staff recommendation. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: With the qualifications mentioned by Mr. Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, the percent of land uses not be a requirement. I think that takes us in the wrong direction. We do have mixture and amount and type of land uses in there. But the percentage to me just doesn't tell us anything. MR. WEEKS: Excuse me, Madam Chairman? What I'd particularly like to draw your attention to is the last item under our recommendation, implementation, and that's regarding whether or not we should apply the -- whatever standards we should ultimately come up with to only those properties which have yet to be zoned, or do we go ahead and apply it to existing zoned but undeveloped properties? For example -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I particularly liked that it should apply to existing zoned but undeveloped. Otherwise, we're getting nowhere. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed. If we have the legal ability to do that, then we need to. MR. WEEKS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Any problem with that, Mr. Weigel, existing zoned but undeveloped, we impose new standards in our comp. plan? MR. WEIGEL: Let's give it a try. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good. Because that's the way I want to go. Otherwise, you guys know what will happen. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I think the motion's fine the way it is, as long as you incorporate the comments I made about what we're looking for as opposed to being in strict numbers. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So done. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second amends. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Second amends, all right. I call for the question. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I do want to mention, this is at interchange activity centers. I'd like to see our next goal being all activity centers. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ditto. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So I'll maybe bring that back. We'll take a look at what activity centers are yet to be developed, future activity centers, because they're broken too. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, they are. Item #8A5 BUDGET AMENDMENT AND FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE SPECIAL EVENTS TOURISM DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE CITY OF EVERGLADES CITY - FUNDS TO BE SHIFTED TO ELEMENTS OF THE CONTRACT CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, the next item on the agenda, this is a budget amendment to the special events tourism development agreement between Collier County and the City of Everglades. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Question. MR. MIHALIC: Questions. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Whoa. MR. MIHALIC: Excuse me. I thank you very much for the prompt action, but the reason this is before you and not on the consent agenda is because there has been a question raised. And normally these are routine items, except at the tourist development council meeting on July 27th, the council would not approve the use of any of these monies for advertising agencies' expenditures. This is not one of the original line items that was allowed under this grant. And Everglades -- the City of Everglades City wanted to appeal that decision directly to the Board of County Commissioners, and that's why I've shifted on to the regular agenda for their representative to make their pitch directly to the Board of County Commissioners. And I hope there's a representative here from Everglades City. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm sure there will be. MR. FERNANDEZ: Nobody's signed up. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there anybody? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: This was an item -- okay, this item obviously was prepared and brought to us. Mr. Mohlke was the one that spoke in regard to this. The original did not include $12,000 in the initial meetings of that particular group. It was said that apparently the ad agency or whoever was handling this had known that there was no money involved. And then their revised one included $12,000. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We call that the Rick Compton syndrome. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I -- my feeling is, and I've raised this issue, my feeling was that if the ad agency wanted some funding, they certainly knew that from day one. And why would you amend to include suddenly a $12,000 fee? And I had a bit of a problem with that. I think it should have been right up front. If you want $12,000, then initially it should have been $12,000. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You make a very good case, Madam Chairman. I'll withdraw my motion. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In the past -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In the past we have amended contracts when intended expenditures were excluded. But for us to amend a contract to add an expenditure that was not intended is not something I can support. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And that was my exact feeling, Commissioner. I'm sure we -- do we have any speakers on this? MR. FERNANDEZ: We have no speakers signed up. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have no speakers on this. MR. MIHALIC: I'm sorry a representative didn't show up -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. MR. MIHALIC: -- as they said they would, but the TDC's recommendation was to allow them to shift this money to any of the other line items that were existing to keep the total budget the same, but not to allow it to be used for advertising agencies' expenditures. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, since there was no specific statement or inclusion of fees for an advertising agency in this contract, nor in the discussions preceding the contract being drafted, I'm going to move that it be excluded and that the funds do be allowed to be shifted, only to those elements specified by the contract. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. MR. MIHALIC: Thank you, commissioners. And for the record, I'm Greg Mihalic of HUI staff. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. Item #SB1 TOURIST DEVELOPHENT CATEGORY "A" FUNDING APPLICATIONS FOR BEACH MAINTENANCE AND INLET MANAGEMENT PROJECTS - STAFF RECOHMENDATION APPROVED Hoving on then to item 8(B), I believe it is, approve a tourist development category A funding application for beach maintenance and inlet management projects. MR. HUBER: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, my name's Harry Huber from the office of capital project management. These items before you all received unanimous approval from the beach renourishment and maintenance committee on July 9th, and then on July 27th also we received unanimous approval by the tourist development council. I'll run through each one individually. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Question. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Whoa. This was another whoa item. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It is? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, it is. Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The one that gives me concern is the production and stockpiling of 400,000 cubic yards of upland sand for maintenance. What we've done in the past is had 50,000 cubic yards per year for hot spots. Has the amount of this contract been bid out to several sources, or is this being sole sourced to the existing contractor? MR. HUBER: It is currently in the process of being bid out. In fact, the -- we're having the mandatory pre-bid conference on Thursday, and the date -- the bid opening date is scheduled for August 26th. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Huber, can you help me with, if we are currently in the process of stockpiling 50,000 cubic yards a year and we don't have a problem with that, why would we want to stockpile 400,000 cubic yards -- I mean, is this for an extreme emergency situation? MR. HUBER: No, it's -- actually, it was generated with the conceptual plan for what I'm calling an incremental beach maintenance and management plan, which intends to put 50,000 cubic yards of sand on the beach each year for eight years, instead of waiting for all the sand to erode away and then come in with a major renourishment project in eight to 10 years. Now, the original 400,000 cubic yards and the original proposal that we had gotten from the current producer of the sand up in Bonita was to produce that 400,000 cubic yards over a three-year period. But in our bid documents, it basically -- as long as we have 50,000 cubic yards of sand to put on the beach each year, that's all that's going to be required, and that probably will be the end result of the contract award once we get the bids in. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This may seem like a small reason, but the reason I'd like to stay just at 50,000 cubic yards a year and take a look at it each year, I rode with our natural resources department on turtle monitoring last week, and there was some questions about the success of turtle nesting in this upland source sand, and we really don't know that much about it yet. We don't have any data that says there is a problem or isn't a problem. My concern is if we authorize 400,000 cubic yards and then find that we have a problem and the DEP finds out we have a problem with turtle nesting, we've just bought sand we can't use. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a big issue. That's not -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's going to be the largest sandpile in the world. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock, you made a compelling argument, and I'll withdraw my second. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So I'd like to see that item changed, that we make that an annual contract of 50,000 cubic yards, until we at least have enough information as to whether the sand's acceptable to DEP for turtle nesting, which is the single biggest issue we face in beach renourishment this side of rocks. So that's where I'd like to see that item be changed. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll amend my motion to incorporate that change. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there staff recommendation on that, or why did we get a different recommendation from the beach committee and staff? MR. HUBER: Well, actually, the process of going out to bid came -- was subsequent to the discussion at the beach committee meeting, and we determined that there was not enough justification there to consider it a sole source. There's the potential out there that there could be another source of this upland sand, even though, you know, we don't have permits for -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, my question was the issue of the possibility that this is unusable sand because of turtle nesting issues. Was that discussed -- MR. HUBER: Well, that was never discussed. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It was never discussed, apparently. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This just came to my attention, because I do them by workdays once a month, the different county departments, and I rode with Maura Kraus, and they -- and we're seeing like on renourished and non-renourished beaches, we're seeing little different patterns in the turtle nesting. And you guys all know, when it comes to putting sand on the beach, the DEP's number one priority is turtle nesting. And they're the ones who issue the permits that allow us to do it. We don't have enough data on this inland source to determ -- and if we start seeing turtle nesting problems, the DEP may put a hold on us or a stop on us on using that sand. So it's a precautionary measure. And folks, the sand isn't going anywhere. I mean, you know, inner Florida is full of this stuff. So I don't think there's a rush to have 400,000 yards on hand. As long as we know we have 50,000 a year, we can do what we need to do. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think it was a price question about how much we're going to have to pay for it if we pay -- if we don't buy it now. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Maybe two years from now we'll have enough data after using some of this in areas to show that it's okay, and to have enough data to be sure that the DEP won't stop us from using this source. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can't argue with that. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: I just don't feel like we're there yet, and I don't want to spend the money up front unless I know that that end result will be there. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: In this particular case, it's not a case of anybody did anything wrong here, or didn't think through the process. There's just some unknowns. One of the concerns I have when I looked at this, and certainly Mr. Huber's department and the beach renourishment committee had made these recommendations, and I voted in favor of them at the TDC council. But when you sit down and start looking at the total dollars that are involved here, it's a tremendous amount of money. I'm wondering if we don't need to have -- in this particular case as well, to have staff review these things very, very thoroughly, certainly from a financial standpoint. There's nothing wrong with leaving money in there and letting it be there. The idea that we have to allocate, you know, a tremendous amount of money here at one time I don't think is totally necessary. And again, I'm not faulting staff for, you know, making and coming forth with the recommendations that they did, but the case in point here is the very thing that Commissioner Hancock has brought up. Here we can go ahead and allocate, in my mind, a tremendous amount of money, and we don't have all the data that we need. And I really think we need to hold back and kind of rethink this whole process. Whether our taxpayers in Collier County -- most of them will not pay this tax. This is the tourist tax. In other words, all year -- we're not spending your tax -- ad valorem tax dollars here, we're spending the tourist tax. People that come down here and stay at the hotels and short-term rentals and those kind of things. This is the money we're talking about. This isn't funny money. These are real dollars that we're talking about. And so I think we really need to proceed a little more cautiously and judiciously in some of these areas, and I think this particular one is strictly a case in point where we need to take a little closer look at some of the dollars. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would like also maybe for our natural resources department to make a presentation to the beach renourishment committee to talk to them about what they talked to me about. And this isn't coming from Haura Kraus. Haura didn't say please, God, stop this. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: She didn't even know this was on the agenda. But it just -- in that workday and spending time with them and going through the turtle nest and whatnot, it just -- it occurred to me when I saw this item that maybe we need to be a little more cautious for a couple of years 'til we have enough information to know that this source is acceptable for that purpose. That's the only concern. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think everybody is well intended here on doing the right thing. And I understand the contract and contracting, perhaps getting a better price and all those kinds of things. Can't disagree with that at all. But I think our natural resources department needs to talk to the beach renourishment committee. Everybody needs to get on the same page here. And I'm not sure they're there right now. So that's -- MR. HUBER: I think when I come back with the contract as a result of the bid later on this month, I'll be coming back in September probably sometime with that, would be a more appropriate time to make another determination and another look at it from a fiscal standpoint anyway. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Barb, can I ask a question? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Certainly. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It was my understanding when we enacted -- when the tourist tax was enacted by the voters that we would be doing kind of a major project every eight to 10 years. Is this kind of a change where we're saying rather than doing a major project every eight years, we're going to try to use inland source to do maintenance so that we don't have to do that major project? Is that the -- MR. HUBER: That's -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- direction we've actually started to take? MR. HUBER: Yes, that's the concept, yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I don't disagree with it, but what it does, it changes the spending pattern where we were trying to accrue funds for the big hit of a major project anywhere between a seven and 10-year window. Now we're expending the funds a little at a time over that period. And I would just like to get a presentation helping me understand how we get to the same place. Because 400,000 cubic yards here over eight years sounds good, but how many cubic yards were involved in the original renourishment? MR. HUBER: A million one. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. There's -- we're talking about a 700,000 cubic yard difference. And in my mind, what we were saying is we're going to renourish the -- Mother Nature's going to take it back and then we're going to have to put it back. MR. HUBER: But the major renourishment in eight to 10 years was based on something like 360,000 cubic yards. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, that helps me. I just -- we've kind of made a little change in direction here, and I wanted to understand that, so -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Maybe I just need to go sit down with the beach renourishment committee and sit in on one of their meetings to get a little more information on it. MR. HUBER: They're meeting Thursday morning, if you want to -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thursday morning. Thanks, Mr. Huber. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And they're not dull. They're interesting meetings. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My -- if we're going to go forward with this -- and I understand that we've got to have that turtle question considered carefully. Obviously, though, the other question is what other sources of sand are there, and they can't have rocks in them. I mean, what we found is that we had a tremendous problem with the off-shore sand because of the rocks. If there's a problem with -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In some areas. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- the inland sand -- yeah, well, in an area of great import to me we've had a tremendous problem. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because Vanderbilt Beach is having a terrific turtle nesting season up there. Their rocks are not getting in the way of that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, that's good. But they're getting in the way of the people in my area. So I want both those factored in. The inland sand is so powdery and beautiful and wonderful for human beings, maybe that makes it not great for turtles. But we've got to look at both sides. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. What do you want to do with your motion? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is there -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What is the motion? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Staff's recommendation, with the modification -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My modification, which is to continue pursuing 50,000 cubic yards a year, and to bid that out appropriately, as recommended by staff. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's right. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have that motion. Do we have a second? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll second it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. All in favor -- do we -- we have no speakers on this? MR. FERNANDEZ: You have a speaker that registered very late in this discussion. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, one of the reasons we adopted that policy -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Absolutely. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- is that when the board begins having discussion, for people to react to an element -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- of discussion -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I understand. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- when it's becoming problematic. And I think that's what we may have here. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. Okay, I'll call for the question. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. MR. HUBER: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. Item #882 EHERGENCY EXISTS AND RESOLUTION 98-295 REGARDING A SECOND AMENDHENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN ORANGE TREE UTILITY COMPANY AND COLLIER COUNTY - ADOPTED Moving on then to the next item, which is approval of second amendment to agreement between Orange Tree Utility Company and Collier County. MR. ILSCHNER: Good morning, Madam Chairman. For the record, Ed Ilschner, public works administrator. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: At the risk of being shot down, move approval of staff recommendation. MR. ILSCHNER: Madam Chairman, there probably are some matters that we need to get on the record. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I thought I'd try that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Good effort. MR. ILSCHNER: First of all, this is a matter that you asked staff to look at when the TwinEagles PUD was being considered. Staff has done that. Staff is of course prepared to make a recommendation to you today. However, this is a matter that might normally be reviewed by the water and wastewater authority, except in those instances where there is an emergency situation or an emergency that needs to be considered. And from a procedural standpoint at this point prior to staff presenting its matters, as well as the developer and Orange Tree Utility, we'd like for you to have Mr. Bruce Anderson come up, who represents TwinEagles, who has the burden to explain to you why this should constitute an emergency and not normally be heard by the water and wastewater authority. So Madam Chairman, I'll turn it over, with your permission, to Mr. Anderson. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Absolutely. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And TwinEagles is the development where I think part of our requirement, when we had the opportunity to approve the PUD, was a central collection system, as opposed to septic. And this is about the only way they can make that happen, as I understand it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If there's development services staff here? Bob, is the question here -- and this may be for Mr. Hulhere instead. But the question here is, is TwinEagles going to have septic tanks, or are they going to attach to the Orange Tree system? Is that the question? MR. HULHERE: Yes, in a round -- yes, Commissioner, in a roundabout way. Actually, I think the question is whether or not they'll be able -- strictly whether or not they'll be able to utilize the Orange Tree Utility service at this point. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But should we say no to that, their only other option is septic tanks? MR. HULHERE: At this point in time. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. HULHERE: I'm sorry, for the record, Bob Hulhere, planning director. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just had to get that straight. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, do you wish to recognize Mr. Anderson? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Absolutely. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: You recognized -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, yeah. MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Madam Chairman. For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson, representing TwinEagles development. The nature of the emergency is that the Department of Environment Protection is requiring Orange Tree Utility to complete construction of an expansion of its wastewater treatment plant to almost 100,000 gallons by December 1, 1998. If they -- if the commission approves this agreement today, instead of increasing that plant capacity to only 100,000, they would increase it to more than that, and that is the reason for the emergency. This commission will not meet again until the first week in September, and that would delay their ability to comply with DEP's directives to complete construction by December 1st. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Or what it would do is make them have to have two construction cycles. I mean, they could comply with DEP and then start again in order to service TwinEagles, but that's kind of inefficient. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, ma'am, it would be. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And it may not even be as attractive to them. And being that one of the things we wanted was a central collection system out there, I'm comfortable with the reasons Mr. Anderson has stated, that this should be declared an emergency, so that we can get them on a single collection system. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm not thrilled with it, but I certainly don't want to have septic systems right there by that CREW land. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's true. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Amen. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I bet we have some speakers. MR. ILSCHNER: Madam Chairman, before we proceed, if I could, if you're comfortable with the presentation in written form that the staff has provided, I'd like to call on Mr. Hulhere to provide some matters for the record, please. MR. HULHERE: Thank you. Again, Bob Hulhere, planning services director. I think it's important that we just get a couple of items on the record relative to this issue. As Ed alluded to, the board addressed this policy during the TwinEagles PUD fezone where in fact the board actually excluded as an option septic tanks and wells. Obviously, that PUD was withdrawn, the property is now zoned agricultural, and, therefore, septic tanks and wells are an option. But at that point the board did make a policy decision that -- allowing the Orange Tree Utility to service the TwinEagles project was a viable option. So secondarily I don't think anywhere in the GHP is there a provision which specifically provides language prohibiting an existing private utility provider from serving the customers, regardless of whether they're located in the urban or rural area. Policy 1.5.2 states, "The county will discourage urban sprawl in the proliferation of private sector and/or packaged sanitary sewer treatment systems for the development order approval process to ensure maximum utilization of the existing and planned public facilities." I do not believe that allowing the Orange Tree Utility to service additional customers, i.e. TwinEagles, will constitute a proliferation of private sector or package treatment plants. Beyond that, it's consistent with the direction there to have maximum utilization of existing facilities. There are a number of other issues in several different sources which support this option. Section one of the Collier County Water Sewer District Act contains a statement of legislative intent that states that the use of septic tanks poses a serious risk of contamination of water supply sources, both for incorporated and unincorporated areas. As you know, the existing Orange Tree agreement allows the utility to serve additional customers with BCC approval, and of course with sufficient capacity, which is what this issue is all about. I want you to know that in no way will approval of this second amendment put us in the position immediately of authorizing or approving a certificate of adequate public facilities for the building permit until we are assured that there actually exists sufficient capacity at the utility. I think it's important to note that in the year 2011 the county has the legal right to take over the Orange Tree Utility, and that they can either do that through a service agreement, an on-site service agreement, or connection to the county's off-site treatment facilities, in which case then the issue of having regulations which would require adjacent property owners to hook up to that utility exist. So there would be certainly an issue there. I guess in closing I would just add that again, the growth management plan restricts the extension of public utilities into the urban -- into the rural area, but does not specifically or necessarily restrict an existing private utility provider from servicing additional customers. Yes, sir? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm glad you said that. It really doesn't even apply to that, because Orange Tree's not in the urban area. MR. HULHERE: That's -- well -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's actually further from the urban area than TwinEagles is. MR. HULHERE: That's correct, it is in the rural area. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So we have a rural service provider extending to another rural community? MR. HULHERE: Correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Didn't want anyone to throw the word urban in there and try and, you know, twist it in some form, because this is somebody who's well to the east extending actually toward the urban area, not the other way around, so -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, Mr. Ilschner? MR. ILSCHNER: Madam Chairman, I just wanted to summarize that the matter before you is a second amendment to the Orange Tree Utility agreement. And then secondarily, in approving that particular agreement, you will also be approving and authorizing staff, should you choose to do so, to prepare easement documents and convey those easement documents to Orange Tree, which would then enable them to provide service to TwinEagles. I just wanted to point that out to you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Very good. Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, I'm ready to make a motion, if there are no further speakers. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think we have speakers. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do we? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, you have two speakers. The first is Nancy Payton, and then Brad Cornell. MS. PAYTON: Good morning. My name is Nancy Payton and I'm representing the Florida Wildlife Federation. Earlier -- well, several days ago, on Friday, you received a joint letter from Florida Wildlife Federation and Collier County Audubon Society, and I wanted to submit that letter into -- with attachments into the record for today. The Florida Wildlife Federation is opposed to any agreement between TwinEagles and Orange Tree Utility that would provide TwinEagles with central water and sewer. We object on the following grounds: One, the growth management plan Golden Gate area master plan prohibits, by reference, Orange Tree Utility Company from providing services beyond the settlement area. And the attachments with the letter that we sent on Friday has confirmation of that. The growth management plan public facilities element, sanitary sewer sub-element, prohibits central water and sewer systems beyond the urban service area. The growth management plan facilities element, potable water sub-element, prohibits central water elements beyond the urban service area. In the executive summary prepared for the July 22nd, 1997 meeting regarding TwinEagles' request to be rezoned to a PUD, planned unit development, the staff memo states, and I quote, "The PUD document structures three alternative ways of providing a potable water supply and sanitary sewers to each of the individual housing sites and golf course facilities. The alternative provision authorizing connection to the Orange Tree sewer and water systems, in the opinion of staff, was found to be inconsistent within these utility elements of the growth management plan. It should be pointed out that staff review of the Orange Tree settlement agreement advised a limited geographic boundary for the development; therefore, it follows that any extension of utilities by Orange Tree outside that boundary, which is their settlement area, would be inconsistent with the settlement agreement. And that settlement agreement is dated January 27th, 1986, and it's still referenced in the growth management plan. In a June 2nd, 1997 memorandum to the Collier County Planning Commission, staff wrote TwinEagles, and I quote, lies outside the Collier County water and sewer district boundaries. The PUD document structures four alternative ways of providing a potable water supply and sanitary sewers to each of the individual housing sites and golf course facilities. Except for well and septic systems, other alternatives identified would not be consistent with the water and sewer element of the growth management plan. Current sewer and water element policies do not provide for any type of connection to Collier County utilities for on-site package treatment plants and water systems or, in the opinion of staff, would not allow expansion of a private system in the non-urban area. TwinEagles does not abut the Orange Tree Utility's legal boundaries. TwinEagles is located more than two miles beyond the legal boundaries of Orange Tree. An agreement between Orange Tree and TwinEagles promotes urban sprawl. And as chapter 9J-5 states, urban sprawl is typically manifested in one or more of the following land use or development patterns: Leapfrog or scattered development. On July 6th, 1998, Orange Tree Utility was notified by Florida Department of Environmental Protection of possible violations of law for operating its waste treatment plant beyond its rated capacity. We've already been told that. There have been some promises, but we don't know for sure that they're going to correct those. In June, 1997, during the EAR process, Florida Department of Environmental Protection issued the following opinion against Collier County's proposed amendment, allowing the expansion of package water treatment plants, such as Orange Tree, into the agricultural rural designated areas. The opinion stated, and I quote -- and this is DEP's opinion. Increased use of package treatment plants will enable development of isolated pockets of land, such as TwinEagles, at urban densities throughout the agricultural/rural designated areas. On-site sewer disposal may be more amenable in some of these areas. If correctly installed in suitable soils and properly maintained in developments of lower density, on-site sewage disposal would pose no environmental or public health and safety threat to Collier County's agricultural/rural designated area. I might remind the board that for years the property that TwinEagles is proposed on was the site for dumping job Johnny sludge (phonetic). So if there was a problem, then why did this county allow that? Based on the above points and accompanying documents, clearly individual wells and septic are the only legal option available to TwinEagles Golf and Country Club. The Florida Wildlife Federation urges the Board of County Commissioners to honor the growth management plan and deny any agreement between TwinEagles and the Orange Tree Utility Company. And if you're not comfortable with well and septic there, which is the only legal alternative, you need to deny the plat. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Brad Cornell. MR. CORNELL: Good morning, commissioners. I'm Brad Cornell. I'm speaking today on behalf of Collier County Audubon Society. And if I could preface this by saying I thought that the final plat approval should have been on the regular agenda. So I will leave those comments out, since they're not pertinent to this. But I am going to submit a letter that does comment on that. The Collier County Audubon Society does not support this amendment. And as you have heard, we have submitted, along with the Florida Wildlife Federation, under separate cover, a list of reasons not to amend the Orange Tree Utility agreement to allow extension of central water and sewer to TwinEagles' project. Essentially such amendment would violate the Orange Tree settlement agreement in our growth management plan and result in more intense development in an environmentally sensitive rural area than would otherwise occur. And the obvious alternative would be take some of the golf course away and make it a less intense residential development. Right now it's really got urban intensity, the way the residential units are structured. And it's just a technicality about the one unit on five, if you look at the drawings of the lots. They're all pretty strange looking lots. There are several processes currently underway which are attempting to address rural development issues, including the Corps environmental impact statement, and your own rural ag. down-zoning for a significant portion of this county. Collier County Audubon Society and many citizens of our county feel that these efforts should be completed before allowing any precedent setting urbanization of rural lands. Additionally, there are approximately 80,000 residential units already permitted in the urban area which remain unbuilt. These should be completed before any reconsideration -- before any consideration of golf course communities elsewhere. And I thank you for your listening. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, on that last point, are you advocating a moratorium outside the urban boundary at this point, saying nothing should be built until the urban area is built out? That appears to be what youwre advocating. MR. CORNELL: Iim advocating very strongly that we should not be jumping beyond the urban boundary with urban developments, which I would contend that this is. Apparently thatls the element of debate in our question here. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. MR. CORNELL: But if you regard this as an urban development, which we do, it should not -- there should be a moratorium on those outside the urban area, because theylre prohibited. And in addition to that, we should -- before we do anything, we should complete several processes, which are already going on, including your own down-zoning efforts, before we start looking at projects like TwinEagles. There may be a place for the kinds of criteria and some of the ideas that have come out in the discussion of TwinEagles, but itls premature to permit such a development right now, and it sets a precedent that -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So your answer is anything other than ranch style one unit per five acres, there should be a moratorium on? MR. CORNELL: Right now, yes, because I donlt believe therels that much market for that, and that would slow growth down, until we get in place a good plan for how we want to develop and how we want to see our rural and agricultural lands, how we want to see those in 20 and 30, 40 years. What lands do we want to protect, where do we want to preserve, agriculture, et cetera. These sorts of criteria need to be discussed and finalized before we look at TwinEaglesi type projects. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock -- or Iim sorry, Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Brad, you and I both share some concern about how that growthls going to happen out there, but do you know what specific date the Army Corps report will be completed -- MR. CORNELL: What specific date? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and any recommendations implemented? MR. CORNELL: I do not know what their recommendations are going to be. I know that they are getting close to putting to paper several alternatives to be considered by the Army Corps. The Army Corps has the ultimate authority. As you know, theylre using this ADG group of about 30 folks from different parts of the community to develop these alternatives. So what they -- it was supposed to be about 18 months from commencement. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: There is a date. MR. CORNELL: I donlt know exact date -- exactly what that is. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: I donlt know it, but there is one. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Supposed to be I think is the key. Do you know, and talking about the county and down-sizing, do you know specifically what date that process will be complete? MR. CORNELL: The countyls -- your -- well, I know there was a push to have some amendments ready by this fall, but I donlt know what -- I don't know what's going to happen. Because a lot of that has to do with community input and discussion and some legal issues. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Obviously all of us would like both of those to be sooner rather than later, but the concern there is on neither one of those do we have a specific date, and there are private property right issues. We can't simply tell people you can't use your land, because at some point in the future, we're not sure when, but at some point in the future the rules might change. And so while I share some of your concerns, I don't think from a legal standpoint we can tell people you have to wait until an undetermined date before you can do anything. I also took some concern when you said there -- and they are odd shaped lots. However, they're still five acres lots. And my wife and I are looking at lots right now, and ours are closer in and ours are probably about two and a half, but some of them are 330 by 330, some of them are 180 by 660. And nowhere does it tell us that a lot has to be a certain way or shape. And so -- but you're right that they are odd, but they are still five-acre lots and thusly still legal. So I think we need to be very careful, while there are some genuine concerns, to make sure we stay within the bounds of the law there. MR. CORNELL: I agree. I think with -- along with the odd sort of gerrymander shape of the lots are also really strong concerns about who's responsible for the conservation easements and maintenance of those. And it's going to be really difficult when you don't have a conservation easement in common when each individual lot owner is being held responsible. You're not going to get consistent maintenance, I don't think. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, when we no longer zoned PUD, we no longer had control over that. We had control at one point, Brad, and you guys objected to it, and the guy withdrew their PUD zoning. We lost all kinds of environmental protection when that happened. So you're kind of arguing against something that you took away from us. We had that opportunity, but you argued against it, filed suit, and it was taken away. MR. CORNELL: But I guess I disagree in that we have a process already in place. You're already discussing how to deal with rural development. Let's see where that goes. Because there's some really good ideas on the table right now. I think we're getting the cart before the horse. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But you have to deal with the current laws that you have right now. You can't say in 10 years or 15 years it's going to be thus and so. You have to deal with what we operate under now. If you don't like that, then you go about changing it. That's what we're talking about. MR. CORNELL: I agree. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay? MR. CORNELL: I agree. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But right now we deal with what we have. Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Actually, the truth is, and Mr. Weigel, please correct me if I'm wrong, we could declare a moratorium on development in the rural area. The question is, how much would it cost us to pay those property owners for -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- the period of time that we take away their property rights? We could do it, Brad, and I'd love to do it. But -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Excuse me? You're not going to use my tax dollars to do it. MR. CORNELL: You're -- I think you're reading me wrong. I'm not saying declare a moratorium on development or that people can't use their land. I'm just saying -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But if you take away certain particular rights, you have to compensate 'em for those. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You bet 'ya. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The Butt Harris private property rights act. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, even without it you have to do it. Even before that. So I would love to say everybody stop until we figure out what's the right thing to do. But we have to write a check if we do that. And I don't think the community's willing to write the check, Brad. MR. CORNELL: If I might say, I think what our discussion is not agreeing on, the single point is, what is legally allowed out in the rural area right now. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm coming to that. MR. CORNELL: And I think we're having a different interpretation of what TwinEagles is. We're calling it an urban golf course community, which is what it looks like -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. MR. CORNELL: -- and that's -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, you can call it a chocolate cake, that doesn't make it a chocolate cake. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, it does look like one, but if you don't mind let me continue on mine, because I have some questions for Mr. Weigel. I -- we've gotten in trouble in this county commission -- well, let's just don't even talk about history. It troubles me to be amending an agreement, a contract, if there is some possibility that it would be an illegal amendment to that contract. Can you give us clear advice that amending the Orange Tree agreement does not vio -- is not illegal, it's not a violation of the settlement agreement? MR. WEIGEL: Okay, I'll try to. And with the assistance of staff, and my assistants will answer it very specifically, I think. So assistants and staff, get ready to jump in with me here. The agreement -- an amendment to an agreement is an amendment to an agreement with the parties of that agreement. So perhaps the first level of your question is, is this an illegal amendment to the agreement with the parties to the agreement? And I think the answer would appear to be no. The second question that seems to have come up in our discussion today is would an amendment to the agreement create an illegality in regard to the county's approvals of a type of property use and/or extension of facilities, water and sewer facilities, outside of the Orange Tree area. And it appears with the documents that have been provided with the July 31st letter with Nancy Payton, she's included some past missives to the board in agenda items dated I think 1997, generally, where there has been opinions stated in the agenda items in -- regarding the ability or the advisability or the legality of something other than wells and septic tanks being used for the development of TwinEagles project out in the rural area. And I believe that staff can step forward, I invite them to at this point, to remind the board historically that subsequent to those memos or executive summaries that came to the board on previous agenda items, that in fact the information to the board officially and in this forum has been different than that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I -- before -- because that's -- I appreciate that, and I want that information, but it's not the answer to my question. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The answer to my question is the contract has two parties, I assume, Orange Tree and Collier County? MR. WEIGEL: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are there other parties to that contract? MR. MULHERE: I believe TwinEagles. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm -- are there currently other parties to the contract that we seek to amend? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Wasn't the state a party by way of the settlement agreement? MR. ILSCHNER: Madam Chairman, Ed Ilschner, public works administrator, for the record. There are two parties to the current agreement, and that's TwinEagles and Collier County. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, the Orange Tree agreement. MR. ILSCHNER: The Orange Tree agreement is Collier County and Orange Tree only. The second amendment would include three parties. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I understand. But my question is, the current contract has two parties. Those two parties can agree to amend the contract. Can they do that even if their agreement contradicts the settlement agreement? Is the settlement agreement incorporated into the contract? The settlement agreement defines the geographic boundaries. MR. MULHERE: Perhaps two things -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a legal question. MR. MULHERE: Well -- and I recognize that it is, and I was going to suggest that I believe that Mr. Anderson has some of those specific responses that might assist you in your deliberations. In my review of the settlement agreement, which -- and I'm not an attorney, there is nothing in there that precludes an amendment to the existing contract. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I understand. But is the settlement agreement incorporated by reference in the contract? Maybe Mr. Anderson, I could ask you that question. MR. WEIGEL: I would appreciate it if you could respond at this moment. MR. ANDERSON: Commissioners, for the record again, my name is Bruce Anderson. I would like to share with you a little bit of a history of that original settlement agreement. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But first will you answer my question? Is the settlement agreement incorporated in the contract? MR. ANDERSON: No. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: Not in the agreement that is before you today. It is a refinement of certain provisions of that original Orange Tree settlement agreement. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So is it a legal -- is it legally incorporated -- MR. ANDERSON: It's not legally -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- into the contract? MR. ANDERSON: -- inconsistent, no, ma'am. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's not my question. Is it -- is the settlement agreement legally incorporated into the contract? Is the settlement agreement one of the terms of the contract? MR. ANDERSON: No. It's a stand-alone contract that is -- has its genesis in the Orange Tree lawsuit settlement agreement. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Then amending the contract is not -- the settlement agreement is not relevant to the amendment of the contract if it's not a contract term. That's my thought, and that's what I'm asking Mr. Weigel to tell us. We may be violating the settlement agreement, and if we are, then whoever the parties are to that settlement agreement can -- you know, that's the next question. But I want to know if we're doing an illegal amendment to the contract. And it would be illegal if we're -- if we're amending one of its terms to go beyond the scope of the contract without everybody's consent. But if it's not, then it's not. MR. ANDERSON: The parties to the original settlement agreement were the then owners of the Orange Tree property and Collier County. That's all. Nobody else. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, and the judge blessed the settlement agreement on behalf of the general population that it -- so that's the third element. MR. ANDERSON: And one of the -- one of the critical items of that original Orange Tree settlement agreement was that it allowed Orange Tree to operate its own water and sewer system without any prohibition on any other areas that could be served by the utility. The chief limitation in that settlement agreement, which was entered into in 1986, was that the county could take over the utility system through off-site connection to the county system, or take over the operation of the system on-site. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Anderson, I don't want to drag this out, because what I wanted to know was, is the -- is there a geographic limitation in that contract? And that's what I heard Ms. Payton say. If there is a geographic limitation in the contract, then we need to be careful if we change it. MR. ANDERSON: The first geographic limitation on Orange Tree's ability to provide water and sewer service occurred in 1991 when your predecessor board entered into a utility agreement, a stand-alone utility agreement that updated some of the provisions of the settlement agreement to comply with the county's then utility ordinances. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So are we going to amend that stand-alone agreement today as well? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the next item? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, that's the one you're -- that's the one you're amending. And that agreement, that 1991 agreement, for the first time Collier County placed an express limitation on Orange Tree's ability to serve outside the project boundaries. It stated specifically that they could not serve outside the boundaries without the county's consent. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we can change that, because we're the parties to the contract. I understand that. MR. ANDERSON: Well, your -- you gave the consent. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I understand. My -- and if you don't mind, I have one other question, that has to do with the Golden Gate master plan. Does the Golden Gate master plan specifically address the geographic limits of the Orange Tree Utility? MR. MULHERE: It specifically addresses the settlement agreement and the geographic limits defined in the settlement agreement. I do not believe it specifically addresses whether or not Orange Tree Utility can add additional customers. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Then as far as I'm concerned, this is -- there's going to be good legal arguments on both sides of this. And as much as I hate to, I'm going to take the risk of saying Orange Tree can extend because I don't want to have water -- I don't want to have septic tanks by CREW. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't even know if I'd go so far as to say there are good legal arguments on both sides, because I haven't heard -- other than Ms. Payton's vague reference, I haven't heard any legal argument supporting that vague reference from the other side. So I'd even be careful there. There may be an argument, but I haven't heard it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If the settlement agreement defines a geographic boundary for the settlement agreement and a separate element of that agreement indicates that certain types of services can be provided in the settlement area, there's not an automatic inference that one controls the other is my understanding, or how I would read that, unless specifically it says that these provisions are subject to and only to the geographical areas specified and such, then it's left open. And it's left to interpretation of the two parties of the agreement, which in this case is Collier County and Orange Tree. Mr. Anderson, is that consistent as to your reading? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, it is, indeed. If the agreement read as Ms. Payton would like for it to read, there would have been no need in 1991 to add the provision that specifically limits them from serving outside the project without your consent. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: That addition to the contract would have been unnecessary and repetitious. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Don't we have a motion and a second on the floor? MR. MULHERE: Madam Chairman, I do need to add a couple -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. MR. MULHERE: -- of rebuttals, with your permission. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Please. MR. MULHERE: Number one, the TwinEagles development, I would take exception with the statement that the TwinEagles development in any way constitutes urban sprawl. It's fully consistent with the density and development standards for rural agricultural development. So, you know, the staff is not of the professional opinion that in any way TwinEagles constitutes urban sprawl. Nor by providing a central utility or service from an existing provider will that constitute a proliferation of urban sprawl. And secondarily, the references to the staff report and the comments by staff that the only option available to TwinEagles was sewer and septic was a part of the board's PUD discussion on that very item in which the then planning services director Mr. Wayne Arnold opined that there were additional options available for TwinEagles, including extension of services from Orange Tree in which the board made the policy decision that in fact that was an appropriate method of service. So I think that issue is really moot at this point in time. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I believe so. Do we have any other speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: No other speakers, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Anderson? MR. ANDERSON: Madam Chairman, I'm sorry -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's okay. MR. ANDERSON: -- there are two points that I want to make on the record -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: -- for procedural purposes. Number one, these two groups that spoke do not have any standing under case law or statute to object to this agreement. Number two, when the county commission approved the TwinEagles PUD, included in there was a specific consent to Orange Tree serving this project. These same two groups filed suit challenging the PUD. However, at no time in their lawsuits did they object to the provision of utility service from Orange Tree to TwinEagles, and they are 11 months too late to challenge it now. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, if I may, based on the -- and Commissioner Hac'Kie, the questions you had I think needed to be asked. When someone raises a legal question, we've got to find the answers. Based on the answers that we've received from our county attorney, from our staff and from the applicant, I'm going to move that we determine, in fact, due to the time constraints of the DEP for expansion with the Orange Tree system that an emergency does exist, and that we approve the proposed second amendment to the Hay 28th, 1991 agreement between Orange Tree Utility and Collier County. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. Any further questions or discussion? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a comment. And Mr. Cornell raised some good points. And I think all of us are concerned with growth and are concerned with those issues, which is why we are doing the down-sizing process we're in right now, so that we can look down the road and try to alter things that we don't think are appropriate. But I don't think the debate or changes will end the conclusion of the county down-sizing process, nor at the end of the Army Corps of Engineers' report. There will -- even if different things are implemented then, there will be people who will want further changes, or want to get some of those things back and will debate that every year from now to eternity. And so it is a never-ending process. And I don't think we can just arbitrarily pick a time frame, for some legal reasons, but for practical reasons as well. I don't think we can say, well, you can't use your land for the next 18 months or for any other time frame, because that debate will go on continually and changes will happen continually. So I'm going to support the motion. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. At this time we're going to take a break so we can give our court reporter some time. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If I could ask you, please, to be seated. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: The break/negotiation period is over. I haven't seen that many deals being made since I was on the used car lot. Item #883 INTERLOCAL AGREEHENT ALLOWING FOR THE INVESTIGATION OF THE CREATION OF A MULTI-COUNTY UTILITY AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACQUIRING THE UTILITY FACILITIES OWNED BY AVATAR HOLDINGS, INC. - DENIED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, the next item on the agenda is the consideration of an interlocal agreement allowing for the investigation of the creation of a multi-county utility authority for the purpose of acquiring the utility facilities owned by Avatar Holdings, Inc. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chair, I'd like to ask Mr. Robert Sheets from government services group to give you a brief presentation on this item. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Mr. Sheets? MR. SHEETS: Madam Chair -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning. MR. SHEETS: -- commissioners, my name is Robert Sheets. I'm with government services group. As the title outlines, the interlocal agreement before you today is a local agreement between Collier County and six other counties. And the only purpose of this agreement today is to direct the staff of each representative county to form a working group to look at the feasibility and the viability of the acquisi -- of the creation of the utility authority and the acquisition of the Avatar Holding facilities for those that reside within each county. As is described in the executive summary, this is a nonbinding interlocal agreement. It simply allows the county and the other counties to development additional information by which you are able to make an informed decision within the next 90 days as to whether or not you choose to participate or pursue this acquisition. The other counties are Sarasota, Lee, Hillsborough, Osceola, Polk and Brevard. And they are currently -- in fact, Sarasota has already signed the agreement, has already approved the agreement. And the other counties are reviewing it this week for their authorization, I think with the exception of Osceola, which will be reviewing it next week. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, Commissioner Norris, do you have a question? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No, just a comment. I spoke with the petitioner yesterday, and my only concerns are that we recently set up our utility authority, which is doing an excellent job. We regained regulatory authority over the utilities in Collier County. If this agreement does not in any way impede our regulatory ability over the system in question and the rate setting authority as well, and does not in any other way or will not in any other way impede our county utility authority from doing the excellent job that they're currently doing, then I will favor proceeding at least to investigate this, but certainly don't want to do anything that would interrupt the progress that we've made in taking the regulatory authority back from the Florida Public Service Commission. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me tell you, my concerns are, prior to being on the board, I had the fortune or misfortune of working with the Public Service Commission and dealing with Florida Cities on three different occasions, I think, '89, '91 and I think '92. And then they had one -- at least one while I was on the board prior to us taking over the rate setting. We had in 1991, for example, I think it was like an 81 percent increase in water and 40 something, 50 something, some huge percent increase in sewer. And that happened repeatedly over that period of time. I might also point out that the Public Service Commission had a charge that has passed through directly to the ratepayer of four and a half percent. The job we've done since we've taken it back in 1995 is, not only has there only been one request for an increase and that was a price indexing of .94 percent, but you may recall a week ago, we stepped back the administrative cost, another step back, which is now one and a half percent. So we're -- we have literally saved the ratepayers of that four square miles, two miles by two miles is all we're talking about, over a half million dollars in the last couple of years just in administrative costs. I'm not sure that creating another level of government, which this would do, is going to do anything but increase those administrative costs again, which go through to the ratepayer. So I haven't heard what the advantage will be. I understand this doesn't commit us to anything, but the ratepayer pays one-third what they used to pay in administrative costs, and it tallies up to a lot of money. We have really slowed down and stopped the outrageous requests for the increases. And I understand we could still have local hearings and do those, but I'm not sure what the incentive to add this additional layer of government is. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Like Commissioners Norris and Constantine, as I first heard this proposal, the what's in it for the Collier County resident was just foremost in my mind. Why is -- I think the reason we're being included in this process is simply because Avatar is being targeted by other communities and has holdings in Collier County. And Avatar has basically said we don't want to piecemeal it, but we'll consider selling it whole. I'm paraphrasing dramatically, but -- so that's why Collier County is even a part of this discussion, is my understanding. I received a phone call this morning from Commissioner John Manning of Lee County Commission. They are very interested in moving ahead for their own reasons. Commissioner Constantine, what you've said is exactly correct. What is in it for Collier County I see potentially, as I discussed with Mr. Sheets and others, is that one, we would have the ability to lock in a potential or eventual purchase price of the utilities, should we desire ever to do that. And that's something that makes an unknown factor a known factor. And if we look at the history of private utilities in Collier County, we have ended up taking many of them over, because at one point the company decided they were no longer profitable, let them, you know, run in the ground, ended up with DEP fines and whatnot. Most of those are wastewater. And I'm not saying Avatar is going to do that. But right now we have a good portion of our public that is relying on a private utility that we end up being the safety net for, should things go wrong. So it would help me to at least have a dollar figure of a price established that should things go in that direction, we have the opportunity to protect those ratepayers by stepping in, if need be. That is the only benefit I've seen, as I look through this. Beyond that, this is in essence a due diligence. It does not cost the county anything. It may give other communities the opportunity to look at where they want to be also. So I don't have a problem moving forward here, but I would stop well short of giving my endorsement to this concept as being in the best interest of the county taxpayer until I have more information. So that's where I'd like to see us go today. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If I can just respond to that. And I know you've got a comment, but I want to respond to the one item on the purchase. And if we want to look, there's no harm in a free look at information. I really don't have objection to that. But I want to raise the red flag early on in that we have a process. We often have government say well, if we make such and such a change, we'll save so many dollars, and you wonder three years later, five years later if you really have. This is one where there is proof positive. You can see where the dollars have been saved, you can see where the administrative costs are smaller, you can see where the rate increases have not continued in the fashion they were. As to the value price, it will be fascinating to see, because in 1991, as president of the Golden Gate Civic Association, we did a feasibility study in concert with the county, and the county had priced at that time at 31 million dollars. '91 dollars. Avatar of course said that wasn't anywhere close to what they valued it. But what the county was able to call for a value is 31 million dollars in 1991. We again looked at some of those numbers in 1994/95, if you recall, and it was approaching 50 million. I think it was about 48 million dollars in '95. And so we are shortly in excess of 50 million dollars. Which when you start breaking down to the number of users of that system and potential users of that system, is an overwhelming cost and financially feasible really doesn't become a realistic thing. So if someone miraculously comes back with a number that works, great. But it will be interesting to see that number, because I think if anything, that will solidify my concern that if that is the one benefit we could see, that one number I think is going to scare us away more than -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm equally skeptical, but like you, I don't think it hurts to find out. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie? COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My only question is that it seems that there is some cost involved with the county, because we are being asked to designate the county administrator or his designee as a participant in the process. I understand that we're going to have those consultants who will work without being paid. Those three consultants I assume are on a contingency fee plan or something. Well, they must expect that they're going to get paid if the deal goes through, they're not just doing this -- MR. SHEETS: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- for nothing. MR. SHEETS: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And there's nothing wrong about that. That's God bless America. But my question is, how much time do you expect this would take for you or your designee, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: I don't think we've made an estimate on the amount of time that it would take. It's hard to -- it's hard to predict that at this point. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because that is a cost to the county. And I can't imagine that this is going to be a good thing. I cannot fathom what's going to be in this for Collier County. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't know either, and I'm glad you're bringing up the staff cost. Because maybe that's one thing we need to look at, what kind of time commitment is required from our people to even get this look. And I do want to point out that you used the term consultant and God bless America in the same sentence. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, scary. But if we could limit -- if our county administrator's role is just to review the report that you produce or that your group produces, that's fine. But if what you're going to ask them to do is come to 45 meetings and sit in for hours, then that's a different story for me. MR. SHEETS: If I might respond, one of the reasons we think the working group is critical to this being a fair and objective due diligence process is one, with each county having a representative, they are assured that the information and the issues are being looked at fairly and objectively. So there's not a concern that this is simply a group of consultants driving this train. That's the first issue. Secondly, I think each county has a different set of interests and concerns. I know your issues here and how you have taken command and leadership in develop -- in controlling utility leadership and development is totally different than where other counties may be. we don't expect there to be a single fit or solution to meet all seven counties' needs. We see there being a lot of commonality. But if this is going to work, it's got to address the individual needs and concerns of where each county is currently in their dealing with utility regulations. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just don't know -- MR. SHEETS: In terms of the hard dollar costs which you are not being asked to address at this point, and even the soft dollar costs, my recommendation to you, Commissioner, would be that Bob keep track of all of his staff's time. Because if this does happen, any costs that the county incurs to make this process work and happen, they'll be reimbursed for that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So we would be reimbursed on an hourly basis for staff time if the deal goes through, but if it doesn't, then that's -- MR. SHEETS: Those are at risk dollars. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I assume that's only if Collier participates. MR. SHEETS: Right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If the deal goes through and Collier opts not to, would you still reimburse Collier's time? MR. SHEETS: I don't know. I don't have an answer to that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Venture a guess. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And if the deal doesn't go through, which I don't know. My only interest in this is to participate if the -- if our county administrator's involvement is merely to review the information, not to participate in meetings. MR. SHEETS: Well, I would be misleading you if I said that's all the involvement we would hope to see from the county. But I think they're attending some meetings, certainly reviewing some documentation; even being part of the initial negotiating team with Avatar would be a real plus, so you have firsthand knowledge and involvement in what's happening. Now, can I tell you, is that 100 hours or 40 hours? I just don't know. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, can you tell me any reason why Collier County residents might benefit from this? I mean, what's in it for Collier County so that we would spend any staff time on it? MR. SHEETS: I can give you only a couple. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. MR. SHEETS: And I think -- and you have to -- you have to weigh their importance. Aside from the fact that if this -- if this does happen, whether you participate or not, this utility becomes a warehoused utility for your future acquisition in the future, should you choose to acquire it. And as you said, you sort of have bought an option, an option to exercise that you may or may not, so you know what that price is. That's the one benefit. Secondly, instead of having a utility that's investor owned, so you have a utility that is governmentally owned. So you have a partner that is committed to recognizing your growth management plans and other issues that you have to deal with in terms of expansion sitting there. Since this would also have representatives from Collier County in some shape, fashion or form on this utility authority, I think that makes for a far better partnership. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't think that they could expand that utility in contravention to our growth management plan anyway, so -- MR. SHEETS: No. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So I guess as far as I'm hearing, the only real benefit is setting the option price. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, and frankly, there is nowhere to expand it -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Anyway. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- because the surrounding areas are already served by the county itself. So I'm going to ask if the board -- I won't take offense if the board says we'd like to investigate this, but I'm going to ask that we not for a couple reasons. I don't think it's a wise expenditure of Mr. Fernandez and his staff's time. I really don't see an advantage. It only deals with the four square miles of what we refer to as Golden Gate City. We have really turned the corner in that three years. We've saved amazingly administrative costs, we've stopped increases. The last thing I want to do is create yet another level of government which can only do one thing and that's increase administrative costs. So I'm going to ask the board to just thank Mr. Sheets for coming but to say no on this item. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I feel the same way, unless Mr. Fernandez has a strong opinion either way. Do you see some potential, Mr. Fernandez, for the county? MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chair, I have said before that I don't -- I don't have a strong position on this issue. It's one of kind of neutral. I didn't think that there was a cost associated with this stage of this process to go forward, explore it further. But by the same token, I don't see an advantage that jumps out at me that I would say yes, we have to do this, it's very important to the future of this county. So as I said, I'm pretty neutral on this. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Maybe the onus here needs to be put on the consultant in a sense that rather than asking us to join up with something that is an unknown, Commissioner Constantine has mentioned that even at 31 million dollars it didn't look like it was feasible. So if in his negotiations if he has six out of seven counties negotiating and finds out that the Collier Avatar piece is 31 million dollars, then we know we're not interested and we don't have to spend any time doing anything. But it comes back being 17, 18, 20 million dollars? Then maybe now all of a sudden we see a reason to at least participate in the discussion, and maybe we need more information from them before we commit any staff time on this. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's how I feel about it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I can understand your point. I still see a benefit in getting some knowns, but without knowing how much time that means of Mr. McNees' or Mr. Fernandez's time, I am a little skeptical. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There is nothing to prohibit the consultants from still gathering that information, and if they want to share it with us and it looks advantageous, great. But I don't know that our county management team, which is already heavily taxed, needs to participate. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Do you have a motion then? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we decline the opportunity to participate at -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- this time, and encourage Mr. Sheets if they do have the information they think would be helpful to us down the road, to share that with us. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, do we have any public speakers on this item? MR. FERNANDEZ: None. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: None. I guess from my standpoint, the only thing I'm looking for is more information. If we can get that information, that's fine. I did not look at it in regard to the expenditure of staff time. I didn't realize that there would be that amount of staff time spent on it. So I guess that's kind of the unknown. When we spoke before, I don't know that that necessarily was an item that came up. But if this is going to require a great deal of Mr. Fernandez's time and other staff members, then I guess I would have a concern over it. And I don't believe in our conversation that that was covered. I'll call for the question. All in favor of this particular motion to deny? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. MR. SHEETS: Thank you, and we will certainly keep you apprised as this moves forward. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. SHEETS: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chair, just a question. We have a number of items before we get to the afternoon agenda. And I assume we're taking a lunch. Those -- I wondered if just for the convenience of folks who may have other business to do and have the afternoon agenda, if we might let them know we probably won't get to that before we get to lunch -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- release them. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. I would assume that we're probably good for a couple more items here, and that's going to be about it. So at noon we will be taking a break, if some of you want to race out early and get started. Please feel free, because we'll be back here this afternoon. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it's safe to say everything after item nine -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think so. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- county attorney's report. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I believe so. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So if you're after item nine, feel free to get an early start on lunch. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. Item #8C1 STAFF REPORT REGARDING THE ADHINISTRATION OF THE COUNTY-OWNED PARKS WITHIN THE CITY OF MARCO FOR FY 1998-99 - PROPERTIES TO BE DDED TO THE CITY OF MARCO WITH RESTRICTIONS; ADDITIONAL ITEMS IN STAFF REPORT APPROVED; AND INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT TO BE IN PLACE Okay, then moving on to item 8(C)(2), the library site. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: 8(C)(1), I believe? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm sorry -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: 8 (C)(1). CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- 8(C)(1), excuse me. Review of staff report regarding the administration of the county-owned parks within the City of Marco. Fiscal year '98, '99. Mr. Olliff? MR. OLLIFF: Thank you, Madam Chairman. For the record, Tom Olliff, public services administrator. Item 8(C)(1) is an item that you are familiar with, as it was on last week's agenda. You had directed that staff go back and provide you with a review and some information regarding a few, and relatively few, remaining outstanding items regarding the administration of the parks that are located within the incorporated city limits of Marco. We were able to, without hiring consultants or doing anything else, put together a report for you and get it back on your agenda this week. And we tried as simply as we could to try and boil it down to the issues that we think are just that, the outstanding issues. And I'll go through them very briefly. And I think the first issue was an issue of term. And we felt, from the board's discussion and from a staff perspective, that we were a little concerned with the originally proposed term of 99 years at a one dollar lease. Primarily because we are just -- you cannot foresee all of the issues that are going to arise in a brand new type of an arrangement like this one. And if for no other reason, then it also removes a great deal of the incentive to resolve the issue about the long-term ownership of the park property itself. We had recommended a shorter term. Now, we just simply picked a term that we thought was a reasonable type term. It is one that has some automatic annual renewing terms, and it's a five-year term that's proposed. But there is nothing magic about what we selected for you, other than it was shorter and allowed us some additional review times after that first year of operation. The second issue is in regards to impact fees. And I think the impact fees are actually a separate issue from the operations of the park on Marco Island. And I think it would require a separate interlocal agreement between the county commission and city council. I don't know that it's one that has to be decided today. And I think because, as the executive summary states, the county's impact fees were developed based on certain nexus studies done as part of our level of service standards, I think that there's going to have to be some similar work done on the part of the city in order to be able to realize some impact fee revenue from the county. So I think that we can work on that, and we'd be happy to work with them and help them develop either some internal ordinances that they might need in order to be able to do that. But bottom line there, we didn't think that it needed to be part of this discussion, we could do it at a later date. The third item was in terms of an operational issue. It was how the city would actually operate in terms of a city versus county resident type issue. What we did was simply went back to a lease agreement that the county was asked to sign with the State of Florida for the Barefoot Preserve property. And it was one of these basically non-discrimination type clauses. And we just used the same type language, because it seemed to be an all-encompassing paragraph that would deal with the issue, I think, and probably be a little broader and encompass a whole lot of other discriminatory issues as well in one single paragraph. And the only other issue was the South Beach parking lot. We have consistently tried to propose a distinction in terms of the operations it was based on, the type of park and the residents that it was designed to serve. And so we've continued to support the idea that district parks or regional parks on Marco Island should be those that are maintained and operated by the county. And so we've recommended to you that all three of your regional parks on that island would be operated by the county next year, and that would be Tiger Tail, Caxambas Boat Ramp and the South Beach parking lot. In closing, I'd like to say that I think a lot of these issues are specific detail issues that can and should be fleshed out by a specific lease agreement. And I think a lot of this can be -- and I think there are some options, even in terms of issues that may as yet be outstanding. And from this, the most important thing that I would like to get is some direction to the staff to go negotiate a lease agreement where a lot of this can be worked out, and try to do it as quickly as we can, because I know there are some budgetary issues for the city as well as for the county. And with that, I think that's the staff review and recommendation to you. And I'm available to answer any questions that you might have. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Olliff, in looking at the issue of a term, Commissioner Mac'Kie brought up a good point when we discussed this last about a 99-year term offers little if no incentive to actually acquire the properties at any value. I thought that was a good point. However, five one-year terms, when there is no rolling stock or equipment available, and the city's going to have to purchase it, is quite the opposite. So let me ask, from an informational standpoint, if we're going to operate a community park and we have to buy mowers, gangtel (phonetic) mowers, you know, different pieces of equipment, this is a very broad question, I'm asking for an extremely general answer, so do your best here. But what is the average life of some of that more costly equipment that we deal with in parks and rec? Is it 10 years, is it 15 years, is it 20 years? MR. OLLIFF: The low bid equipment? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: The proper equipment. MR. OLLIFF: Generally we estimate about a ten-year life on the major pieces of equipment. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It seems to me that if we are going to have a lease agreement with the City of Marco and they are going to have to make a capital investment and equipment to maintain it, that that lease ought to at least cover the period of what is a reasonable expected life of that capital equipment. To do otherwise would not be fiscally sound on their part. By the same token, I also want to give them enough time to get their finances in order to the point that they can look at long-term acquisition of these sites, should they so choose. So I'm looking at -- my -- personally I'm looking at somewhere between 10 and 20 years, with possible five-year renewals being a good starting point. I think 99 years is too long, I think five years is too short. So I'm looking at something in the area of 10 to 20 years with renewal, personally. The second item, if I might, quickly, is absent the city's standards regarding the utilization and the amount of impact fees, starting in the fiscal year, whether we're required to or not, I think it makes a lot of sense that whatever local or neighborhood park impact fees are paid from the City of Marco need to go to the City of Marco. That only makes sense. I don't see why we would try and do anything other than that. So until they adopt their own formula, it seems to me using the county formula makes the most sense. Those are the two points I have. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The effect of using the county formula would be what? They would or would not be getting money? I mean, I -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- don't understand. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that was based on Mr. Olliff's comments regarding that they need to work out their own formula. Because they're going to have to -- just as we have a plan for parks and we base our impact fees on the amount of park space we have to build out in the future, the City of Marco is going to want to do that same thing. And they may come up with impact fees that are far higher or far lower than the county. But until they do, the county formula is one that we should use in them collecting those impact fees. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's all -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I understand. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's the point I was making. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I understand. My only other question had to do with -- this is just farfetched, I probably should have asked you before, is I like the idea of the rolling leases, it's much better than the 99, and we can't do 99. But they do have the problem with having the materials to operate the parks. Are those leasable to them in addition? I mean, could we lease the house furnished instead of lease the house unfurnished? Although, I would not want to do that for a dollar. MR. OLLIFF: The position we've actually taken is, is we would have intended to leave the buildings and furnishings that are associated with that building. That includes folding tables and folding chairs and all of those type things that were part of that facility. The only thing that we had not intended to leave were expendable materials, things that we would use at another park. And, in fact, we've sent them a specific inventory list of the equipment that is there that we would intend to leave and what we would intend to take. The rolling stock issue was one where we had intended to take it with us, simply because the county does maintenance on a district basis. And when we put the budget together for this fiscal year, we anticipated not operating those parks on Marco and bringing on a South Naples community park and a Sugden community park at the same time within that district. So that equipment was anticipated to be used in that district and other locations. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we are essentially leasing the house furnished for a dollar a year. But the question then is, what do they have to buy? Do they need mowers? And -- MR. OLLIFF: Particularly -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- that's a 10-year item? MR. OLLIFF: Particularly maintenance equipment. And I'll tell you how this is handled in other similar situations. We have agreements with the school board where we maintain and keep up the properties that are athletic type fields for the school board. We will sometimes go in and make capital improvements, we will install lights. The agreements that we have with the school board says if the school board decides they need that land in order to be able to expand the school, they can kick us off any time in the middle of that lease they want to, but they have to pay us the pro rata value of the capital improvement that we put on their property. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So that's the kind of term we could incorporate into a lease and still have a five-year term, because ten's scary to me. I mean, if we had that -- you know, give them what we have been given by other governmental entities, do the same thing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask, when you say 10 is scary to you, what is it specifically that concerns you there? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What concerns me is that once you've done something for 10 years, it's going to become a pattern, it's going to be habit, it's going to be hard. I want to encourage Marco to buy these parks from the county taxpayers. And they will have that incentive if there's this rolling every five years. But in 10 years it's going to be their parks, you know. It's going to be hard for the future boards to be doing anything other than continuing to lease them. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Don't you find, though, the discussions we have with the City of Naples regarding beach parking seem to start anew each time? The fact that we have done them for an extended period of time, both entities evaluate their position each time that comes up for renewal, and then there's a lot of discussion and debate. So I think that experience, if you apply it to this, a future board -- and I don't think any of us will be here in 10 years. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: God forbid. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But -- well, I meant on the board, John, not a life. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, thank you. That's nice for you to clarify that. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll be -- do I have anything on the agenda? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I didn't know if you were planning my demise or, you know. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think I'm going to be paying for that one later. The point is, I think that discussion will occur in earnest, even if it's 10 years. But I don't think we can ask another government entity to make a 10-year capital investment for a five-year time frame reasonably. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But we do it every time. We do it with the school system because we have a deal with the school system that if they want the property back, they will pro rata repay the capital investment. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So you're saying we'll pro rata repay the Debt. -- capital that the city spends. Exactly. Unless -- well, okay. And the concern there is all of a sudden they go financing a Cadillac -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- when a Chevy would have done. You know CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Good point. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Lot of concerns there. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What you're suggesting, Commissioner Hancock, if I understood it, was an initial term of 10 years and then five-year renewals. Was that -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. I hadn't made a decision on 10 or 20, but -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You know, there's really very little difference -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- the minimum should be 10, if that's the time period -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- if they take a five-year first term and roll it for five years you're at the same point you would have been with a 10-year term anyway, so -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And then we wouldn't have to have that capital buy-back provision -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Right. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- if we did the 10-year term. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. Okay? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I know it's not exactly what the City of Marco Island is looking for, but I think it's reasonable and I think it's prudent financially for us and for them, and doesn't place anyone at unnecessary risk. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Do we have any speakers on this item? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chairman. Councilman Ed Day and City Manager Bill Moss have both asked to speak. MR. DAY: Chairman, commissioners, it's been just over a year, and I've got to tell you, I've missed you all terribly. I really have. I found you a lot easier to work for than to work with. I would like to take this opportunity to -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's a very good line. MR. DAY: You like that? I'd like to introduce our city manager, you haven't all met him, Bill Moss, sitting here in the front row. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Welcome. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Welcome. MR. DAY: As well as the First Lady of Marco Island, Faye Moss, who came up with us today, is sitting in the front row as well. Let me give you a little history on this. There have been about 14 or 15 items of service transition and associated fiscal considerations being negotiated between the county and the new City of Marco Island. Those negotiations have produced absolutely no agreements, there's been nothing resolved, they are at a complete standstill, and we're disappointed in that. Realizing that that situation obtained (sic.) about three weeks ago, John Norris was kind enough to talk with me, and we discussed all of these areas of disagreement in the transition of services, trying to make the thing seamless, if you will. We went through all of the areas of disagreement, and between ourselves, odd referendum to the council and odd referendum to you, we disposed of all of the issues. Then I took that package to Mr. Moss, and he reviewed it and he liked it and had no changes. He said you made quite a lot of concessions, Commissioner Norris must be a tough negotiator. And then he took it to Mr. Fernandez, Commissioner Norris did. The only two items in that package that Mr. Fernandez agreed to were the cable franchise agreement, which you did recently, and the park agreement for the 99-year lease. And that's the history of the whole thing. The agreement that -- on the 99-year lease of the parks -- incidentally, the South Beach parking was never a consideration. We never wanted the South Beach parking. We grant that that's regional. The regional parks make money. You -- the other parks lose money. You want out from under that, we'll take them over, but we're not going to pay to operate the parks, unless they're effectively ours to control for a considerable period of time. As far as purchasing them in the future, I don't want to say too much about that. The position of the citizens of Marco Island is they've already paid for them once, and they're not going to pay for them twice. I'd like to leave that open. Once we start operating them, and once we become familiar with these as a service to our citizens, I think there can be an agonizing reappraisal of that purchase position, but not for five years or 10 years. We've got to accumulate some money. What it all boils down to is it's already been negotiated, and the only ones that haven't agreed to it are the commission, and I ask you to do so. Thank you very much. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I had a question -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- for you, Captain Day. Just respectfully, are you speaking on behalf of the council today -- MR. DAY: I am indeed. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- or your own? MR. DAY: The council -- I had a terrible time selling our agreement to the council to operate these parks and to shell out $650,000 to operate the parks. They're the county's parks. So the position of the community, as well as the council was unanimously, Pam, that we aren't going to pay to operate the county's parks. That's why John and I worked out the understanding, fine, make it a 99-year lease, and then you're paying to operate the parks you've leased. And I think that's a reasonable position. And if Mr. Olliff wants to strip everything out of them, we're prepared to spend $100,000 putting it back in. He's already agreed to me out in the hall not to take the sod off the soccer field, and we do appreciate that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's only because it's in bad shape. Just kidding. Just teasing. MR. DAY: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My position is just the same as it has been, and that is that we don't -- we're not going to operate the parks on Marco; the city can choose to operate the parks on Marco or not to choose them, and that's a fiscal decision you'll have to make, but it's certainly not one post incorporation that the general county taxpayer is going to continue to pay for the operation of parks that only serve now City of Marco residents, just like we don't do the parks in the City of Naples, even though, frankly, about 80 percent of those are used by county residents. Those are still paid for and operated by the City of Naples. Likewise, we can't operate parks inside the City of Marco Island that are used by Marco Island residents. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, I think it's important to clarify my position on those two points that Mr. Day mentioned. In each of our discussions between the city manager and myself, I made it clear that the -- thank you. (Sound of speaker bell.) COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Time's up. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Next speaker. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: I guess I should have spoken a little faster. I really had something to say, too. I made it clear in my discussions that the -- to the extent that the board had confirmed my position through their tentative adoption of the budget, I felt relatively secure with the position I had taken, the issue of cable franchise. However, I indicated to them consistently from the beginning of our discussions that the means for Marco Island to realize the potential to receive those revenues would be for them to adopt their own ordinance, and then it would be a decision of the Board of County Commissioners to amend its franchise agreement to allow those companies to franchise with Marco Island separately from the Board of County Commissioners. That's not something that I said would happen, I said that was going to be up to the Board of County Commissioners. Also, on the 99-year lease, I didn't commit that the board had approved that. I didn't object to it. I said it sounded like something that I was willing to bring before the board. But I didn't want those two issues to be characterized as issues that I had agreed on on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Fernandez, from my side, when these items do come to us and you have had discussions with the city manager and are comfortable with something, in that hearing I need to hear that. I need to know that you either do or do not agree that something is reasonable. Because the history of that discussion is important to us in making policy decisions. So as we go through any additional items with Marco, I would like to have the benefit of that discussion and what your feelings are on that, and then of course we are left to make the policy decision. So that would be helpful. I'm sitting here considering, trying to make an analogy with the parks. I understand what Councilman Day is saying. I don't agree that -- you know, the people of North Naples don't, you know, own certain parks because they have paid into them and they're community parks, nor did the people of Marco Island own those parks because they had paid taxes for a set period of time. Those were part of the county inventory. County-wide, period, and anyone could use them. We were a whole, a unit, if you will, not separate entries that all were added up to a single one. However, when we look at the charter of Marco Island, the roads, for example. Well, they became a city, you get the roads and bridges, as is, period, here they are. Now, those weren't paid for solely by the people of Marco Island, they were paid for in a road district that included Marco Island, as well as areas outside of Marco. If we're treating infrastructure, like roads, that way I start to wonder why we're treating neighborhood parks or would want to treat them differently. And that is almost making an argument for a 99-year lease, because again, the 99 years, the capital investment we have on Marco, isn't worth anything. It will have depreciated to zero by then. So I guess I'm asking the board to consider whether the parks should be considered on a policy basis differently than infrastructure such as roads, or if water and sewer were there. And the only reason I can see that they would be is because of the immediately adjacent communities that may wish to use them and what value is placed on that. So I think that's really where the difference between a 99-year lease and a 10 or 20-year lease comes is are they part of the infrastructure that Marco is -- receives by way of incorporation. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Captain Day, may I ask you a question? Do you or the council have any problem with the nondiscriminatory language included if there's a long-term lease on the parks -- MR. DAY: No, no. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- to make those available to -- MR. DAY: In fact, we put that in our memorandum to you, Tim, that there -- we will not have different fees for Marco Island residents and for non-residents, and we will not exclude -- we don't want to operate them as a private Marco Island club. We really don't. The problem is that you don't want to spend $800,000 operating parks on Marco Island. We aren't too happy about spending $650,000 to operate those parks on Marco Island, but we're willing to do it. But we're not willing to do it when we don't have something that is almost titled to the parks. That's -- that's really the position we're taking. You know, the -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've got to say, I think I'm -- I'm being persuaded to go with the longer term lease, and the thought is very simple in that it is similar to other services that are being provided that we simply are turning over. And I'm not saying that we turn over, but a long-term lease, I think there's some comfort level there. I just think in terms -- I'm trying to place myself in your situation, and would I want to worry that five years from now we may not. Suddenly the county may take back parks and -- MR. DAY: You're right, Commissioner. For instance, we want the -- and we put it in the thing, and there isn't any reason why we shouldn't get the community park impact fees, if we're going to be operating our community parks. We want to take those community impact fees and improve those facilities, to which you'll still have title under the 99-year lease. And we don't want to do that, if we don't have some long-term lease on them. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think the -- MR. DAY: As far as, you know, what Commissioner Hancock said, it is a little different than North Naples. The parks by and large were donated by the developer or otherwise to the county. You know, you didn't buy them, you got them for nothing. And that doesn't mean they don't have value, and that doesn't mean you don't have a fiduciary responsibility to protect all the citizens of the county for real estate, but you're really in the business of public service and not in the real estate profit business, so it is a little different. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But Mr. Day, we spend a -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If I can -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- fortune after the land's donated. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If I can complete my thoughts. I mean, the city's going to benefit. The big concern I have had with the -- all of our agreements with the City of Naples is each one that we get into now, when we agreed to do things together, we end up having to interject or put in a interlocal agreement of some sort that would allow everyone to use them so we don't have a surprise and -- somewhere down the road. And if we can prevent that on the front end, again, for a long term, that is not only accruing to the benefit of the City of Marco, it seems to me that accrues to the benefit to have a long-term agreement to the residents of the county to be able to go and utilize those parks, knowing that that's for 50 years or 99 years, or whatever the time frame is. I do think of an analogy in Golden Gate community where I live, a couple of blocks from me is the Aaron Lutz Park. It's a little neighborhood park. There have been some county general improvements on that in the last couple of years, but the land was originally donated as part of the agreement with the developer. A lot of the initial work done on that was done by the developer. If Golden Gate -- heaven forbid, but if Golden Gate were to incorporate -- MR. DAY: They won't. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- I wouldn't -- I certainly hope not, but would -- I would not expect the county to turn over the community park where the swimming pool, softball fields and all those things are. I would think that the neighborhood park where the neighborhood has put some of their own money, time, effort and so on would be a fair thing to assume belonged to that community. And so I think Captain Day has persuaded me that we need to take a step of goodwill here, as much as anything, and go ahead and have some sort of agreement. There are going to be -- on that list of 15, there are going to be things we may go to the mat on. For me, this isn't one of them. I think we're trying to provide -- we being the city and the county -- recreational opportunities to the residents of Marco and to the public, but in these community parks, primarily to the residents of Marco, I think it would be a giant step of goodwill for us to go ahead and give a long-term agreement so that the city knows that, the residents of the city know that, and the residents of the county know they have the opportunity to use those in the exact same manner that the city residents do for some long-term period. So I think I like the staff recommendation with the exception of the term. I'd like to go back to a longer term on that. Turn over the other two small parks, title included, to you, and I'm comfortable -- I know you made the comment that Mr. Olliff wants to strip the parks. I am comfortable that we are providing it with -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Furniture. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- furnishings intact, and that there are some maintenance things that we need elsewhere in the county. Because they're not solely rent-free -- MR. DAY: If we've got the 99-year lease, we don't have any problem at all, Commissioner, with the taking of the material. We don't like it, but we're prepared to make that kind of investment. The other thing that you wisely said is you wanted to hold out an olive branch and do this for us. We think it's a fair agreement. We have already made concessions, as you know, in intergovernmental agreements to precipitate this kind of a concession on your part. You kindly wrote each member of the council a letter saying you wanted a highly cooperative arrangement between us and would we reconsider the odd grant, and we did that, and we appreciated that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I do think it's a fair agreement. And really, more importantly, I think it is a very important step in developing a cooperative relationship between the two of us. And we talked last week about the cable franchise. I don't feel the same way on that. I do have some concerns about that. MR. DAY: We'll be back on that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm sure you will. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But that -- I mean, that's an example of where we may have disagreement and we may scrap a little, but I think this is one of basic recreational services to the public, and together we can provide that. And no one -- I don't see anyone being harmed by this agreement. I see the public being served. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What term are you considering? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm comfortable with the long term. Whether that's -- that may be -- maybe some commissioners aren't comfortable with 99, maybe some commissioners aren't comfortable with five. Perhaps you find something in between. Maybe it's a 50-year term, I don't know. But something long enough to give the city some assurance that they can go ahead and do what they need to do in those parks in providing that service. MR. DAY: We are prepared to accept a term that is as long as the life expectancy of the youngest commissioner. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, God, that's 75 years. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If we're going to do this, and it appears that we are, and I can see the positive sides to it, as long as the availability of the parks for general county use remains the same as it is today. I may surprise you by saying this, but why would we not deed the parks? If we're going to lease them for 99 years -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There's a simple answer to that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- why don't we deed them? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There's a simple answer to that, and that CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And what is it? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: The answer is that in the lease agreement we are going to set down the -- some of the things that we would normally put in an interlocal agreement, such as the nondiscriminatory language and so forth and so on. If you simply give a flat title, you've lost that measure of influence over the park system. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That would certain -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's a very simple answer. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, that would definitely be true if we were giving an unrestricted deed. But the strongest possible way -- as a real estate lawyer, I -- and David will tell you if I'm wrong. But as a real estate lawyer -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's two plugs today. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, yeah. God, that's good. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the phone number is -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And my phone number. No. The fact of the matter is that leases are weaker legal documents than deeds. So if we are going to have a lease with a term -- with specific limitations in it, we would only be protecting the public more strongly if we deeded it with a deed restriction that said in no event shall there be any restriction. At least if there's a lease, David, will it be recorded so that that's -- MR. WEIGEL: Oh, absolutely. In fact, all interlocal agreements we record, too. And if I may, and to segue into this, I had raised one finger to jump in also in that the consideration of a lease for a long period of time, depending on one's point of view what becomes long, I wanted to let the board know for their informed decision-making that as long as the county is an underlying landowner, or landlord, if you will, it retains potential liability, notwithstanding whomever the lessee may be. And in a lease arrangement, we can provide for all the indemnification provided by law, and even have insurance policies built in to attempt to keep the county whole or close to whole. But from a legal standpoint, we would most typically be a co-defendant in any lawsuit for personal injury accident that might occur over the course of the lease term. Or, just as another example, if something cataclysmic occurred and it became a superfund solid waste cleanup site, we're still the owner of any individual piece of property that -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That explains -- MR. WEIGEL: -- that kind of issue. So in approaching 99 years, if -- it's not a question then of a sale for value, because essentially everything's amortized long before that. It may be that the outright conveyance with restrictions, as Ms. Mac'Kie has indicated in the conveyance document, or separate contract, might be something to contemplate here, and still reach the goals of all the parties. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Legal question along that line. And this is not to insinuate anything, it's because I don't know the answer. I read recently there is a group who's entertaining the idea of trying to dissolve the city. In the unlikely event that should happen, what would happen if we deeded these over to the City of Marco, five years from now, two years from now, 20 years from now, the city was dissolved, what then happens to those parks? MR. WEIGEL: Well, that's the question of the day, I presume. But we could conceivably provide for that in the conveyance document itself, that upon whatever conditions, and this being a condition, if that proviso should occur, that ergo something happens and the property comes back to us, but we may want some -- you may not want back that property either. Depending on the state of it at some point in time. And that would have to be looked at very closely. But you may. There obviously -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, while I don't anticipate that happening, I think the most important thing both us and the city need to consider is whatever happens in the future, we want to make sure the parks are still available to the public in a reasonable manner, and so I would think we'd want to protect the citizens in the unlikely event that that were to happen. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we could have the option of a reverter in the event of a dissolution. MR. WEIGEL: I would think that that'd be the clearest way to do it, although I expect that just by the operation of law, law will operate. Where there is a vacuum, in the sense that the property will not become disenfranchised, if the city were to disincorporate that. The assets and liabilities of the city that are in the form of public properties probably would go to the county, although I'd like to think that in the process, the county might have an ability to work with the legislature in that regard. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two more quick questions, one for Captain Day. Would you have any objection if the county were to deed those properties to the City of Marco Island? MR. DAY: No. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let the record show -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let the record reflect no and applause. Commissioner Norris, you had just expressed a little bit of a concern. I don't know if Mr. Weigel answered those, or if you would be comfortable doing that. It's your district. So I want to make sure there's a comfort level with you if we do approach that. Again, I think the most important thing is for providing -- we, being both the city and the county -- those recreational opportunities to the city residents and they're still open to the county residents. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think the pertinent points would be if the commissioners are now leaning to deeding the properties outright, that what you would want to do is to make sure that you have the reverter that -- and in certain instances, or certain circumstances, I should say, that the property would revert back to the ownership of the county. And also, you would want to have a well thought out interlocal agreement for the operation of that park so that we don't have unforeseen operational problems in the future. But given those parameters, I think that that's fine. Ownership or a 99-year lease is essentially the same, as far as anybody in this room's concerned. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Except for the residents of Hong Kong, as I said before. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- I'm going to make a motion that we do exactly that, that we deed the properties to the City of Marco, recognizing that taking care of the citizens of Marco are citizens of Collier County, and recognizing that we're taking care of all of our citizens that way. And I'll just say, to encompass your comments there, and we'll work out the legal reverter or deed restrictions, as part of that and make sure that the City of Marco is comfortable with that, and the county's comfortable with that, but I just think it's in the best interest of everyone involved if we go ahead and do that, making sure we protect the rest of the citizenry -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Other than that -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- for availability of use -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- all of -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- the staff report? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And -- yeah. And including the staff report as far as deed to the smaller parks, the impact fee issue -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- that we do keep the maintenance type equipment, and that the county operate -- continue to operate our regional parks. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Boy, you want to talk about ending up somewhere you didn't think you were going to go. When this meeting started, the idea of deeding these properties just was probably the least attractive option on the plate and one that I had discarded entirely. I understand the direction the board is taking. My question that the council will have to answer is, are you willing to provide park service to non Marco residents for eternity by accepting the deed to this property? MR. DAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And if they are, then I don't think we have lost anything for the residents of Collier County that do not live on Marco Island. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think that should be stated. I mean, I think -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It has to be one of the restrictions of -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- ought to be a part of the document -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Condition of the deed. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Condition -- whatever. I hate to use the word restriction, but I think a condition that that should be included in. MR. OLLIFF: I'm taking from this that certain of those terms are going to be the deed restrictions that are -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. MR. OLLIFF: -- enclosed, included with the deed that you will approve. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me ask a question on enforceability of deed restrictions, and one -- something that's very close to the heart and minds of people on Marco Island. Should a county resident go down there and complain that they were being charged five dollars more an hour to play tennis than a Marco resident, what's the enforceability? Does that individual have to file suit, does the county file suit? What is -- where do we go if it's a deed restriction? What is the course of action at that point? MR. WEIGEL: Well, again -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I could ask Commissioner Mac'Kie, who is a real estate attorney, but -- phone number 555 -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Stop it. MR. WEIGEL: Well, hopefully we can put sufficient detail in there so it doesnwt have -- it doesnwt have a trigger for reversion, based upon an individual incident. At the same -- it would have to be a matter thatws taken up by the Board of County Commissioners. Wewve learned in the past that where you have automatic reverters, things of this nature, it creates problems for reviewers of title from all walks of life and business, because nothing should happen automatically, it should require the owner of that interest or that reversionary interest to go on the record and see things through that way. Now, in regard to the standing of an individual or an enforceability where therews a fee disparity, as an example, well, again, I think that that could probably be enforced by injunctive relief or whatws called a writ of mandamus, where an organ of government is mandated through a court of law to do what it is legally required to do. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: And so I think that there are some individual relief valves there that donwt necessarily trigger the reversion of the property interest either. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And another thing is that in the end you have to look to the honorability of the government bodies, and certainly if therews an interlocal agreement in place, everybody involved is going to honor that. And it shouldnwt be a problem or a question. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Iwm going to ask that the motion maker entertain one more restrictive element to the deed, and that is that the property shall be used in perpetuity for a public park. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER MACwKIE: Second the amends. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thatws something that wasnwt mentioned, but I think itws something that again, because we do have a county-wide capital investment there, that that is a sufficient request, I would -- or acceptable request, I would hope. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good catch, good catch. MR. DAY: If I may, I just spoke with our manager, and we'll place the requirement that employees provide equal access to all county residents to the parks in our administrative code -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wonderful. MR. DAY: -- which makes it a violation of personnel regulations to deny anybody equal access. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wonderful. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion -- MR. OLLIFF: In closing, I have to comment that it's also a lot nicer negotiating with Captain Day than it is having him on the other side of the table. And we'll try and remember to leave that sod green side up when we leave it for you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: In the event you do pick it up, would you spray the area with green paint, please? MR. OLLIFF: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, I seconded it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You did second it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And you go along with all of the -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Do we have any speakers on this item? MR. FERNANDEZ: None others, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right, I'll call for the question. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. It is after our noon hour, but I -- Commissioner Constantine assures me that the next item will be a very short item, so Commissioner Constantine? Item #8C2 - Moved from Item #16C2 STAFF TO PROCEED THROUGH THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS PROVESS TO SELECT AN ARCHITECTURAL FIRM TO PROVIDE DESIGN SERVICES FOR A NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL LIBRARY TO BE LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF ORANGE BLOSSOM DRIVE AND AIRPORT PULLING ROAD - APPROVED COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 16(C)(2), now 8(C)(2), was having to do with the architectural and the planning for a regional library facility up on the corner where our animal control facility is now. One of the things I would just ask the board to ask our staff to entertain is that the architecture perhaps should include future consideration for being the central library at some point in time. You chuckle, but I'm serious in that not necessarily now, because we have so many of our facilities, but there's so many of our facilities located on Central, but that is -- there's a certain life to that. I think when you look at the population center for the community, it is currently at Pine Ridge and Airport Road. It's going to continue to travel both north and east. And so I'm looking long-term that that may be something we want to plan and allow availability for that property for future expansion, so that as the improvements we just did a few years ago over time start to wear at the current central facility, we may look at a truly centralized central library. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine, I like the idea as long as you -- I would hate for it to be misrepresented publicly within the city, the confines of the city in any way, shape or form, but you're right, realistically if it's going to be one of the larger branches we have, I think it's a terrific idea. And -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As we look at 20 years, we look at a population of 400,000, 378,000, whatever our down-sizing number is going to be, and if we're going to have one central facility 20 years from now, we probably ought to make sure all of those services are readily available, instead of filled. Right now the system we have works perfectly. I'm not suggesting we change anything there. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I knew you weren't. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just so we can plan a long-term plan for that property. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let me ask one other thing: Before this is finalized, will there be a sketch, a real good rendering of what this building will look like? MR. JONES: Before we award construction or go out to bid for the construction, we'll give you a sketch. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I move approval of the item. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Olliff and Mr. Jones have worked very closely with the adjoining neighbors. With that, I second the motion. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. Any public speakers? Probably no public speakers on this item. Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, there are. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Would they like to talk? MR. FERNANDEZ: Cindy Hellinger. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: She doesn't wish to speak on this. I'll call for the question then. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. We are now recessed for lunch. We'll see you about 1:30. (Luncheon recess.) Item #SD1 - Added AGREEHENT FOR AUDITING SERVICES (RFP 98-2794) - APPROVED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We'll reconvene the meeting, starting with item 8(D)(1), approval of the agreement for the auditing service, RFP-98. Mr. Cornell? MR. CORNELL: Thank you, Madam Chairman. For the record, Steve Cornell, purchasing, general services director. The recommendation for you is the follow-up to last week's discussion in which we were directed by the board to negotiate an agreement with the second ranked firm for the annual audit contract. We have done that this week and have reached an agreement in substance with KPHG Pete Marwick and are asking the board's approval of that agreement today. We're prepared to answer questions at this point. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second to approve this item, noting too that this is $1,200 less -- MR. CORNELL: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- than what we had talked about with Arthur Anderson. MR. CORNELL: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And apparently meets the requirements of. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Liability. Good job. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Do we have any speakers on this topic? MR. FERNANDEZ: None. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Having heard none, all in favor? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries four-zero. Item #BE1 QUARTERLY REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT - FISCAL YEAR 1998 - PRESENTED Hoving on then to item 8(E)(1), the quarterly revenue and expenditure report, fiscal year 1998. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, good morning -- or good afternoon, excuse me. For the record, Michael Smykowski, OHB director. In the interest of time, I'll be brief. This is the report on revenues and expenses through the first half of the fiscal year. And just in terms of highlights in comparison to the previous report, I'm happy to report that right now sales tax projections look better than we had estimated during the budget process to the tune of a half million dollars. In addition, in one month's time, and prior to the adoption of the final millage rates, we will have the June revenue sharing numbers for the county revenue sharing program. The significance of that is that June is the last month of the state fiscal year, and that's kind of the so-to-speak make or break month in terms of whether or not we receive a windfall of revenue. (At which time, Commissioner Hancock returns to the boardroom.) MR. SHYKOWSKI: So that will be a known quantity as we head into our final public hearings in September. And that will -- that coupled with the sales tax will undoubtedly give the board some latitude to either -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Reduce taxes. MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- fund some additional items or reduce taxes. Staff would bring forth a recommendation. Again, in early September, we'll have two months more of actual sales tax revenue receipts for the year, and then we'll essentially just be guessing at what the final month will be. So at this point in time we would hold off, but at this point, it looks positive to the tune of a half million dollars. Also, the state revenue sharing estimates for fiscal year 1999 are slightly above what we had budgeted as well, so we may have some latitude there as well. Again, that will be in part contingent upon the revenues we receive through the end of this year, as kind of our launching pad to estimate revenues for the upcoming year. The other thing of note in the report is that obviously impact fees, I think it's no surprise to anyone that there's a lot of growth and development going on within the county. Construction has been exceedingly good and remains strong throughout the course of the year. And within the impact fee funds we have updated our estimates. Typically in late August we update all of our capital projects funds, not only for additional revenue that may or may not be forthcoming, typically in the case of the impact fees it has been higher than typically budgeted. But in addition, we revised our capital project forecasts for projects that we anticipate actually getting under contract prior to the close of the fiscal year to minimize the number of carryforward budget amendments that we would have to start at the beginning of fiscal year 1999 with. So overall, again, the trend is positive, and there will undoubtedly be some latitude magnitude at this point, still a little bit unknown, but there -- it is good news. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, any questions? Commissioner Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just one, and I've already discussed it with the county administrator, and it has to do with the format of the report and that we were very specific about the format in which we wanted to receive this information, particularly with regard to the expenditures and those benchmarks. And I trust you're going to have that in that format for the next quarter? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Sure. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: You guys probably don't recall that. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yeah, this is the second one in the new format, so any feedback you have -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, no, let me be clear then, Mike, or maybe Mr. Fernandez will just take care of this. There was a form proposed that was very readable -- oh, there, go, Tim, you've got it with you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Back in March of 1997, the board directed that the format of the quarterly budget presentation be changed to meet the format I have in my hand here. One, I like the graphic representation, I don't have any problem with it. I think it's good. But this showed quarterly and cumulative by section, by department and overall. And this was a result of the budget ad hoc committee we had prior to Mr. Fernandez coming on staff as our county administrator. This hasn't been done. And it was asked for in March of 1997. And I actually had a note here on the top to send an E-mail to you about getting together with me on this, so we can -- I can save myself the E-mail today -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because I've already done it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And so I would like for you to read also the minutes of that meeting that are attached here also to give you the depth and background of why we requested this. But it was requested by the board five-oh and hasn't been done yet. I think in the change of county manager to county administrator, it may just have slipped through the cracks, but we're here to catch it. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Commissioner Mac'Kie had previously called this to my attention, I've spoken to Mr. Smykowski about that, and the next quarterly report will be in fact be in that format. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you very much. MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Very good. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay, it will be in greater detail, you understand. This was kind of -- we had worked with GNCA subsequent to the board's direction to develop this new format, which is now 30 pages from a one-page summary report. And that was kind of what we had come up with working in conjunction with Janet Vasey and Eric Watler. But if you're looking for greater detail yet, that's fine -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman? MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- and we will accommodate that request. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Next report will be in that format. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Very good. Any other questions or comments? All right, I believe this was an information -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- item only? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct. Again, acting -- we will have latitude to act on the additional revenue in the -- at the public hearings in September on the budget. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, very good. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you very much. Item #9A DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION TO STAFF REGARDING THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT PLAN - STAFF TO ADDRESS THE DELETION OF CATEGROY C LINE ITEM AND CONSOLIDATE CATEGROY B1; ROLL CATEGROY B INTO AN ANNUAL PROPOSAL; MUSEUMS TO BE ADDRESSED; ALL GAPS TO BE CLOSED AND BROUGHT BACK THE FIRST OF OCTOBER Moving on then to item 9(A), discussion and direction to staff regarding the tourist development plan. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is the long awaited Constantine plan that we have talked about and actually waited on a couple of items for. And by way of history, the category C we all know has kind of a storied history. We have tinkered with it and altered it several times in an attempt to come up with a way that works effectively. We have had some very good successes. And I don't know that they get enough attention. The bowling tournament has brought in several hundred beds every year, sometimes well over a thousand beds every year, has worked very, very well and done what it was laid out to. We've had different sporting events or softball tournaments that have been to the benefit not only for tourism, but the monies raised at those have gone toward Little League and other events. So we have had our successes. Unfortunately, we've had some high profile failures or not so successful events as well -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Failures. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- ranging from Fantasy and Fire and others. And so category C, I think, has been a question mark for us literally from day one. The first year, as a matter of fact, we had almost no applications and went a couple of years trying to figure out how to expend it, and we've tinkered and tinkered and tinkered. Category B, or the promotional funds, have always been awarded piecemeal, and they've gone out to different groups at different times during the year, and we've staggered that. And you end up with a duplication of administrative costs sometimes when you have different groups doing different promotional activities. But you also have a difficult time trying to balance each item against other expenditures, because you may see one in October, you may see one in April, you see some special events come to us in -- or special requests come to us in July or August, and you don't have a chance to put each of those in perspective and balance them as a priority against the other. And so I'd like to see us do a couple of things: I'd like to see us get rid of the category C category or separate line item altogether and kind of roll that into a new category B. And so we would still have the opportunity to have special events, but not have those come to us one at a time piecemeal throughout the year. I'd like to see category B rolled into one award annually to a professional group or groups, a coalition of groups, who would lay out a proposal within specific guidelines that the TDC and us would set. And so once a year, have one annual proposal for an entire promotional plan. Now, you might set aside whatever the appropriate percentage is; for special events, for example, I don't know what our percentage is right now, whether that's five percent or eight percent. But still set that aside, and make that part of -- a required part of the proposal. But it would give us an opportunity to look at a promotional plan for an entire year, as opposed to bits and pieces of different plans over the course of a year. And I would suggest probably the best way to do that is to have an opportunity for a couple of extensions, if we are happy with the job done by that group. So that what you could potentially see is the same group do that for a three-year span before you had a whole fresh set of proposals. And that's just standard marketing practice on something of this size. It's not unusual to have a three-year marketing plan, to have something you'd phase in and try to be consistent with over a period of time. I don't have in mind any particular group. I don't have in mind -- I do have in mind some specific guidelines, but I'm open to work with each of you and with the TDC on those. It just seems to me the way we are doing it right now has not proved to be the most efficient, and if we can take government one step out of that process, let the professionals do their job, do what they do, and do it in a much more efficient manner by doing it without duplication of the administrative fees and different advertisings, we end up with a better situation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just in my anticipation of the Constantine proposal coming forward here, I've sort of used it as a chance to piggyback one other idea on, and it's also -- it's the third item in our little office memorandum here that we got. And that is just presently you know that museums are allowed to be funded -- upon application, they're allowed to be funded, and we fund the Collier County Museum to some extent. The state laws allows museums to be funded, whether they're privately or publicly owned, so long as a not-for-profit owns them and they are available for use by the public. I'm asking that we also broaden that just very slightly to allow applications to be made by not-for-profit publicly available museums that happen to be privately owned in the continuing tenure of our, you know, public/private partnerships, just to open the door for that possibility of application. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think that's probably a commonsense approach, because if we are recognizing that museums can be beneficial to tourism, surely we're not suggesting that only those operated by us can be beneficial. I think if there are other not-for-profit groups that are doing a good job out there, it all falls under the same category, or certainly should. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't agree fully with, you know, all of the recommendations here. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before you go too far, by the way, the written copy you have is what went to the TDC, and I wanted you to see that. Some of that has been tinkered with since then, so I -- the letter of that, there have been some changes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, I understand. And this is obviously -- what it seems we're talking about today is not tweaking but almost a holistic change in the approach of how we expend or how we allocate tourist tax dollars, with the exception of obviously cat -- what's now called category B-1. I don't think anyone's saying we want to affect the promotion amounts. I hope I don't hear anyone saying we want to affect the beach renourishment dollars, because that is the primary purpose of tourist development tax. But when we start talking about whether it be eliminating or reallocating category C, what we're really talking about doing is developing a whole new animal. If we're going to open it up to not-for-profit museums, per se, if we're going to open it up to acquisition of historically significant properties, there are several things out there that -- you know, not a month goes by I don't get approached by somebody about a new way to spend tourist tax dollars. And I think there's a lot of competition in the community over how people feel these things should be spent. And if we're going to look at wholesale changes to that, I think we need to go back to the voters on that. If -- you know, tweaking is one thing, adding a use or eliminating a use is one thing, but to actually change either the distribution or the application of the dollars within a category significantly is something I think we need to go back and ask the voters to do. And I think those people that are supportive of historic preservation would love the opportunity to educate the public on the importance of that and whether or not it should or shouldn't be funded by tourist tax dollars and how it can or cannot help tourism. I'm not a fan right now of in any way eliminating category C, because I feel like I brought forward a proposal several months ago to try and improve the way in which we handle category C, and that was, you may remember, we approved a non-voting member to the TDC who has a background in event planning and whatnot as a third party; someone from the outside who can help give us guidance and direction, and maybe even help us to devise the standards and the protocol that need to be in place to ensure the events are successful. I've had two such people contact me that have extensive qualifications in that area. And I've been waiting to put them on because Commissioner Constantine had something he was working on and they seemed to be at cross purposes. So I'm not willing to give up on category C until I feel like we have had someone with expertise and background in that area give us the information we need to make category C a successful operating category. I don't think we've had that opportunity yet. I'd like to see us do that before I eliminate it or before it's reallocated. When it comes to the other issues, such as competition -- and Commissioner Hac'Kie, the points you bring up are good ones and they're things I've heard, and why can't it be used for historic preservation? We all know that, you know, people's ties to their own community and their beliefs in their own community, when you have that history available there for them to reach out and touch, to experience, it makes a difference in how people see their own community, it makes a difference in the pride they take in their community. And that all manifests itself in hundreds of different ways. It's something that makes sense, that it's good for the tourists, but it's also good for the community and should be funded to some degree. So I guess for now, the things I see that we can operate, I'm comfortable doing without going back to the voters, is if we want to make category B(2) a single entity, fine, let's find out what that entity should be, how it should operate, what its structure should be. No problem there. I really don't want to eliminate or roll category B-2 money into category B-1. The similar events, yes. I mean, let's face it, we've taken hits on category B-2 like it's going out of style. I mean, every time we have one that isn't a -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's hope it is going out of style. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that isn't a resounding success, we all take a political hit. And government's not the best event planner in the world, and we don't seem to have a great track record. But one of the things that category B-2 has gone wrong in, in my opinion, is -- and you mentioned the bowling tournament, I agree, it's very successful, but it's supposed to be seed money. We're going on eight -- how many years of funding that tournament? Five years of funding the same bowling tournament, yet they've never gotten private sponsors to come in and pick up where TDC dollars are. I thought it was intended to be seed money. The second thing category C events do that doesn't get a lot of press is like the Silver Slam fishing tournament this year. You know how many kids participated in that thing? It was something that did draw people in, although a limited number, but it was again intended as seed money, and the result was people came in from out of town and local people got an opportunity to participate in an event in the summertime. And let's face it, if you live here year-round, summer's really the time you enjoy. I mean, it's kind of the time you take the town back. So I think there are other benefits of category C that I just don't want to relinquish at this point until I feel like we have tried exhaustively to make them work. So those are the directions I hope we take. And the proposal you have, Commissioner Hac'Kie, I think it's a good one, but I think it's significant enough that we would need to restructure the funds, and that's something I think the voters ought to have a voice in. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let me be perfectly clear, though, about my proposal, just as you're making your decision, that we currently '- I'm proposing to add maybe four words. Right now we have said museums can be funded by. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But we've said only Collier County owned museums can be. And I would like to make that not-for-profit publicly available museums, in addition to. I don't think that's a change that the voters need to hear. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's not, except that we expend 100 percent of those funds right now on the county museum, and on additional projects -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's the problem. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- there's no money available. So it's almost as if, if we're going to add something, we're going to have to take away from the existing museums or reallocate from somewhere else. I was taking the next step on that, actually. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: One of the biggest problems, when we looked at this at the TDC meeting, was the dollars that are already there are being used, I believe, by the county museum. And we said well, what would be the funding source? Where -- at what group can you take -- where are you allowed to take those dollars? And we didn't have an answer for that. So that's why at this point in time, unless there's some other kind of a move made, there's not a funding -- quote, funding source of dollars -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I guess I was -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- that we could see. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I had kind of jumped ahead, because I like the idea of putting B and C together and having an annual plan for how those dollars are spent, not an arbitrary separation that we've made about how many dollars, what percent and what category. As I recall, with the way the ballot question read, it was beaches and promotion of tourism and -- in the off season, and special events. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's right. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But did it say what percentage for each of those things, and was it that specific? I don't know. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I know Commissioner Norris, once again, and I just want to answer that question real quick, and that is I've tried to craft this so that it does in fact stay within -- I have been the biggest critic of us trying to change what the voters approved. And this does not change distribution and does not change allocation, doesn't change any of those percentages or any of those '- I've been very, very careful. This in fact goes right to the heart of what the voters approved and does it in one fell swoop annually instead of piecemeal where we kind of have a -- seem to be having difficulty prioritizing things. But I have purposely -- I appreciate your concern there, because that's been one that has bothered me throughout, as we seem to drift sometimes from what the voters approved. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But under your proposal, we would not. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just want to clarify. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It would stay consistent -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let me just -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- with the '92 ballot. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let me just point out, you received a document today from Ms. Ashton. If you will go to page three of that document where it talks about the category C funding, it says the amount zero to 490,000, the amount budgeted for this category by the Board of County Commissioners each fiscal year, but not to exceed seven percent. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And what I'm saying is that's the -- in the ordinance that we adopted, but that's not -- I don't believe that was in the referendum that was voted on. I don't think people said okay, I'll vote for this, but only if you don't spend more than seven percent on museums. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, there's a limit to what you can put in a referendum. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So this is our language, this is not the voters' language. And so I think we could change this, as long as we stay within -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm going to let Commissioner Norris speak, and then I want to add two cents' worth as a result of our meeting the other night. Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I think we've all touched on the part of the question that I was going to ask and that is, what did the referendum say? Did the referendum -- Mr. Weigel, did it have any specific percentage allocations or limitations in it? MR. WEIGEL: I don't recall that it did. And Ms. Ashton -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Hihalic might know. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sure we can get a copy of it, but my recollection is some lump allocations that "X" percent will go toward beach renourishment and so on, "Y" percent will go toward tourism promotion. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think Greg knows the answer. MR. HIHALIC: We did pull down the referendum question -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Identify yourself. MR. HIHALIC: Excuse me, Greg Hihalic from HUI department. We pulled down both referendum questions, and they did not have any percentages in it at all. They just said shall a two percent tax be levied for beach renourishment, and they listed a number of other issues along with that. That was the total -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So it wasn't specifically allocated. MR. HIHALIC: No, it was not. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But it did have language there mentioning special event funding? MR. HIHALIC: To the best of my recollection. I wish I would have brought it with me. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. MR. HIHALIC: But yes, I think it did say special event functions that will promote the off season. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. I understand and share your frustration about some of the category C events that have been held. I guess in defense of the Board of Commissioners, we I think voted to give money, for example, to the fireworks in good faith, and since at that point we don't have any further control on how successful the event's going to be, sure, it wasn't as successful as it could have been, but I don't know that we have to take all of the blame on that. We did in good faith put those dollars out there to try to do exactly what they were meant to do. But I think the special event portion of the TDC funding is important and can be structured to work well. I understand we've got problems and I recognize that, but I think we need to work on solving the problems rather than getting rid of category C and special event funding. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree, and I don't want you to misunderstand my proposal. I'm not suggesting that we no longer have special events. I'm suggesting that it be part of that one big overall proposal. And again, referring to -- from a marketing perspective, probably it makes the most economic and efficient business sense to have your special events somehow fit into your overall marketing scheme. You may market those events particularly, they may fit some sort of theme for any given year. (Applause.) COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'm certainly encouraging special events, I'm just saying that, too, should be part of the proposal. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Somebody likes it back there. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks, Dad. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, maybe you need to further explain to us how the dollars would be allocated and delivered. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What I would suggest is we'd have -- and this is -- I'm looking for a conceptual approval from the board today, and the TDC has agreed, if the board gives conceptual approval to have a special meeting between now and their scheduled October meeting. And also, I think the chamber will probably get up and share this with you today, but they're willing to spend some money looking at how other communities not only around Florida but around the country are doing things with their professional things and see what works best for us in our particular format. I'm suggesting that we would have some very specific restrictions and requirements within our request for proposals. You would have to put, whether it's seven percent or whatever that number was, aside for special events. And so we can anticipate on an annual basis what the overall figure would be. That group, as part of their proposal, can suggest okay, we think this event, this event and this event, using up seven percent of those dollars are going to be most appropriate. It will allow us to market those same events over a period of time, and we can plan those in advance. You may have other percentages for other things, but have the TDC and us lay out exactly what those requirements are, and then put out a request for a proposal and have groups submit proposals that meet those requirements. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, isn't one of the primary problems then going to be that you're only allowing one annual window of opportunity for application for special projects? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, and frankly, I don't see that as a problem, I see that as a benefit. One of the problems we've had is we have a real hard time -- and this past TDC meeting was a good example. There was a gentleman who had an event, people -- the TDC had liked a couple months back but didn't like as well as two or three other events, and there wasn't enough money there, so he got bumped to this meeting. And then again, somebody else had submitted after that, so they judged his item and then got to the other one, and there was only partial funding. And I think doing it in that piecemeal fashion and having several windows of opportunity throughout the year is less efficient because you don't have the opportunity to look at all of your options at once and to weigh what is a higher priority, what is the best event, what is the best expenditure of your money. You may spend money on something that seems like a great idea in October, and all of a sudden not have enough to do a much better event in April when you do it piecemeal. And so I don't think it's asking too much for someone to be prepared to plan a special event with the lead time of 12 months. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The problem -- the problem would probably manifest itself more in the little smaller local events that really don't have that amount of pre-planning, a 12 to 18-month period. I know some of the ones that we've had good success with and that we have all really been behind, some of the little local events, for example, the lady band boosters, remember that? They're not going to have something like that ready 18 months beforehand. So in the -- in crafting the proposals, I'd like to see some mechanism to address those little local events that would come in on a less than annual basis. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And perhaps the answer to that is to set aside some tiny amount. Because I don't want to lose what I think is the most efficient use of a multi million dollar marketing plan over a $2,000 item. So maybe we have the ability -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Or vice versa is what I'm saying. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right, and I don't -- exactly. And maybe we'll have an ability to set aside a small amount of money, $10,000 annually, in case special events come, or some amount that won't interfere with the overall good of the marketing plan, but that still allows for those small groups. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Just a moment. I think something that we're missing here, and this is where I think -- I know that since I have been on the Board of County Commissioners and dealt with this particular issue, it seems like it's one of those things that it's like you're trying to reach out and get ahold of it and try to figure out what's the best event and how much money should you really give to a particular event. They come in and they request a million dollars for whatever it is, and how much do you give them? Do you give them 250,000, do you give them 600,000, do you give them the full million? The criteria for giving out the money, in my opinion, is very sketchy at best. It's almost an arbitrary figure that you come up with. And you look at the dollars that you have, and you decide, you look at the merit of the event and see, you know, what they're really going to need, and understanding that a lot of the money is used for advertising when you do give this money to a particular event. What I really think needs to happen here is that we need to take a fresh look; we need some new eyes to take a look at this whole issue on how we allocate dollars for the marketing aspect of it, for the special events. And Tim, I disagree with you a little bit in regard to the special events. You've talked about setting aside $10,000. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Which Tim is that? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Tim Constantine. Not the one on the end, but this one. Some of these events that we have, some of them we have tried to judge because it was the only criteria that really was something you could put your hand on and finger on and say okay, what do you think this will generate in terms of, quote, heads in beds. Okay, we have used that criteria. And yet if you only use that criteria, I think this really narrows the area and your thoughts in terms of what you're looking at. Take the Silver Slam tournament for one example. That didn't bring in a lot of bed nights, but it did bring in something for our community in terms of people coming in -- number one, it did serve 300 -- almost 350 children, okay. We did have -- the number of couples or teams that participated was lower than what they anticipated. They admittedly said that. They were disappointed in that as well. But there was a number of people. This was the first year that they had this particular tournament. But did these people that participated, did they go and did they purchase things at stores and did -- you know, what was their community involvement in this whole particular event? That was just one item. You look at the bowling event. Yes, it brought in people to spend the night, okay? They probably participated in the heads on beds thing, criteria that we have used. And if you look at those numbers and compare that to the Silver Slam tournament, if you only use that one criteria, you'd say the Silver Slam tournament was not successful. But I'm telling you that if you talked to the people that were involved, not only the persons that organized the tournament but the people who had been involved with that tournament, be it the children, the people who participated, they're going to tell you that was a very successful event. And that's what this tourist tax in my opinion is all about. Beds on heads (sic), absolutely. That's the promotion part of it that we're talking about. The promotion of the entire county of Collier. Not just one little area, the whole county. Be it Everglades City, be it Immokalee, be it Golden Gate, be it Marco Island, anything in between. And I think we have natrowed this down where we get strictly -- and I'm going to be most unpopular for this, but we get down to strictly hotels and the promotion of those particular houses. That's fine. That's part of it. That is part of the tourism. But that's not all of it. Now, what we need is for somebody to come in here and tell us how we can take a look and encompass be it museums -- I know, I'm looking at Ms. Franks over there, I know she's going to tell us that she's interested in one particular house. I can tell you that we're sitting out here with Robert's Ranch in Immokalee, which we could show the public an actual -- eventually get to the point where we could have a working ranch so this particular thing is not lost to the citizenry of our country. Because you're not going to see this very often. You're going to have kids who will have never experienced this. And so there are certain things that we need to take a look at. We have Palm Cottage that's already in existence. Nothing wrong with that. It's great. If you've not been there, you need to go see it. We have our own Collier County Museum. These are things that do need to be kept and available to the public. The Wash House in Everglades City, which we did participate in. It's remarkable, when you go down there, it's kind of an eye opening thing, you have a greater appreciation for women who participated back in the Thirties and Forties. They had to have lots of muscles. At any rate, but these are the kinds of things, and we need somebody to come in and take a look. I would like to direct staff to come in and get someone to take a look at this whole TDC, come back to us with some kind of a recommendation as to how we need to proceed on this. I am not prepared -- I do not want to do away with special category. I think there's -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Nor do I. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think there's a lot of merit there. And as far as a one-time, a one-shot deal, I'm not sure if the TDC -- Counsel, can we abrogate and do that just once a year? Where do we stand on this, where you make one decision and then you're -- we're out of it? I just -- I have some questions about whether we can really do that. I see -- Tim, I really see merit in getting an overall plan, but my big concern is that we look at all of Collier County and not just a small coastal area. All due respect, I think we need to look at it all. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I really appreciate what you say there, because to tell you the truth, that was the catalyst, that was the reason I brought this forward, is because there is a perception that, as you say, the big hotels and so on are getting the bulk of the attention from the current scenario. And you hear it from the Everglades Chamber and the Immokalee Chamber, I hear it from the Golden Gate Chamber, we hear it from all kinds of organizations. And that's the idea is we can set some parameters in which the whole county must be served, not only geographically but business-wise. It's not just a hotel issue. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Your shops and other things are hopefully benefitting from this as well. So I completely agree that -- and that was the intent of what I'm trying to do is have an annual plan that makes sure we are spreading that effort throughout the county and throughout the different business types -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm also looking for some accountability here. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agreed. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If we can somehow get this -- and again, I think we need some fresh eyes to take a look at it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We have -- your other point was we have struggled -- this board has struggled with what's the appropriate amount. Someone asks for a million dollars, how much do we give them. And that goes back to my thought of the marketing professionals looking at all the things at the same time. Have the opportunity to pick what are those priorities and what are appropriate expenditures, whomever it is that we ultimately select to make that proposal. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, my question in that regard, Tim, is when you say looking at the different groups, whatever they may be, are you talking about in terms of what they would spend for advertising, or selection of a particular activity? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think both. I would think we would have a proposal from -- I've got to assume there would be more than one group would come back with proposals. But let's say the Everglades Chamber is the base for one of these proposals, and they've put together a coalition of people and events. As I envision it, they would come forward with a suggestion of a certain way -- certain amount of money for a certain type of marketing and promotion of our area. They would put a certain amount of money aside for specific events, and they would outline what they see those events being, and give us the opportunity at the beginning of that year to have a very comprehensive look. Because I understand the concern is what happens during that year, and the idea is to have enough speci -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Specificity. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Specificity. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Detail. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Detail, thank you -- for us when we approve or select the best proposal from the best group to be confident that in the year, okay, this is what we're going to see. If we get through that year and everything, we're happy with that direction, then we'd have an opportunity to redo that a couple of times. If it hadn't all panned out as well, or some of those promotional efforts needed to be tuned, we would have the option to look at other proposals in any given year. But my whole thing is not that, you know, we have to decide today all of those things. All three of your points I agree with completely. The other is we should have fresh eyes. And what I was hoping to get from us today is the chamber has said they'll set aside -- the Naples Chamber has said they and the other chambers will set aside a specific amount of money if necessary to hire somebody to come in and take that look. And I thought concurrently we could ask our staff to use their time looking at -- St. Augustine's a great example, because they have all the history up there. And they have a specific approach that works for them based on a lot of that history. Kissimmee has a huge marketing approach, based on the fact they're right in the middle and they're near Disney, but Kissimmee, the middle of it all, the center of it all, I think was their catch phrase for a couple of years. And -- but different places have different approaches. And I thought while the professional came in with the chambers and was that fresh set of eyes, our staff could be collecting those various plans that are already in place around the state. We could assimilate that information and the TDC could assimilate that information and pick and choose. I don't think we're going to be identical to anywhere, but we can pick the best of those. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: When we talk about category B(1), I'm in lockstep with you. The problem is that marketing an area to draw people here is a very, very different scale and approach than evaluating and planning events that both draw people here and are complementary to the community. And if we're saying -- and as I look at the alliance group that is put together and what it involves, these people have been here for years, these people have had the opportunity, if they thought they could plan events, get together in group events and plan events that would draw people here and benefit tourism, I would think we would have seen it by now. But we haven't. And the reason is, there's a very different set of skills required for someone who's goal is to have a first rate event or a series of events to both draw people and complement the community. These are the parameters that have to be set. And you can either go about it by hiring a professional firm whose experience is in doing just that, and using those funds, or you can go about it the way in which we have which has said, you know, come one, come all, show us your plan and we'll try and see what's best. The problem is, I don't think we or the hotels or the TDC possess the evaluative criteria to do that successfully. That's really what CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Agreed. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- it comes to. We just are not event planners, nor are we marketing professionals. So -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Most of us. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Most of -- so, you know, I apologize for that, but -- so I think what it comes down to this, is when it comes to category B(1), I don't want to roll B(2) into B(1) and allow a single entity to decide both, because I think they are distinctively different expenses and require a distinctively different set of whatever you want to call it, experience, whatnot, to handle them evenly and well. But I do want to -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm next. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay, I was going to respond to that. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I see a lot of merit in saying okay, here's our budget. How much is category B(1) each year? How much is it? MR. FERNANDEZ: Twenty-five percent. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Barb, is it a million bucks? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Offhand, I couldn't tell you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Whatever. Let's say it's a million dollars a year, category B(1) for a round number. What's wrong with this board saying let's put out an RFP for someone to come in and show us how they can market and promote Collier County, all of Collier County, at the budget of one million dollars, and have that RFP go through the Tourist Development Council and go through us, instead of adopting an intermediate agency -- or maybe that's the best route, but the RFP process would show it, instead of trying to form an intermediary agency to do just that. You know, the TDC is still going to provide the review. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, yeah. My suggestion isn't to have an -- and I'm sorry, not to have an intermediary agency make that decision for us but to have someone, all these various groups, a group, 10 groups, however many groups, come and make proposals and make those proposals directly to the TDC and directed to us, and then that group would carry out their proposal. No, I'm sorry if -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, I'm glad you clarified that, because that's important. But when it comes to -- and the only solution I can find is the one I offered several months ago, which is to try and diversify the TDC to add someone with experience in category C type events to see if we can't get the criteria established to make that an effective category. Either that or form a separate ad hoc committee to help us establish those criteria, one of those two. And I think we can be more effective in category C. And so I guess I'm not saying anything new, so I'll shut up then. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I was just -- one of the -- one of the benefits of having to wait to get to talk is you get to sort of see how everybody's saying the same thing. It sounds to me like everybody here is saying the same thing with some slight variations. It sounds like that we're all talking about that we want to develop an overall plan for how to spend the money in excess of the beach money, and that that overall plan should include both general promotion and special events, and that there's special expertise required, A, for general promotion, B, for special events, but wouldn't it be wonderful if those were somehow coordinated with an overall plan, and it seems to me that it could all happen, if we had this overall plan for general promotion and then we had a budget for special events, and we had identified the theme for the next three years is so and so, we want to have a fishing tournament, we want to have a tennis tournament, we want to have a bowling tournament, we want to have a -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Golf tournament. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, museum for -- he whispered golf tournament, and I said no. But -- so then those categories exist, and yet they're a part of the plan. And then the applicants don't have to have an 18-year (sic) lead time, they just know that there are going to be categories of events that will be a part of or that will work with our overall marketing plan, and then they come in quarterly, perhaps, to make application. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think, Pam, if you start looking at categories, you're going to see some very creative kinds of projects COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- that may come in that may sound like but won't walk like. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: A duck. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And so I think those are the kinds of things you just have to be careful of. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's right. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But for somebody to say in January, okay, we're putting this word out, anybody that's thinking about a special project, it's time now for you to come and -- come to us and talk about that. I'm not sure it's going to happen that way. I don't think that's realistic. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But quarterly might work. Quarterly might work. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I think -- but here again, I'm not sure that the five of us can sit up here and dictate that. I really think I would like to see somebody who has some experience, be it consult -- I know, the bad word -- consultant type person who has worked in this particular type of area. Let them come back to us and say guys, here's what you need to be taking a look at. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So how does that chamber proposal -- I haven't heard about it, Commissioner Constantine, until you just said, but how does that -- does that provide the answer that you seek? Do you know -- I mean, I think it's a great idea -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sure they'll get up and share that with us. Ellie's here. But my understanding is they've talked with some of the other chambers and are willing to put up some funds to bring in that fresh set of eyes that Commissioner Berry is asking for to do some of those things. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Great. If we don't pay for it, all the better. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And our participation really, as I said, would be we can gather these plans from all over the state. And I think between those two pieces of information, or two big piles of information, we can really put together what we need to do here. But the idea is to just have one award annually for one proposal to one group of professionals to market this area. And for -- I've heard two or three of us say, you know, this group isn't necessarily qualified to do that piecemeal throughout the year. And that's my whole intent is let's just try to make it as efficient a process as we Ca~. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Do we have any public speakers, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let's begin. MR. FERNANDEZ: First one is Jackie Frank, and then Ellie Krier. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: How many total speakers do we have, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Seven. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And a few have left. MS. FRANK: Hello, I'm Jackie Frank, president of the Collier County Historical Society. And it's very interesting talking about the different events. And that's a very important part of any new undertaking, which of course for the Historical Society -- by now, most of you know, our new undertaking is trying to preserve a house from being demolished that dates the early part of the century. Anyway, we have been approached by a number of people if they can already lease that house, and we don't even have it yet. The community as a whole seems so enthusiastic. In fact, this morning while we were waiting, someone -- well, the executive director from the United Arts Council gave me her card and she said, "You know, if you get that house, please let us know how we can help with the art exhibition and the archeological exhibition you plan to do." We have had different organizations call and ask if they can help with fundraising. The Women's Club is one. They will help us in any way they can to raise funds to furnish or restore the house. It is amazing about the interest that we have had because we are trying to save parts of our county. And right now in a certain section of Old Naples, it is being demolished right and left. And it's quite sad, because we will lose our history. We have signs up that say visit -- or signs on the streets, a historic district. But soon we won't have a historic district. It will be a new Old Naples. And we've had people come through Palm Cottage and ask, what other houses around here do you have that we can visit? And then we have to be, of course, very truthful and say we don't have any other. There are no others that are earmarked for history. And especially Europeans ask us that. And in one month last season, from February through March, we had 36 different states represented going through Palm Cottage, and about eight different countries. So you see, though it isn't -- as Barbara mentioned, we don't pack them in the hotels, necessarily, but we do have visitors from all over that are interested in our early culture and what makes us a county. And we want to share this with everyone in the county. The gentleman that was here this morning talking about the children in Immokalee, as one of his issues, if we had this beach house, they could come from Immokalee and visit this house and be in a home that would look out over the beach and be in an environment of what once was. There is no historic home reserved for the county that is right on the beach. And the way the properties are being destroyed, there may never be another opportunity again. And this house is unique in its history. It's made of shell construction, and it has tidewater cypress around the windows and the doors. The doors themselves are made of tidewater cypress, which is, shall we say, like impossible to get now. And the main floor, which is the second floor, is made of heart pine. That comes from the heart of a pine tree, which makes it very, very hard and very durable. And also, the land itself is very valuable. It has one of the two older canals that went through that part of Naples, from the bay to the Gulf. And it was dug either by Indians or pirates, and the Indians predating the Seminole war, so the abstract says. But then we got a recent letter from the gentleman from the Southwest Florida Archeological Society, and he said it was an Aborigine canal, so we were even more thrilled. And he said within those two or three blocks along the beach, it is highly -- to be highly treasured as an archeological section of our county. And I just hope that somehow we can be considered for some of these funds, because we are doing this all on our own. We're trying to save for all of us. And if we don't get assistance financially, the house will go. And Robert's Ranch is another place that will be wonderful to be preserved. Because I can see 4-H members going out there and having wonderful times, and being able to care for animals that it could be -- perhaps many of you on vacations have gone through these working farms that are open to the public, and it would be great. But right now, this house will be absolutely destroyed, and it would be sad. And as I say, many people are coming forth wanting to assist us in many ways, and we want to, but we need the funds. And, in fact, last week we received a note from a woman that lives in another state, and she said that she was sending in her five dollars -- quickly, because she hoped that her five dollars would help preserve the house so one day she could bring her grandchildren through to see that beach house. And I leave that with you. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Ellie Krier, and then Summer Raygot. MS. KRIER: Good afternoon, commissioners. For the record, my name is Ellie Krier with the Area Naples (sic.) Chamber of Commerce. I have one minor item of housekeeping. As you know, our contract for fulfilling -- providing fulfillment in response to tourism marketing ends at midnight tonight. And as you're aware, the Visit Naples official contract starts on October 1st. And we're primarily here today to say to you we want to make sure that this gap is covered. And since being here today, it's our understanding that Visit Naples is fully prepared to start at midnight tonight and assume the expense for that gap from August 5th to September 30th. And our fulfillment subcontractor Phase V has also agreed to go forward until they're ready to bid out and go forward from there. We will be immediately meeting with the staff of Visit Naples to provide them with any information that they will need to develop a business plan on which to base their future fulfillment. And when Visit Naples assumes fulfillment, Collier County will finally have the marketing and fulfillment under one management so that they will provide direct coordination for what has proven to be a highly successful marketing campaign and a fulfillment that is directly generated by it. I think it is a model we can be very proud of. With regard to your tourism plan that you're discussing today, just as the private sector has assisted you with appropriate studies in which to base the economic plan for Collier County's future, so too do you deserve and Collier County deserves the best information available on which to build your tourism plan. As a tourism leader in Collier County since 1946, the Naples Area Chamber of Commerce board of directors has asked me to convey to you that they have committed to spend up to $20,000 to evaluate the best practices for the delivery of tourism services, and we commit to bring that back to you by the first of October. All aspects of tourism industry must be included in any plan and any plan must not only showcase our own world renowned destination resorts, but the small businesses whose livelihood is equally dependent on that portion of our economy. I do need to tell Commissioner Constantine and any other chamber present so they can heave a sigh of relief, this is our obligation and our commitment, and we have no one else standing behind us on this one. This is ours. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But you would accept it '- MS. KRIER: Oh. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- if they come forward. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If they want to give money, you'll be happy to take it. MS. KRIER: The Naples Area Chamber of Commerce is fully supportive of a need for a comprehensive tourism plan for the county, and as the long established organization in this field, we are ready to cooperate in any way we can to assist you. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Summer Raygot. MS. RAYGOR: Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you, commissioners. My name is Summer Raygot. I'm with the Seminole Indian Casino. But I do represent the Immokalee Chamber, which, as you said, Barbara Berry, Immokalee is rarely heard from, nor Golden Gate, and we would like to be represented. We are represented in Visit Naples and the tourism alliance of Collier County. Much of what you've been saying about consolidating and having one entity handle the marketing and the promotions and the events, which I think you're all coming together on the same level there in different areas, but that is what Visit Naples and the Tourism Alliance of Collier County has been trying to do. I have personally been involved in tourism over 20 years throughout the United States. The last six of it I've been in the Southwest Florida area, the last three-and-a-half in Collier County. And quite frankly, it took me over two years to figure out who is in charge of tourism in this county. And it wasn't until Visit Naples was formed that I felt as an attraction and a strong member of the tourism industry in this county that we actually had a voice and a presence and someone to work with. As you know, I hope, Visit Naples is comprised of the Immokalee Chamber, the Golden Gate Chamber, recently added the Naples Chamber, the attractions of Collier County, the restaurant association, the shopping areas, the retail and the -- and also transportation. And I may have left out some. But that is exactly what you're talking about, Barbara Berry. It's exactly what we need to do. We all need to work together for tourism. I left the governor's conference on tourism this morning, which was held at The Registry, to be here; sat here all morning and missed the last part of it because I feel so strongly that we do need to all work together. And that is what we're trying to do with Visit Naples and with the Marco Island and Everglades CVB through the tourism alliance. And that is exactly what they're doing in the State of Florida. They are forming a public/private partnership so that we can all work together, because if we don't have that by tax dollars, you can't spend it on events that are going to benefit the community. If you don't do events that are going to bring in room nights, you're not going to have that money next year to spend on events that are going to benefit the community. It all has to work hand-in-hand, it all has to work together. We do need a cohesive plan that we're all working together. All kinds of counties do event planning once a year. Lee County does it. I go to the Tourism Development Council's meetings there once a month. It does happen. They spent, for example, approximately $150,000 on events for the whole year. They only spent $150,000 because it's seed money. It is seed money. They're not sponsoring the whole event. They're not paying for the whole event. It can be done, it is done. It's done in Lee, Dade, Palm Beach, Broward, Monroe and a lot of other counties. And sorry if I'm shaking, I'm a little bit nervous. But I hope you understand how strongly I feel. I've dedicated a lot of my personal time to this industry, and I belong to the Naples Attractions Association, the Southwest Florida Attractions Association, I'm, as I said, the representative for the Immokalee Chamber, on the board of Visit Naples. I also belong to the Naples Area Accommodations Association, and the Hospitality Sales and Marketing Association, many others. I'm involved in everything in this county that has to do with tourism. I know that you have a lot of people right here that have the experience in tourism. I alone have over 20 years, all right? I'm only 41, but I have over 20 years in tourism here. I know exactly what you need to do. And you have a whole team of people out here with the Tourism Alliance of Collier County that have the experience, that have the knowledge. There's no way you should go out and have one consultant come and tell you what to do when you have a world of information available at your fingertips. I've moved 15 times in 20 years and working with the counties in each place that I lived, in the hotel industry prior to being in attractions. And believe me, the hoteliers in Collier County know that they don't want to do it by themselves. They're not doing it for the hotels, they are doing it for the communities. They need to put the people in the restaurants, they need to put the people in the stores to buy the merchandise, to open new stores, and to support our community, our parks, our museums, everything that we have. Our -- 70 percent of our bed tax dollars go to beaches. It's not that way in any other county. And -- should I stop? I just want to say that that beach money is spent -- doesn't just benefit the tourist. In fact, in Collier County, it probably benefits the residents more than the tourists, because there's less beaches available for the public to access than many of the other counties. So that's my summation and thank you very much. (Applause.) COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just to -- I need to clarify one item. I don't think any of us are suggesting that we hire a consultant to tell us what to do. I think we're suggesting that the chambers, the hoteliers, the TDC, everyone should have a voice in trying to formulate if we're going to have one proposal, and that probably as a part of that, having a fresh set of eyes who has complete perspective because they're not already involved in some way -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Exactly. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- is a healthy part of that process. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Everybody, you can sit out there and shake your heads and disagree, but when you're involved with a particular group, you have a particular interest. There -- you can't help but have that. My situation and my perspective up here is to try and be fair to all entities involved in this particular endeavor that we are trying to do. And to be chastised about the beaches and those kind of things, I'm a little bit resentful that that's -- maybe you didn't intend it to come across that way, but unfortunately I think it did. And I take exception to those kinds of thoughts. Those beaches certainly do benefit the tourist. I know a number of Collier County residents that probably rarely go to the beach, if ever go to the beach, but they certainly do benefit the people who come down here, and that's one of the things they come down here to see and be out on is those beaches. The rest of us that's been here for a number of years, over 30, going to the beach is not a big attraction anymore. So all due respect to the beach aspect of it. But I don't doubt anyone's ability to work in a particular field. I don't think that was the question here. Next speaker, please. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, the next speaker is Dorothy Geer, and then Bernadette Watkins. MS. GEER: Good afternoon. I'm Dorothy Geer. I'm representing Marco Island and the Everglades Convention and Visitors' Bureau, and the Tourism Alliance of Collier County. I have to say that I have enjoyed and the board of my organization has enjoyed working with all of you. And I think that the comments that are coming out today are extremely important. If you hear a bit of frustration from some of us who are speaking on this topic, it is probably because our hearts and souls have been poured out into the tourism alliance and pulling together in doing a number of things. With regard to tourism for this area, we truly believe that we are your entity out there representing you. We've gone to the governor's conference every year; this year it happens to be right here in Naples. And it's been a wonderful experience. And we came just from there just today. One of the things that came out of that that made me realize just how excited I was about what we're doing is that they have this wonderful seminar in ecotourism. And this woman came in from Louisiana and she was absolutely tremendous at what she said, and I realized we were one step in front of her, and I thought how wonderful to be one step in front of what the trend is on how to market properly to that heritage ecotourism market that's so important to this area. And so in doing that, we're doing the things we think that are good and right. It's never wrong to question whether this is the right way to do it or not. And I think it's important to always be able to look at what we're doing and see that we're doing it right. What we are asking I think the Tourism Alliance of Collier County is to be recognized as we are by the State of Florida. The State of Florida recognizes the Tourism Alliance of Collier County as the official convention and visitors' bureau for Collier County. We are members. We were -- both Marco Island and the Everglades Chamber of Commerce, the Marco Island and Everglades Convention and Visitors' Bureau, which is under the chamber, and Visit Naples were founding partners with Visit Florida. Visit Florida is a private and public sector group that is marketing and doing a very successful job of marketing in Florida. And we fashioned the Tourism Alliance of Collier County after that. We are very much in line with the way that is being done, so that there isn't a lot of overhead going. The money can go directly into marketing and advertising. Couple of points I'd like to make. I'm speaking on behalf of Lucy Hanley as well, who had to leave to go back to a meeting at her hotel. She is director of marketing for the Marco Island Resort. She is also chairman of the Marco Island and the Everglades Convention and Visitors' Bureau. And she pointed out to me to please share with you that the reason we came together as a group is because of the limited funds. I can tell you that events are very much a part of what we do, and we'd like to also include the events that have come up through the event funding and incorporate them in with what we're doing, because they are important. But they have to be trackable. We have to relate it back to what is it really doing for the community, what is it doing financially. And, in fact, we have an event in our group that's with the Audubon Society, and what -- we brought in 450 people last year. And I can tell you that that event did not cost a dime in advertising or marketing from the Convention and Visitors' Bureau. We got Audubon and the Audubon Society to pick that up, along with other sponsors that they brought with him day one. We didn't have to spend any funds on it. And those are the types of things we work very hard on. events are part of our marketing plan, and we could expand on that, but I have to remind you that the dollars that go to us are very limited against the dollars that other markets get. Last year we had 1.09 million, which is 15 percent of the overall bed tax. And I can tell you that the range in other counties is upwards of anywhere from 40 to 87 percent of the bed tax dollars being used on tourism. And that turns into millions and millions of dollars. In Puerto Rico they have 55 million dollars in their tourism budget. So when we go out to promote this area, we have very limited funds. We have to decide between advertising and events and promotions and other things that are going on. Sometimes events do fall down, because we do know there is an event category. One thing that Lucy asked me to share with you on that note is that the money that Marco Island and the Everglades got from the portion that was given to us through the grant application last year was $436,000. That is less than what she has to operate with just for her one hotel. So you can see how those funds have to stretch. Because we take care of all of Everglades, all of Everglades City and all of Marco as part of those monies. Now under the tourism alliance, we will be combining our monies. And, in fact, the Tourism Development Council, at its last meeting, approved a budget for the Tourism Alliance of Collier County which will be coming before you at your September meeting. And those monies will be jointly spent for more considerations. The last thing I'd like to say as I'm closing, two quick things: There is an organization that is made up of all convention and visitors' bureaus. It is a national organization, and there's a Florida chapter of that organization. They just met this past Saturday. They have all of the information and data that you could possibly want free of charge. So the chamber, as kindly as they have come forward with the money, and I think that's very nice, maybe wouldn't even need to be spent, because there is an organization that has all that data at hand to us and would be happy to give it to us. The last thing I'd like to say is that there is a state statute. And the state statute does say that you have to put those heads in beds with the monies that you're putting out under this ordinance. And so I'm not opposed to the events, I don't think anyone in our group is. We want them, but we want to make sure that the money keeps growing by bringing people into the community in order to fund everything. Thank you very much. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Bernadette Watkins, and then Stella Thomas. MS. WATKINS: Yes, I'm -- for the record, I'm Bernadette Watkins and I live in Old Naples. I would like to speak on tourism also. I feel the Historical Society entertains, is -- really provides entertainment for tourists to see -- to come and visit an old historical home. And I think we should all keep that in mind. Also, I'm here to touch on education. And do you know why this house is so historically important? This house has been constructed of tabby. And tabby -- your oldest tabby houses were built just after circa 1650, in the early 1700's. They were built in South Carolina and in Georgia by the French Huguenots. Now, in Naples you are so lucky to have your original tabby houses still standing. I am so proud of that, and we should all be so proud of that. And we should be teaching this to our children and our county. And we should be teaching this history to our children in our county schools. And that's what -- that's what I want to leave you with. That's -- that's my message. Thank you very much. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next is Stella Thomas, and then Mary Brett. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mary Brett left, so if you want to call the next speaker. MR. FERNANDEZ: She's the last one. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mary's left. MR. FERNANDEZ: She's the last one. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, she was the last. So you'll be the last. MS. THOMAS: I'm Stella Thomas. It's so nice to be here to see some faces I know. I recognize David, an old friend. This is very, very important to us. If you could go -- just picture straight out west from here, just drive out there and see that house right on the beach. It must not be destroyed. And we can't do it alone. We're going to need to raise a lot of money. And we've run out of time to do that, but we're still going to try. And it will be a tourist attraction, because people walking along the beach, people from all countries, will come and walk up those steps and walk around the house and see the tabby, and they may even be able to come in for a glass of tea at certain times. It's not going to be big crowds of people would be there, but maybe minivans or buses from area hotels will be able to come to spend an afternoon to see it and to hear about it. And it is true that people go to the Palm Cottage and then they wonder, well, is there another house? And it is just so special. I urge you to go and visit the house. Now, tomorrow night at 6:00 on Media One they're having the 30-minute news segment devoted to this. And if any of you would like to see a video of this house, I'll be so happy to get it to you. Just let me know. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: No other speakers, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No other speakers. All right, commissioners, you've heard our thoughts and certainly from their speakers. Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask if the board will do the following: I'd like to move approval of -- in concept of change to the policies of our tourist development, no changes to the voter approved requirements of the ordinance, no changes to the restrictions or requirements, but conceptually that an annual RFP, perhaps with an opportunity for two renewals. That the board awards that contract to the entity offering the best proposal, the best group with the best proposal, within certain restrictions. And that may be "X" percentage for special events, that may be in any number of things. But in order to determine that, I think we need to go through a separate process. So I'm asking you to approve that general concept. And then for us to join with the chambers' effort in their look and their willingness to put up some money and bring someone in to help define best practices and direct our staff to collect from the various municipalities and counties around the state what they are doing. And along with our TDC and all the interested parties craft -- I think Ellie had said they could do that by October 1. So craft in that time frame some of those variables, some of what those restrictions and requirements would be. And that both our TDC and us could look at that in October, and I think realistically by the end of October have those specifics in place, and then go forward with an RFP process in whatever form we're all comfortable with. But just to prove that general concept that I said first, and then make the commitment to go forward and commit our staff time to doing the research and working with the chambers and the other groups on doing that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If we joined with the chamber, what if they suggest not to do the yearly -- I mean, do you see that as a consideration, or -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- are you looking at more what they're going to come forth with what's the best way to go about doing this? Is that kind of what you're -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think, and I've spoken to a couple of the folks who are serving on the committees -- on the board and then on the committees that have looked at this for the chamber, and I think they are looking at what is the best way to do something within these parameters. I may be mistaken, but that's the conversation, private conversation I have had with two different members of their board representing the committee, looking specifically at this. So I think we're all on the same page there. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Unlike probably most people in this room, I was born and raised in Florida. You don't have to describe tourism to me. I worked for the Convention and Visitors' Association in Tampa for two years, so you don't have to explain marketing to me, you don't have to explain fulfillment to me. Those of us in Florida seem to forget after being here a short period of time that the reason many folks retire here is because there's no state income tax, because there are beautiful beaches, because there are a lot of things that are in essence provided for the people of this state by tourism. We tend to forget that. And the first thing we do after about that second anniversary of moving here is we start complaining about the tourists, when in fact, every time you see one in line in front of you, instead of cursing them, you ought to thank them, because basically you're picking their pocket. We are able to use tourism as a generator, as an income generator in the State of Florida. Nobody understands that better than I do, because I refuse to live in a state that has state income tax, and that's why I'm stuck in Florida, and happily so. So I understand that very, very well. I don't need that explained to me seven different ways. But what bothered me today about a couple of the comments that were made were it almost seems as if we're being told we owe something to those in the tourism industry. And I really resent that. And the two comments that bothered me were the one lady that said 70 percent go to beaches and it shouldn't be that way. Well, by God, if it weren't for the beaches, folks, we'd be like Okeechobee. We'd be an inland town. And that beach is in essence the heart and soul of how Naples was created. People didn't land here by boat because we're inland, they landed here because there was a beach. People continue to come here for that. So anyone that has any remarks about how tourist tax monies are being used for the beach, and those remarks are negative, save them. Because that is the priority. And if we did nothing else, I would eliminate everything and just leave beach renourishment money there. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Me, too. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So if there is that much question, debate and fight over the rest of this money, then we can just eliminate it and we can renourish the beaches and you can put whatever money you want into your own marketing budget. The second comment that upset me a little bit was when I hear that 1.5 million dollars in tourist tax money for marketing is -- and these weren't the words, but the attitude was a mere pittance, other communities are doing far more than that. And, you know, we're not other communities and I don't want to be. But I wouldn't turn my nose at 1.5 million dollars. And I think that goes to the gravity of what we're talking about today. It's a lot of money. And we have had some problems in B(1) and in B(2). I'm not going to support the part of the motion that puts special events category funding into this same kind of hopper, if you will, for review as category B(1). I think B(2) is separate, I think it has a separate set of parameters, and if we need to form a different committee to look at that with expertise in that area, I'm all for it. Maybe the chamber study will help us do that. But the one thing I would like to do, and Commissioner Mac'Kie, you brought this up earlier today, is to step back and take a look at the totality of a three-percent bed tax and determine if in fact there's interest in the community for those funds to be spent differently. And probably the place you go is category C. Maybe C is pared back into special events a little bit and some is used for other things, and go to the voters eventually with that question. And I'd like to see that happen. But I can't support the motion as long as B(2) is lumped in with B(1) for an overall marketing plan. I think they're distinctly different. I think they need to be treated that way. And I don't think under that umbrella they would get the same attention or the same local involvement of people like, you know, the Gulf Coast Runners to make application and whatnot. I'm a little concerned it gets lost in that marketing side. So I think they're different and I think they need different approaches. But when it comes to the B(1) funds, I'm very supportive of a single entity handling the promotion and marketing of that. But what is my primary concern is the structure of that entity and how it's answerable to all aspects of tourism, restaurants, retail, hotel, motel, everything. Not just -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All of Collier County. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. And I heard that that's what the alliance is trying to do. I believe that, but I want to see that chart, I want to see that representation, I want to see that chain of command, so to speak. And if we're comfortable with that, that's fine. But that's the way the motion was stated. Again, Commissioner Constantine, I understand what you're trying to do, I'm just not comfortable lumping them together under a single review process. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask if -- because we're going to collect all the information from the different communities anyway under this scenario, and the chamber will bring in a person under this scenario. You don't have -- I just assume you have no objection if they look at that? Your red flag is clearly waving and you have some concerns and are very uncomfortable with that. Is it safe to assume you don't have any objection if they provide that information to us and then we can have that debate at least? And it may very well support your side of the concern there. It may not. But at least we'll have that information as part of this process. I think it will all come to us anyway. There's no more effort needs to be expended. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would like to go forth and get more information. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not going to stand in the way of that. And if I have to alter my vote in some way to at least make sure that we don't stagnate today, then I'd be willing to do that. But what does concern me, as we've heard some folks with the Historical Society and others, is there are probably still gaps here that can be addressed and should be addressed. We can't do that today. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm willing to alter the motion enough to allow for that. I would like to look at that. My preference clearly is to make it all one, your preference clearly is not. But I think we can -- if there are gaps, perhaps Hillsborough County has figured out a way to narrow that gap or fill that gap that we don't know. And all I'm asking is let's collect the information, take a look, and if there is a way, great, and if there isn't a way, that's fine too. But let's look at all of that and go ahead. I think if you're comfortable with the overall idea of category B being -- I think it appears most or maybe all of us are in agreement on that. And the other -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: On what? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On looking at having a single annual proposal reviewed and approved by TDC and by us. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: As opposed to divvying out the way we have done -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- in the past with chambers or different CVB's? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just as a more efficient way. And my hope is that if we can answer those questions that are dogging you about category C, great. And if we can't answer those, then it's fair enough to keep those separate. But at least make that a part of the process, but make a commitment today to head at least in the direction of having that one annual series of proposals. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I'm certainly in favor of developing the information in a little more detail on your concept; however, I'm not real comfortable at this point in time in saying that I'm going to commit to the concept. I think that several questions have been raised during the discussions concerning B(2) or C, and to say that we're going to go ahead and approve the concept today to lump them all together is just a little bit further than I'm willing to go. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'm sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. I will alter the motion to approve in concept, having the annual proposal for all B(1) funds, and the second part of that is to explore and try to answer some of the questions on the B(2) or what we were referring to as C. And we can review whether or not that makes sense with all that information. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And I guess the question then would be do we not already have the ability to make a single grant without having to go through some exercise of change in concept? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think we do, but I think if we are going to make that as a policy change, we need to change some written procedures. We do. And before we make those changes, we probably ought to gather all the information we can to make sure we do it in the best manner possible. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm supportive if we're not making a firm commitment today. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll second the motion, if you will please add the provision about privately owned not-for-profit publicly available museums. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I will, recognizing that right now even our own museum doesn't allow for capital expenditures. And -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think a capital expenditure would be different than what the voters approved on this item. So I think if it's the museum and some of the operating things or some of the special event things that come through there that we have promoted, that's consistent. When we get into capital expenditures, that would be a -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's a different -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- big change. So I'm willing to support that portion. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Could you -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I will include that -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- throw in a ham sandwich along with that? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There you go. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I second the motion then. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Basically in concept, we're agreeing with the B(1) going out for some kind -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Consolidation. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- of consolidation and going out for some kind of a -- more information on that, what's the best way to do that. And we certainly will be collecting information from other areas, and all those kinds of things. Keeping at this point in time the B(2) is going to be separate? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, yeah, not making any commitment to consolidate that, try to gather information to see if there is a way to bridge those gaps -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and make that part. But if we're not comfortable doing that come October 1, then we've left ourselves that room. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And Commissioner Mac'Kie's addition is just basically to leave that verbiage change on the table for now. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Leave that verbiage available. And to be sure we address the private museum. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. Okay. That's fair enough. If there's no further questions, I'll call for the question. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What I hope for a time frame there is the chamber had looked to bringing that back by the first part of October, and maybe our staff can have the information compiled and in some order in that same time frame. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. At this time we're going to take a break, give our court reporter a break. Thank you. (Brief recess.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We're back in session again. Commissioner Hac'Kie, you indicated you had a question? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I did have a question just for clarification on that item, as I was talking to people out in the hallway. What I understood we just voted on -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me a minute. Could we have someone go out and help that gentleman read the sign that's parked in front of the door there? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Please turn your phone off when you're in the chamber. Thank you. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, he's apparently not able to read that sign. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The big pink one. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: As I was talking to people in the hallway about what we had just done, there was an impression that I think was a misimpression. It's my understanding that we have just said dear chambers, five of you, dear alliance for tourism, all of you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Everybody interested. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Absolutely. We will take the Naples Area Chambers of Commerce's $20,000 to help get the information, but all five chambers and the alliance are to be working on gathering information to get back to us by October 1st. We did not just say dear Naples Area Chamber of Commerce, take this as a sole information source. We would like information from all five chambers and the alliance. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I apologize if I miscommunicated it. I mentioned Naples because they were the only ones who ponied up a $20,000 offer. But if other people want to gather information as well, I think we were very clear that there are any number of interested parties, and we want to make sure we have all the appropriate information from all interested parties. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And, you know, that was what our chairman was talking about is that the broad base of community, you know, from Immokalee to the coast and north and south, we want covered, not just one small area. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And whether it's called the alliance, whether it's the CVB, whether it's a chamber, whether there's more than one entity that wants to try and serve the general tourism industry with that 1.5 million in marketing, whatever that is, you know, come back and present that to us. And so we may have more than one presentation. I personally would like to have a choice, but if there is only one entity out there that can do it, then so be it. We'll find that out. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And in all of that, the other thing that I failed to ask for is at some point I'd love to hear the research or the report that our -- that Greg Hihalic had done. We've asked him -- or the county administrator had asked him to do a review overall, so maybe that will happen also October 1st that we'll be able to get that report from him. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I believe so. I believe that was -- HR. FERNANDEZ: I've asked. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That would be appropriate, too. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Great. Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think one of the things and concerns over this past issue that we just dealt with is to make sure that everyone is included and that there is no arm twisting, anything like that, that it comes through in a very clean manner in terms of any group that desires to be represented is represented, and to make sure that there is some accountability in that representation. That, you know, if they join together, that's fine, but it's kind of you will or if you don't we'll make sure that you don't exist kind of thing. I don't want that. I don't think that was ever the intention. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But those are the kinds of things that we wish to avoid. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I really apologize if I failed to communicate that, because -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't think so. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- I tried to say early on that that was the whole catalyst for this. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That was the whole idea. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right, gotcha. Item #9B AUTHORIZATON FOR LEGAL SERVICES RETENTION AGREEHENT WITH LAWRENCE S. PIVACEK - APPROVED Hoving on then to item 9(B), board authorization for legal services retention agreement with Lawrence S. Pivacek. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Move approval. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second for the approval of this agreement. Mr. Weigel, do you have any comments on this? MR. WEIGEL: Yes. Only that a slight change from previous retention agreements, is that I'm looking to use him potentially as a consultant on cases and matters that we don't have with him, or remove from him. It's my intention to hire an attorney to take these cases as quickly as possible so that they won't necessarily, if it's appropriate, remain with outside counsel too long. At the same time, we still may use Mr. Pivacek as a resource and pay him as per the contract for the use -- for the services that we have for a period up to six months. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I assume there's no public speakers on this item? MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I believe we have a motion and a second. If there's no further questions, all in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. Item #10A FOUR YEAR REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY TECHNICAL ADVISORY BOARD WITH STAFF RECOMHENDATION TO CREATE A SINGLE ENVIROMENTAL ADVISORY COMHITTEE BY CONSOLIDATING THE FUNCTIONS OF EPTAB WITH THOSE OF THE ENVIRONEMTAL ADVISORY BOARD - STAFF TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE AND BRING BACK TO BCC FOR DISCUSSION PRIOR TO ADVERTISING CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Moving on then to item 10(A), four-year review of the Environmental Policy Technical Advisory Board, otherwise known as EPTAB, with staff recommendation to create a single environmental advisory committee by consolidating the functions of EPTAB with those of the Environmental Advisory Board, also known as EAB. Mr. Cautero? MR. CAUTERO: Good afternoon, Madam Chairman, commissioners, Vince Cautero, for the record. I'll be brief and just to state what the staff recommendation is, and also point out to you that the purpose of the agenda item today is the four-year review that is required by the advisory board ordinance, and that ordinance also allows us to make recommendations on any changes. I'll go over those changes with you briefly, answer any questions you have, and introduce Michael Simonik, who is the vice chair of EPTAB. And again, for the members of the audience and the viewers who aren't familiar with the acronyms that we will be using during this discussion, EPTAB is the Environmental Policy Technical Advisory Board, and EAB is the Environmental Advisory Board. An issue that I've been dealing with since 1995, and we came close to bringing it forward to you a few years ago but we held back on it, we held back on it basically for a couple of reasons: One, dealing with some recommendations that EPTAB was making at that time dealing with exotic removals. I have felt uncomfortable with the fact that we've had two boards that are dealing with similar issues. And there hasn't been a strong link between the two. I understand why the EPTAB body was created in the early 1990's, late 1980's, I forget the date offhand. During the time the growth management plan was being written, a very good reason for a special committee to be formed to advise you on environmental policies. And the Land Development Code, as you know, created in 1991, calls for all development review projects which contain an environmental impact statement to be reviewed by a special body, and that is the Environmental Advisory Board. However, keep in mind that the Environmental Advisory Board may review other development proposals as they see fit. I believe, for efficiency purposes, and -- mostly for efficiency purposes, very -- there are very few reasons aside from that that these boards should be merged into one. We would not save a lot of money. As a matter of fact, the staff functions that are provided to these boards right now would continue to be provided in other areas, but I believe that it will create greater efficiency and it will allow these functions to be merged into one in which these -- the members of these boards with environmental expertise will be able to give you better recommendations, and they will not talk -- they will not be in isolation, they'll be able to talk together and have the staff members from our different departments, primarily planning and natural resources, that have an expertise in these areas deal with one board at one time. You should have received a letter from Mr. Guggenheim, the president and CEO of The Conservancy. I spoke with him about the issue. I'm pleased to say that he supports the recommendation. And he has mentioned some items in his letter that I believe are pertinent today. I won't necessarily go into detail on those. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to address some of the points that he raises, and I'm sure Mr. Simonik might be able to do the same thing, since he's an employee of that organization. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? MR. CAUTERO: But I do want to be sensitive to the fact that he's also the vice chair of EPTAB as well. I know Commissioner Mac'Kie has a question that she wants to get in, and I'd be happy to talk over some of the specifics and the recommendation, but I'll defer to you at this time. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Norris first, please. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Mr. Cautero, we're proposing to in effect fabricate a whole new committee? MR. CAUTERO: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And not just make EPTAB a subcommittee of the EAB, like was proposed once before? MR. CAUTERO: That's correct, sir. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's not what we're doing, we're forming a new committee which will take a new ordinance and -- MR. CAUTERO: Yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- so forth and so on? Okay. MR. CAUTERO: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And I think one of the key points is that the function of both committees will be preserved, although it will just be melded into a single committee to provide all the functions that are now being provided. MR. CAUTERO: That's correct. I believe that's vital and it's also consistent with your growth management plan. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't have a lot to say, just that this is going in exactly the direction it ought to, and I appreciate that. One careful consideration when we are developing the ordinance is that -- how to say this -- that there be enough bodies, that there be enough slots, enough human beings serving on the committee for there to be a wide variety of expertise, and a good sort of place to look, I think, is the DSAC, Development Services Advisory Committee, and the fact that they have a great deal of power and authority and it's a large body. I'd like to see a similar weighted kind of a committee coming out as a result of this, whatever it becomes called; I don't know what to call it. But the new environmental committee would have a similar makeup in numbers, and that the seats be very specific about expertise. MR. CAUTERO: The ordinances currently provide for different levels of expertise, and I recommend that you would retain that, if you approve this recommendation. In our executive summary, we recommend nine. In thinking that over, 11 or 13 might be more appropriate; 15 is what the Development Services Advisory Committee has right now. The only reason -- excuse me, sir. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: No, that's okay. MR. CAUTERO: The only reason why we held it at a lower number was because of the development review component that we believe this board should retain. When you get higher than nine, you're really dealing with a number that could be unmanageable. However, we'd be happy to work with legal and maybe split that out. I don't know if it's legal, and we certainly will consult with our staff, but perhaps on those advisory issues that deal with policy, perhaps a board of 11 or 15 could make recommendations. But for development review purposes, there could be a board of seven with two alternates, similar to our Planning Commission. I would certainly want to talk to our legal staff about that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It may be a little premature before Mr. Simonik comes up here, but I've been -- Michael wasn't there, but I met recently with EPTAB. And I had a very frank discussion with the committee about why I felt there was a seemingly ineffective approach in EPTAB, and it lies not just with the numbers of EPTAB, and surely not solely with them, but also with the fact that this board has never taken the time to charge EPTAB with a list of things that we want accomplished in the community over a period of time, similar to what we do with the productivity committee. And that -- I think that stems out of a long history of there being at times controversial relationships between the board and EPTAB. I remember when I was on the productivity committee, we brought forth a report on a helicopter for the sheriff's office. And Commissioner Constantine asked the question, who asked you to bring this forward? And there was a majority of the board that didn't even want to -- you know, was not interested in the item, yet we had spent time in an advisory committee and whatnot. And I think that's what we're finding in EPTAB is there doesn't seem to be a communication link between the two and as a result, we have people getting frustrated and quitting and not showing up, because they don't feel like they're doing any good. I think what you're proposing, I can support at nine members if this board makes an equal commitment to sit down and discuss at least once a year the policy directives of that committee outside of their function as an environmental advisory board. That way we're all working on the same page and it gets them -- it gives them the opportunity as individuals to express to us what their environmental concerns are, and we can formulate some type of directive and seek their assistance, which is the way it should work. If we can make that a part of this, then combining them has a beneficial effect overall; otherwise, what we're going to end up with is a nine member EAB and still a lack of communication between us and them. So -- and the reason I'm saying nine is because that's how many chairs are up here, and the EAB meets in this room. And in addition to that, as someone who has come before the EAB in the past, I agree, if you get 13 or 15 people up here trying to make a decision on an application, it can get very, very lengthy in time. So I think nine is about as big as you want to go in a committee and be effective but yet still have enough people to do research. So that's the direction I -- of course I want to hear from Mr. Simonik and anyone else on this, but I think unless we commit to work with them in policy setting and setting -- helping to set goals for this new committee, then we're going to be right back in the same boat we are today. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, may I, just one more? While at the same time, we want to be sure that we get the expert advice from others to help us decide what policies to set. Because like I so value your opinion on planning issues because of your training, likewise, I so value the opinion of environmental experts on those issues. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And yours as a real estate attorney, which you mentioned six times today. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My business is going to boom after this. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, but that communication allows that interaction to occur, and that's what hasn't happened in the past with EPTAB that has happened with other very effective committees. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. CAUTERO: I believe Mr. Simonik would want to address you and any speakers you have. MR. SIMONIK: Good afternoon. We thought it would be the morning when we came up here. Michael Simonik, I am the acting chairman of EPTAB, and I've been the vice-chairman for two years. And I just wanted to acknowledge that there was four members of EPTAB here this morning: Brad Cornell, Ty Agoston. Brenda Fogel is still here; she's an active member on EPTAB and shows up at every meeting. And we do have a very, we think, productive group that people show up and work on things. And I agree with a lot of the points that were made, but I do have to stand up here as chairman speaking for the EPTAB that a year ago, the position of the EPTAB members in a vote was to not eliminate EPTAB, but at that time it was a different proposal on the table. And we were unable to take a position this last meeting because we did not have a quorum at the meeting. We were missing one person. And maybe I should add that Mr. Agoston wasn't there. But we were missing one person in that quorum and we couldn't make the vote, and so we don't have a position on this proposal. But I think there was a lot of sentiment on the board that it was the function that counts, that we were afraid of losing that function in an advisory role on the technical policies of what the county is working on. And so that's the big issue for a lot of the people sitting on the board. If there was a vote today and if we had a quorum and voted last month, I think I'd find myself personally in the minority of a vote to keep EPTAB. Personally, I like the idea of melding the two boards together, but we have to make sure that we keep the function of both of those boards, especially the EPTAB function dealing with the policies and looking at that aspect of -- the technical aspect of the environmental situations here in the county. One thing that I wanted to add, I think that it's important to have the working subcommittees that we have on EPTAB right now. The EAB has no subcommittees, so they don't spend any time out of reviewing the development orders in working subcommittees. And we do all of our work, almost all of it, in EPTAB in those working subcommittees. And now I think there's three major ones: One dealing with natural resource protection, one dealing with growth management, and another one dealing with the budget issues. And the budget is only a special committee that happens during budget time. But I think that's one thing that I wanted to add is that if we have this new board, that it has working subcommittees on it that meet throughout the month prior to coming to the board so they can work on some of the issues, and hopefully in a workshop with the BCC, directing us on specific tasks and policies that you would like us to look into. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Any further questions? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. Mr. Simonik, based on just your involvement with individuals on EPTAB, if we do combine the boards, now we're in essence adding to the workload. Because the EAB meets once a month, and that meeting can take anywhere from -- I think typically it's a half day, but it can go longer than that. We also then would -- you would then be working in subcommittees outside of that. And do you have a feel for that time commitment, whether it's acceptable to a majority of the members currently of EPTAB? MR. SIMONIK: Well, I've heard some people's feelings on that and I've heard people's feelings on the EAB saying well -- I know of at least two EAB members that say, well, I can't be on it then, because that's going to take way too much of my time. Most people on the committees are working folks. EPTAB, I mean, we spent a lot of time working on the issues. And so if you're going to put that on another half a day agenda or a full day agenda, that's -- that is a whole lot of work, and I don't know how that's going to work out. Maybe it will all be in the subcommittees. It seems like an awful lot. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: One of the complaints about working on committees a lot of times is the feeling of being ineffective. One thing I think this would do to help that is members of EPTAB are now in a decision-making body that renders opinions and recommendations. And in some matters, although not binding, are in fact the last time we hear or see of the environmental issues on certain projects. So I think it also would have a positive effect that some accomplishments are going to be made. And that's something that I think is missing right now in EPTAB, at least from the individuals I've spoken to, not -- having the feeling that they're making ground in the environmental arena for Collier County. So I think we ought to give it a try and see if we have nine people that are willing to serve in a dual capacity, to see if we can maintain that quorum. And if we can, I think it can be effective, again, provided that we write into the ordinance that once a year it's required that this board meet with whatever this new board is called to establish, you know, goals and policy setting. I think if we do that, we can make it very effective. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Do we have any speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chairman, you have two speakers. I believe one has left. First is Carl Bontemps and Brad Cornell. MR. BONTEMPS: Madam Chairman and commissioners, can you hear me? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Sure. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, sir. MR. BONTEMPS: I have good morning on here on my notes, but I rescind that and say good afternoon. I think it's been a great meeting today. I've learned a lot being here all day today. You all received the letter from David Guggenheim. David could not be with us today. He's in Washington with the Everglades Coalition, working with the federal legislators on environmental issues pertinent to Southwest Florida. He sends his regrets and I pass them on to you. I think the words that we feel at the board level, and I should tell you, I am on the board of The Conservancy, I'm also chairman of the environmental affairs committee of The Conservancy. We have reviewed the information concerning this move on the part of the county, and we fully endorse it very strongly. We have a couple of points: One is in the selection of the individuals who serve on the committee. I understand it's hard to get good people to come and serve, but my observation, as I see a lot of things going on in the environmental field, we have primarily a lot of people who don't know anything about science, engineering, they don't know water, they don't know -- they don't know biology, they don't know geology, they don't know all these things that somebody needs to understand in order to serve on these committees. So I think there should be a -- we think there should be a series of specifications on the type of people. And when you go out and advertise for people to volunteer and these things that appear in the Naples Daily News, put down the qualities you're looking for. I'm sure there are lots of retired people here who may have ended up in business, but their undergraduate degrees, which they only used maybe in half of their education, were probably science, engineering, all kinds of things that could be useful to -- I've also met a lot of people in the environmental field. They just get out and holler. They make a lot of noise. We need this, we need that, oh, you're killing the birds, oh, the trees, something, and it just goes on and on. And I think it's time that we get more people with a scientific background involved in our environmental affairs in all of the organizations in Collier County. So that calls for a set of specifications to ask for. If people dig back in their background, there'll probably find, hey, I know something about that. The reason I say this, I spent my career in business, science, engineering, chemistry, physics, everything you can think of, plus a whole range of things in the agricultural field, horticultural field, growing potatoes, tomatoes. I've worked on a worldwide basis, I've done strategic thinking, strategic planning, and crisis management incorporations. And I've been very successful at doing those things. I've run worldwide businesses. And when I say -- talk about the kind of people that you need to get together in order to accomplish things, I've just defined the kind of people that we should be looking for. People that just come off the street and say, hey, I want to do it, I don't think they do any good because I don't think they understand. Also, I'd like to agree with -- I think Tim Hancock said this. There should be some objectives set so that when they come to meet, you can say okay, have you accomplished the objectives? And the objectives have to be based on the comp. plan or other plans, or they have to meld in with the overall thinking of the Board of Commissioners and the Planning Council on the direction we're going, and how does this fit in and is it going to be effective. And the only way I've ever found to measure results is if you turn somebody loose and they just come up with a bunch of stuff to work on that doesn't fit in with what you're thinking, it's no good. You've got to have objective A, objective B, and after you've got an objective, then you come up with the working plan of how you're going to get to that objective and how you're going to get the information, the type of people you need. Maybe we need to bring some outside -- there are some world planning outside experts, such as the Lincoln Institute up in Boston. I've attended some of their conferences. And they are absolutely superb on county planning, city planning, environmental planning, taking farms, doing mitigation, all kinds of things. I mean, really innovative type things. And I think the committee could invite people down like that and maybe hold some conferences and bring some key people in who could listen and participate in that. And I think that's all I have to add, and thank you very much. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can we consider that an application, indication of willingness to serve, Mr. Bontemps? MR. BONTEMPS: I'm on about six things right now. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just wanted to get you if I could. MR. BONTEMPS: In fact, this day, I mean, I was here at 8:30 this morning, and now I'm finishing up at a quarter to 4:00, so maybe that's typical of something. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Madam Chairman, I want to thank The Conservancy for their support and help in coming to a con -- I guess a convergence of opinion here on this EPTAB and EAB issue. I think we're on the right track and I agree with them. And I make a motion that we approve staff's recommendation. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have a second. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's for a nine-member combined -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just making sure I understand. And that includes Commissioner Hancock's recommendation that the board commit to meet with them at least once a year, so we can, much like we do with the productivity committee, set some specific guidelines or goals or hopes, aspirations, dreams. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like to see that part of the enabling ordinance as a requirement for future boards to have that annual meeting. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We don't do that with any other committee. Perhaps rather than a formal meeting, we could at least have a -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Workshop -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- a report from the committee. We don't even get that from EPTAB or EAB for now. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What if we do like DSAC? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Sort of like that, have a formal report and request for objectives for the next year, outline of a plan for the next year. But we don't have any committees that we meet with on a formal basis, on a regular basis. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not going to vote no over that nuance. I would like it the way I've worded it, but you're the motion maker. I'm not going to vote no over that nuance. But my concern is when we look at the 30 some odd advisory boards we have, we could probably cut that down to about eight or nine and deal more effectively with them individually by making a requirement that the board work with the advisory committee directly. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we count on you bringing back a list of those -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There you go. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think I got that challenge a year ago when I mentioned that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Commissioners, I -- COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: I didn't say there was a snowball's chance in hell we would actually be able to do it, I just said we could. But anyway, Commissioner, your wording is okay with me. I wanted to make it a little more of a required workshop on an annual basis, but -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, actually, I jumped in and seconded too fast, so I'm going to withdraw my second, because that -- that is an important critical consideration for me. And I hope that the rest of the board would jump on that, because, you know, whether it's -- maybe that we would have the same goal setting, the same work productivity relationship with this committee as we have with the productivity committee. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, what probably is the most effective way to do that is a policy statement rather than making it part of the ordinance, only because it's not really enforceable. How do we penalize ourselves if we go 13 months before we meet them? I don't know that it's practical. I think we should adopt that as a policy because it does work with productivity. We are much more focused. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Where would that policy appear? Would it appear in the -- I mean, you have an enabling ordinance that -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It'd have to be a resolution. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- forms that committee. We'd have to adopt a resolution as a policy then, a separate resolution. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask, Commissioner Hac'Kie, are you going to be willing to support -- when the other 40 committees that we have come in and want an annual meeting as well, are you going to support that, or is it just going to be this one? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'll have to look at that on a case by case basis -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Good answer. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- as those are presented to me. I didn't go to law school for nothing. Seven. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Real estate law. Hake sure we get that out there. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know if you were entertaining Mr. Bontemps' suggestion. I think the idea of having some people have some requirements is a good idea. I don't think all people should be required, because I hate to underestimate the value of just everyday people common sense. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: As an example, out of nine, maybe five technical positions, four at large? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was going to say -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: As long as -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- four. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: As long as they're preferred and not required. Because you may then get in a situation which we've seen in other committees where we don't have somebody with that particular discipline apply -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What is the -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- and we can't appoint anybody. So, you know, if the wording is preferred rather than required, then that will work. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would suggest four seats that have that preferred so that if we do have the ability to capture roughly half the committee with that level of expertise, that's great. And then if there are some people who are -- Johnny or Sally Q. Public that simply have an interest and want to participate, or may have been a volunteer at one organization for years but don't necessarily have a formal training, I don't want to get into splitting hairs there. I think we need to make sure there are some seats available, and frankly, the majority of the seats available to the general public. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I thought that Mr. Cantero's remarks, anyway, what I heard him say was that the staff's recommendation was that the makeup of this board be the same -- have the same limitations, requirements, guidelines as EAB and EPTAB. So if that were the case, what would be the breakdown of the new committee? MR. CAUTERO: Well, my understanding is the criteria for those two bodies right now are all people in environmental fields. However, the board, as you've been advised by legal counsel over the past years, is that you reserve the right to appoint who you wish to those seats. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't want to weaken that, guys. These are the people who are going to be giving us expert advice, so let's have -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- let's don't weaken that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't consider it weakening. I think when we look at environmental policy, there are any number of issues involved with that. And it's not simply if you went to school for that or have training in that. I think if you're an engineer who worked, or if you were -- let's get a seventh time, if you're a real estate lawyer who happens to have an interest in that field, you certainly ought to be able to participate on that. I think it's very important that we have three or four members that really should have that -- and it depends on your level of comfort whether that's required or preferred, but I think it is a mistake to cut out 95 percent of the public from being able to participate in that by saying you must have a degree in this or you must have some background. I think there is an awful lot of good people out there with just plain common sense that can participate and add an awful lot. And so I don't see it as weakening, I see it as broadening and making it available much more to the public. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chair? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: We will be bringing back the specifics of this in an ordinance, and you'll probably be having that debate, the debate you're having now, again at the time that we bring it to you. We've heard your comments, we've heard your concerns. I'd like the opportunity for the staff to take the information we've heard here today and put together a recommendation at that time when we have the draft ordinance before you. I think that would be the time to have this debate. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me amend my motion to direct staff to draft an ordinance that would encompass a number of the parameters that we've discussed here today and bring it back to us for debate at that time. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Do we have any other speakers on this item? MR. FERNANDEZ: No, Madam Chairman. Brad Cornell -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand staff -- MR. FERNANDEZ: -- was the only one. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- sufficiently vague direction. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I just -- I don't completely follow that in that those are important parts of an ordinance, and I don't know how we'd leave that wide open and debate it the day we decide whether or not to pass the ordinance. It seems like we should have some general direction. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Wouldn't you agree -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, we -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- Tim, that what we would be debating on that day is the verbiage that indicates number of slots allocated to "X .... you know, to a profession? Or, you know, in other words, we'd have verbiage in front of us that may allow us to offer our own amendments or changes. And it would be easier than trying to attack the concept today entirely. I think the verbiage before us will give us the opportunity to make those amendments. And I think also Commissioner Norris is trying to move the meeting along. We have a lot of people that have been here all day. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, with that in mind -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And I also believe that staff has heard our concerns up here -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's right. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON BERRY: ears and didn't hear it. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) Yes. -- and I don't think they have beans in their So anyway, we'll take a vote. Item #10B - Added DISCUSSION REGARDING BUDGET HEARING OF SEPTEHBER 9, 1998 - COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE NOTED HE HAY BE ABSENT FOR SAID HEARING CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Hotion carries five-zero. The next item is item 10(B), Commissioner Constantine, I believe you had a question regarding the hearing dates for our budget. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, we had set September 9 and September 23rd. I may have a conflict on the 9th. I am told, however, that a number of other wheels have started turning as the process has already begun. So if I have to miss the 9th, I have to miss the 9th, and I will withdraw the item. I was going to suggest that we change that just by a day, but I'm told that may be more effort than simply the five of us changing our calendar. So -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And because this has to be in, I believe it's this afternoon? Mr. Smykowski, would you just -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's right. For the record, Michael Smykowski, budget director. The DR420 forms, which adopt the proposed millage rates, as well as identify the public hearing dates, have to be to the property appraiser today. In addition, the county has second priority in establishing workshop dates, after the school board and no other -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excuse me, Mike. Didn't you say withdraw? COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. The only thing I was going to ask Mike, I mean, am I correct, it's more effort than just the five of us trying to change the -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, very much so. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I withdraw the item. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It involves other governmental bodies. Okay, this item, just show it as withdrawn. Item #10C DISCUSSION REGARDING COUNTY ADHINISTRATOR'S EVALUATION - COHMISSIONERS TO FILL OUT EVALUATION FORMS ON COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Okay, the next item is the item of the evaluation of the county administrator, which I have placed on the agenda. I'm going to be very quick and very brief about this. I will hand out the form for the administrator's evaluation. There's a cover letter on this -- or actually a memo from me to all of you. In my discussion with Mr. Fernandez in the past, you have had a rating system on -- if you'll look at your evaluation form, that's starting actually with page one after the cover. The rating system has been taken off. The evaluation form, in our conversation we discussed this, is for the benefit of both the commission and the administrator. Many times this gets translated into the administrator got an A or a B or a C or a D. I don't care if you use one, two, three, four or five, it still ends up being a numerical grade because we are all so attuned to that particular type of structure. This year, even though in his contract it states that there is to be some type of numerical rating, he and I discussed this. He is willing to waive that, and I suggested that, and he was -- he basically agreed with it, that it was all right with him. And as long as that is agreed upon, we decided to waive that particular part of it. So everything that is to be done here is to be done in a narrative form. The only other thing, this letter is self-explanatory. I would ask that when you complete this, it's to be done by the second week in September, that prior to that time that you make an appointment, on your own time, sit down and discuss your evaluation with him rather than coming out here at a board meeting and saying, guess what, surprise, wham. I think that serves no purpose other than to create a circus in the media. I'm not interested in contributing to that. You all have the form. Do what you see fit with. Thank you very much. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Question? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Madam Chairman, coming from your strong education background, the deletion of the grade system seems to be a move towards outcome based evaluation. Is that what we're doing here? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And will we have to complete this in number two pencil? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And bubble in your name, please. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I had a real question. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: At some point, Mr. Fernandez, will we get -- we were going to get a report from you, sort of a how you've been doing. Will we get that in time? MR. FERNANDEZ: I plan to give that to you this week. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: He'll be grading himself on that one. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: What he's going to be giving you is activities and different things that he has done since he has been here. So this is something that we need to get taken care of. Okay, moving on then, if there are no further questions, that was again more of an information item than an item to be voted on. Moving on then to item ll(B). Do we have any speakers registered from the public? MR. FERNANDEZ: None. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hallelujah. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We're moving on for you folks out there that have been with us all day. We're moving right along. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's time to go to the afternoon agenda. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: One other thing -- one other thing that -- this probably isn't on the agenda, but we do need to talk about in the -- since we are going to be recessed here for about three weeks, is the authorization for the county administrator to approve consent in emergency items, such as what we did back in July. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Move approval. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chair, the previous item covered this period as well. The previous authorization. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, did it? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. All right. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I withdraw the motion. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Very good. We don't need to deal with that. I just had a note on here to inquire. Item #12C3 RESOLUTION 98-296 APPROVING THE TRANSFER OF THE WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM AND WASTEWATER SERVICE AREA FROM ROOKERY BAY SERVICES, INC. TO COLLIER COUNTY FOR THE CONTINUED PROVISION OF WASTEWATER SERVICE TO THE APPROVED SERVICE AREA, AS RECOHMENDED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER AUTHORITY - ADOPTED Okay, the afternoon session. Our public hearings. Item 12(A) has been continued. Okay, 12(B), this one's continued indefinitely. Going to 12(C)(1), this item has been moved. (C)(2) has also been moved. We're moving through here very quickly. Item 12(C)(3), request for the board to adopt a resolution approving the transfer of the wastewater collection system. We're talking about the Rookery Bay Services, Inc. Mr. Wallace? MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Madam Chairman. For the record, Blue Wallace, director of utility and franchise regulation. We're here today for a public hearing for the board to consider a preliminary order from the Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority, wherein they held a duly advertised public hearing and became the fact finder in this action. They heard from the public, from the Department of Environmental Protection, from public works staff, from utility, and they considered those items that are required to be considered by the ordi -- the utility ordinance, and also, by section 125 of the Florida Statutes. Acting as the fact finder, they did find -- they did find some negative impacts in that the rates would increase under county ownership. However, just in March of this year, this utility that has not been permitted in some five years, you approved the transfer from Rookery Bay Utilities to Rookery Bay Services in an attempt to get someone in there to operate it properly. In the -- the only way that Rookery Bay Services can continue operation of the system and obtain the required DEP permits is for them to have significant capital outlay. As an alternative to that, they have been negotiating with public works staff ever since and before that previous purchase. On June the 16th, you might recall, the board provided direction to the public works staff to pursue the acquisition and to schedule those required public hearings. Following that, July the 7th, Rookery Bay Services submitted an application for transfer of the utility. The utility regulations staff scheduled a public hearing, and on 27 July, just last week, the authority held the public hearing and heard from all those principals to include the customers. Although the authority acted in its capacity as the fact finder, final approval still rests with the board. The preliminary order is in your packet, and the authority did consider all those items required by law. The fiscal impact to my department is that we'll lose a mere $8,700 in regulatory assessment fees. But when you look at the long term, removal of this terrible wastewater system, which right now is three plants, one is about to fall down as we speak, we feel is in the best interest. And staff would recommend that you follow the recommendation of the authority and approve the transfer. Now, following this public hearing, there's another public hearing by public works where they will present the purchase agreement and the rate setting instruments. Any questions? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any questions for Mr. Wallace or the staff? Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Issues regarding the acquisition, cost and price to purchase were more appropriate under item C-4; is that correct, Mr. Wallace? MR. WALLACE: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No further questions? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: None, thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a recommendation. Do we have a motion -- or do we have public speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chairman, we have two. First is Bruce Anderson, and then Donald Couture. MR. ANDERSON: I waive. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Anderson's waiving. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Everybody wave back. MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Couture? MR. COUTURE: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Donald J. Couture. I represent Enchanting Shores Co-op. This is -- which is located in the vicinity and it's being serviced today by Rookery Bay Services. The board of directors at Enchanting Shores sees a benefit in Collier County's acquisition of Rookery Bay utilities. We realize that the plant itself is not a functional plant and has been cited by DEP. The major area of concern to Enchanting Shores is the impact fee portion of the presentation the public works presented to the board of directors. We have approximately 40 units at this time that had received an occupancy prior to 1984, the institution of the impact fee. We feel that it is not apropos to go back during that time period to assess these 40 units an impact fee for sewerage. The -- in a meeting with the public works department, and according to your Collier County code, is that the impact on Collier County is at the time it is connected or the community is connected to the sewer system. If we take that into account, we have to look at those individuals that after 1984 have paid the impact fee of $1,340 to the county. We have to assume that this money was held in escrow with the county, and -- for future use when, for instance, Enchanting Shores was to be placed into service with Collier County. We feel that if that is true, the escrow account should have accrued enough interest to make up for the funds necessary for our community. We are under bulk rate at this point in water, and we will be bulk rate with the sewerage. So we feel at this time that assessing those individuals, those 40 homeowners, and it could be more, would be -- it would not be an advantage to the Collier County or even the Enchanting Shores board of directors to try to enforce this. So we're asking the County Commissioners to take into consideration that there must be an escrow account somewhere holding these funds for the 270 units that have paid the -- the maintenance -- not the maintenance fee but the -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Impact. MR. COUTURE: -- impact fee for the sewerage portion of the assessment, and hopefully, that if it is in an escrow account, that it's accrued interest. And maybe that could be used to defer some of the costs that -- for these other 40 to 50 units that have not paid for their impact fee. So that's the basis of the board of directors' inquiry into this, and I hope that the County Commissioners do take that into consideration, that these people have received their occupancy prior to 1984 and we feel that they should not be subject to impact fees. Thank you. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Can some member of our staff address that point? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is this an item for items -- a question for (C)(3) or (C)(4)? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Probably (C)(4). CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's what I thought, (C)(4). COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It may be more appropriate for us to act on (C)(3) and then answer the question under (C)(4). CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Any other -- MR. FERNANDEZ: No other speakers, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No other speakers? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Close? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right, I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON BERRY: resolution, I believe. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion to approve. Second. We have a motion and a second to approve this Hotion carries five-zero. Item #12C4 RESOLUTION 98-297 APPROVING THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN ROOKERY BAY SERVICES, INC. AND COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT; APPROVING THE FINDINGS AND FACTS RELATING TO THE ROOKERY BAY FRANCHISE SERVICE AREA SALES TANSACTION; AND APPROVING A PHASE IN APPROACH TO USER RATES - ADOPTED Then going on to item 12(C)(4). This is the purchase agreement between Rookery Bay Services, Inc. and Collier County Water-Sewer District. MR. FINN: Yes, Madam Chairman. As Mr. Wallace indicated, the board has seen -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Who are you? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Your name. MR. FINN: I'm sorry, beg your pardon. Edward Finn, public works operations director. The board has seen this previously in an agenda item. Mr. Wallace's authority board has seen this. The recommendations are pretty clear. I have a map here on the document reader for your edification. If there are any questions, I'll be happy to entertain them. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The question was can you respond to the gentleman's -- MR. FINN: Impact fees -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- query? MR. FINN: Yes, sir. His question was about impact fees and some kind of a grandfathering type approach to those. Impact fees are set up in such a way that each individual unit pays for its proportionate share of water and sewer facilities in much the same way as it pays for roads or parks. There really is not an escrow approach to these, wherein impact fees would fund them. Rather a more equitable and appropriate way to deal with this is to simply assess the folks' impact fees when they become classified as impact customers. That will occur when they are connected to the water and sewer -- I'm sorry, the sewer system in this case. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: There are some individuals obviously that did pay those impact fees. MR. FINN: Yes, ma'am. It's kind of interesting out here, this area, there was actually a four-year period of 1986 through 1990 wherein they were not required to pay impact fees at the time the permit was issued; rather, the requirement to pay occurs when they have an impact on the system or that is connected to the system. There is an item further along in your agenda dealing with impact fees, and that I think is going to create a much more equitable situation with these impact fees. We have spent quite a bit of time with the community members out in this area. Pretty much if they avail themselves of the financing available for impact fees under the new rates that we're hoping the board approves, the payment of those fees would be $10 a month. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that would go under their bill? MR. FINN: Yes, sir. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, it seems fair that, you know, it's when they impact the system. When they become a part of the system, that seems appropriate at that point in time. I don't know how the rest of the board feels, but impact fees are never a fun thing to have to impose, but it makes sense at the time that they come on board that they should pay those fees. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think we need to recognize that our staff has already thought ahead for us on that -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- and has got it to where the residents only pay $10 a month. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And that's certainly a lot better than having to front all the money at once. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Absolutely. I agree. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, I think it is a fairness issue. I don't think we can -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- absolve them of impact fees because they were there prior to '84. If we did that county-wide, we'd be -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No, we don't do that county-wide -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm saying if we did -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- I can assure you we don't. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If we did it county-wide, I don't think we'd have the funds to operate our system today. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have no further speakers. I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to approve this item, which is a purchase agreement and subsequent resolution. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. MR. FINN: Thank you. Item #12C5 - Moved to Item #17E Item #12C6 ORDINANCE 98-68, AMENDING THE DEFINITIONS OF "COHHERCIAL PROPERTY" AND "RESIDENTIAL UNITS" IN ORDINANCE NUMBER 90-30, AS AMENDED, BEING THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL MUNICIPAL SERVICES BENEFITS ORDINANCE - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Hoving on then to item 12(C)(6), an ordinance of Collier County amending the definition of commercial property and residential units in ordinance number 90-30. MR. YONKOSKY: Madam Chairman, commissioners, good afternoon. For the record, my name is John Yonkosky; I'm the director of your Department of Revenue. Item 12(C)(6) is to amend ordinance 90-30. There's actually three definitional changes that we're asking the board to consider. The first one deals with the definition of commercial property, the second one is residential units, and the third one is the definition of guest houses. As this is an advertised public hearing, there are approximately 5,000 plus or minus residential units and citizens that have been informed by first class mail of this change. Staff has received one telephone call, and that was a flow-through from a commissioner's office, and one letter, so -- from the people that are being moved onto the roll. We're not aware of any opposition or concern to that. When the board approved 90-30 back in 1990, it was intended for four units and down to have curbside service, for five units and up to have dumpster service. And over a period of time, the development has changed that. There's been, in the last eight years, large growth in a number of property management associations. They have taken different groups in and, therefore, they contract with Waste Management and they have units that are actually supposed to be billed by the county under the ordinance that are contracted and paid for by the property management association through Waste Management. The -- one of the contemplated items in -- if the board approves this, is that we will be able to define at CO the type of service. If a unit that's being developed, when it obtains a CO, if they're going to be a curbside then we will charge them a pro rata share and put them on the roll the following year. If they have a contract with the hauler, and most of them are with Waste Management, then they will not be charged a pro rata share, they'll start paying a quarterly payment to Waste Management. There are -- as I said, there's approximately 5,000 plus or minus residential units that are receiving curbside service, and they're actually paying more for their solid waste collection and disposal than the 55,000 people that are currently on the roll, because they're billed by the county as a special assessment. And just briefly, to go over that, the standard charge this year is 107.96. If -- that includes recycling, if you're billed by the county. If you're not billed by the county, the hauler contractually charges $11.04 more on an annual basis. People that are getting curbside service that are not on the roll cannot take advantage of the discount by paying their taxes and their special assessment in November. And that's an additional four percent discount that they could take. And if they have one white good that's picked up during the year, they have to pay $35 for it, or $35 per white good, which means that you've got approximately 5,000 of the 55 to 60,000 curbside residential units that are actually paying more than the people that are being billed as a special assessment. So what we're recommending doing is taking that approximate 5,000 people that are receiving curbside service but being billed by the hauler and putting them on the roll. Then on the other hand, we have approximately 1,600 plus or minus units that are on the roll that are actually receiving dumpster service. So in order to make a clear-cut distinction, we're recommending a change so that instead of four and down your staff bills, and five and above the hauler bills, we make a decision at dumpster versus curbside. The downside to that is that those people that are currently on the roll that are receiving dumpster service, those 1,600 plus or minus people will end up in most cases paying slightly more for their service. But we think that they can mitigate that impact by actively managing their service. For example, they get unlimited service right now. Because they're being paid through by their special assessment, they can have as many dumpster pickups as many times a week as they want. And if they go off the roll and they contract with Waste Management and pay Waste Management, then they can modify their service. For example, when the unit is half full or reduced because of people going back north, they can cut back on their service. Right now there's no incentive to do that. There's no incentive to manage. We think that quite a few of the people that's identified on the list in your executive summary will in effect be able to manage their service and come in at equal to or below what they're currently paying. The third item that's on there is the -- deals with guest homes. And guest homes come across from the property appraiser's system with an R rating. When we first established the roll, before it was a special assessment, we went through and identified a lot of the guest homes at that time and took them off the roll. And then when the board changed and adopted the special assessment process as a part of the tax roll, a lot of them were picked up and put on the roll. We removed the ones that we knew for sure, and then anybody that called and -- after they got their first tax bill and said I'm paying for two units, we would go out and evaluate them and then take them off the roll, and -- but there are approximately 1,000 guest homes that we're aware of in the county. A good deal of them are already on the roll, even though they shouldn't be. But they have not called and asked to be taken off the roll. In -- and Mr. Gancy from Waste Management is here to talk to you about the things what we're asking for. In addition to that, they also have carts. A lot of people are asking for carts to be delivered. And Commissioner Constantine has -- I've heard some of his discussion about this. There are approximately 3,000 plus or minus condominiums and single-family homes, not guest homes, but those people are on the roll and they pay the full tab because they're only -- and they're only occupied a few months out of the year. They do impact the solid waste stream, both from a collection and a disposal perspective, and they're not paying for that. And if the home is occupied part of the year or two months, three months, four months, they are impacting the solid waste stream and they're not paying anything for it for a guest home. And basically that's the -- the long and the short of it. As I said, Mr. Gancy is here to describe Waste Hanagement's thoughts about this. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A couple of different things. First, I appreciate it if you're not aware of any objection, if the calls haven't come through, and I know you were just trying to do what you do. I have got a number of calls, particularly when we had the first hearing to set this hearing. I've got a number of calls particularly on the guest house item. Two very important points: One, if we are charging people inappropriately, then we shouldn't have to wait until they call and complain before we remove that off. I would hate to think we're collecting money from people that they don't owe. And unless they say anything, well, we'll keep it. That just -- that really rubs me wrong. I think if that takes a little extra effort on our part and it takes -- we need to hire a temp or something to go through and find all those, we shouldn't be charging anybody one penny that they don't Owe. Secondly, guest houses are exactly that, they are guest houses. And there is a limit by code on what those can be used for and how long those can be used. And if there are actually impacts for some extended period of time -- I know certain places in the estates people are renting those out, illegally, but they're renting those out, and it generates extra garbage. That sounds more like a code enforcement issue to me than it does let's charge them because they're there. They're violating the law, and my concern is we're penalizing those who are following the law with a guest house, or at least making them jump through hoops to prove that they don't have to do it because there is a certain segment out there who is violating the law. And so what I think we need to do is crack down on code enforcement and make sure those guest houses aren't being used illegally rather than charging everybody who happens to have a guest house and if you're not using it illegally, you have to come prove that to us and then we won't charge you. That just kind of seems like we're approaching it backwards to me. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, I like a lot of this, but I don't like the guest house proposal. If people are using their guest houses legally, then -- then the theory would be you pay more if you've got five bedrooms than if you've got three bedrooms. I mean, it just doesn't make sense. So I don't agree with the guest house part. Other than that, makes sense. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It is illegal to rent guest houses; is that correct? MR. WEIGEL: Correct. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That is correct. So I think Commissioner Constantine's point is well made. If people are illegally renting their guest houses, well, let's cite them. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: One of the reasons you haven't been called I think is most of the remaining don't want to draw attention to the fact that they need two garbage cans for their guest house. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could that be? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If a single family home, with or without a guest house, says I need a second cart because I just happen to produce a lot of garbage, is there additional service charge applied for the pickup of two carts instead of one? MR. YONKOSKY: Let me just check. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, because now we've gone to 95-gallon carts. If you need two, you're renting your guest house out. I mean, because if twice a week pickup, you fill that thing twice a week, you've got problems. You know, you've got a rabbit farm or something going on there. So the reason I ask is, the way to monitor that is they only get one can. Makes it kind of easy. If we're delivered two, then, you know, I think we have a rental issue. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And then in the unlikely event a family that has -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is one of my favorite subjects to broach, by the way. I just love garbage. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And if you have nine kids, then perhaps there's some weight to that, but -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I think you're right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So I guess what I'm asking is, we shouldn't be delivering two cans. If they're called to deliver two cans, there's a main house and a guest house, I mean, it's pretty obvious. So maybe there's a tiered structure there for those that really need them; otherwise, each home should get one receptacle, period. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: three of us. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have two at my house, and there's only You have two? They're city size. You produce 190 gallons -- They're not the same size. -- twice a week? Okay. I've got diapers coming out of my house and I can't fill that thing. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He and two kids. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I have received calls of support from particularly condominiums that now will be charged an individual rate instead of the group rate, and I just wanted to convey that. I do have a handful of calls from people that have asked us to support this on that aspect, but I agree, we need to make sure the guest house issue is taken care of, however comical or interesting it may be. We -- you know, I think there's an obvious tie there why people would either want two receptacles or whatnot, and I think we can figure that one out. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And I'll bet you don't get another call from somebody that has a guest house. You're going to have dead silence on this item. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I wonder if we have any public speakers. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have any speakers -- MR. FERNANDEZ: None. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- on this? None. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You don't? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hove to approve the item without the guest house -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- provision. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right, we have a motion and a second to approve this item without guest houses. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries unanimously. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You've got to have fun with things every now and then. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can't say this job's dull. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. Item #12C7 ORDINANCE 98-69, RE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER IHPACT FEES - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, then, moving on then to review the impact fee study and adopt the consolidated and amended Collier County Water-Sewer District impact fee ordinance. That's item 12(C)(7). COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Did everybody get the individual presentation on this? Because I thoroughly reviewed it and think it's a wonderful step in the right direction and don't need to hear the presentation. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Unless there's any substantive changes from the presentation I've received, I agree. MR. FERNANDEZ: We have one speaker -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have any public speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: -- Madam Chairman. Mr. Michael Rosen. MR. ROSEN: Good afternoon. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: How are you? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Rosen, do you want us to charge your development more? We'd be happy to amend the ordinance. MR. ROSEN: No, I think you'll be pleased. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, okay. MR. ROSEN: I'm representing the Collier Building Industry Association today. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Your name, please? MR. ROSEN: The past several -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Your name, please. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Start again. MR. ROSEN: I'm sorry, Mike Rosen. In the past several weeks, we've had quite a few meetings with Mr. Ilschner and Mr. Finn of your staff, and the staff has been very diligent in sending information to us, going back and forth, answering our questions and concerns of the past few months, and I want to thank them for that. Although our organization has alternate views of the funding of expansion of our county's infrastructure, we realize that there are immediate needs for the water and sewer plant facilities and, therefore, we do not object to the staff's report as presented to us today. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: No other speakers, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No other speakers. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve staff recommendation. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Then I'll make a motion to approve staff recommendation. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I thought you would. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Item #13A1 PETITION A-98-2, ANTHONY P. PIRES, JR., OF WOODWARD, PIRES & LOHBARDO, P.A., AND N. PAUL SAN FILIPPO, OF SEIDENSTICKER & SAN FILIPPO, REPRESENTING WALDEN OAKS OF NAPLES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, HUNTINGTON HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, BARRINGTON HOMEOWNERS ASOCIATION AND ALAN SHALL, REQUESTING AN APPEAL OF A DETERMINATION OF INSUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO THE PRINCESS PARK PUD MASTER PLAN, AKA "KING RICHARD'S" - STAFF RECOHMENDATION UPHELD Hoving on then to item 13(A)(1), petition A-98-2, which has to do with a -- it's an appeal of a determination of insubstantial change to the Princess Park, otherwise known as King Richard's master plan. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel, does this require quasi judicial disclosure? MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think the disclosures are important, but it appears that this doesn't fall under the normal quasi judicial rubric, and regards -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry? MR. FERNANDEZ: No. MR. WEIGEL: It doesn't require the swearing in of the people who are to speak before you today. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like to disclose anyway that I met with the petitioner's representative and a representative of the homeowners -- I'm sorry, representative of the homeowners being the petitioner on the appeal here and a representative of the applicant who filed the original petition. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a very frustrating disclosure in that over the past several years we've attempted to deal with different problems, having these two as neighbors, and I've been out with the homeowners and literally been there with our code enforcement guys when we did our sound monitoring and all. I've also met with Mr. Bickle three or four times as he's brought forward different versions of what he wanted to do for changes, and made some suggestions on what was appropriate and what was not appropriate. Unfortunately, I've been told I have a conflict of interest on the item, so -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have had a television program on Time Warner. It's on Time Warner now, it was on Warner Brothers. Mr. Bickle has advertised on the same station during that time slot, so I'm -- I have a conflict of interest there, can't participate. Which is very, very frustrating to me, because obviously I've worked on -- from both angles with this. And I'm -- so I apologize, because this one's near and dear. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The law is the law. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I will just tell you, I've met with representatives from both sides of this issue. So we don't need to -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I have the same disclosure. (At which time, Commissioner Constantine exits the boardroom.) COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've spoken with Mr. Pires, but only briefly spoke with Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That counts. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: There you go, disclosed. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right, we've done it. Ms. Student. MS. STUDENT: Madam Chairman, for the record, Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney. And I just need to make a couple of prefatory comments for the record. This appeal comes to you under a section of our code that -- and my experience here has never been utilized before. That being 2.7.3.5.2.2., where, after determination has been made in planning as to whether or not an item has a substantial or an insubstantial change to a PUD master plan, it may be appealed directly to the Board of County Commissioners. And the next question that follows from that is, what's the standard? And utilizing section 166 of our code which governs interpretations, and this really is an interpretation of the criteria in the code, you are to be guided as to whether or not the decision was based upon competent and substantial evidence and whether the decision is in conformance with our Growth Management Plan, future land use map, Land Development Code and/or zoning atlas map, as the case may be. So with those prefatory statements, I'll let staff continue. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, I do have a question. Ms. Student, two questions. One is we are by law limited on considering that information that staff had to consider in making their determination; is that correct? MS. STUDENT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No new testimony or evidence not -- or items not already in evidence can be considered by us? MS. STUDENT: That's correct. Because our code calls this an appeal. It is not a trial de novo. At a trial de novo you would be taking additional evidence. An appeal is to look at the record that has already been generated, and upon which the decision was based. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If, however, members of this board should look at the evidence that staff used in their determination and reach a separate or different conclusion than staff did, is that within our purview? MS. STUDENT: It is within your purview. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Mulhere? MR. MULHERE: Good afternoon. MR. PIRES: Madam Chairman, if I may, just for the record, I understand -- for the record, Anthony Pires, Jr. of Woodward, Pires and Lombardo, representing the petitioners, N. Paul San Filippo of Seidensticker and San Filippo. I understand what Marjorie Student has advised you with regards to the -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: She wants to interrupt. MR. PIRES: -- evidentiary matters. MS. STUDENT: I need to clarify something, because apparently there's a misunderstanding of some of the participants. My answer to Commissioner Hancock's question is not that you can reweigh the evidence, but that you look at the record to see if there was competent and substantial evidence there for the decision. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If we find that there was competent substantial evidence, then we have to agree with staff. If we find that the evidence that staff reviewed was not competent or substantial to come to the conclusion that they reached, then we can disagree. MR. FERNANDEZ: And that is the only question. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I understand. MR. FERNANDEZ: Just so you understand. MR. PIRES: If I may understand what Marjorie has said, and I -- from the standpoint of what we submitted with this appeal. If the indication is that the information that was available as of June 4th, that's the date Mr. Mulhere signed the staff memorandum. We have a substantial number of items that appeared that were provided subsequent to that date, because we filed our appeal June 16th, within the 30-day process. We'd like to, if the -- at least proffer all those for the record, so we can utilize that, if there -- depending upon the outcome today. But I think those are all salient features that should be considered, because the staff's interpretation. We didn't have any input or involvement when staff made the written determination, so to say that from the day they signed the staff report we're cut off from providing any additional information, well, we would just object to that and proffer what we have in our appeal as part of this record. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is the first time we've gone through this process. And the reason it was enacted was because -- you remember with the Pavillion Club Shopping Center, a determination of insubstantial change was made to that which affected the drainage patterns, which subsequently affected the Pavillion Club. Is this -- was that the nexus for this change? MR. MULHERE: No. No, actually, this -- this code -- this opportunity to appeal a determination of planning services director has existed -- I'm sorry, for the record, Bob Mulhere, planning services director. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, so -- MR. MULHERE: That has existed in the code. We have not amended the code subsequent to the issues surrounding the Pavillion Club. I will just place on the record separate and aside and apart from this that the staff is looking at the PDI process for the next LDC amendment cycle, but up 'til now, that has not been amended since the day that it was inserted into the code. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask a -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't know what the procedure is. I would just wish that, Mr. Mulhere, you could just summarize for us what was the basis of the decision that this was not a substantial amendment? MR. MULHERE: I would do that. I would also just, if I might, just again following up on Mr. Pires' remarks, there are several memorandums contained in your executive summary from the professional reviewing staff. Those memorandums obviously were created after the date that the render -- that the staff report was created. But they are memorandums that summarize for you the staff's efforts to make that determination. Those -- professional staff are present today, so if you -- as we go along, if you have any questions for them, they can answer those questions for you as to how they came to those conclusions in person anyway. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So can I -- so Ms. Student, or Mr. Weigel, can I consider memoranda with dates after June 4th? MR. WEIGEL: Marjorie? MS. STUDENT: That -- that would be outside of the record, I believe, because it's a -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we have to tear some -- MS. STUDENT: -- decision we've already made. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- of this out and throw it away. MR. MULHERE: The memorandums are dated subsequent to the staff report being created, but they address issues that happened prior to. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, but if we -- MR. MULHERE: Okay, okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- nevertheless, we can't look at them. MR. MULHERE: Fortunately, I have those staff members in attendance today. I want -- I want to summarize for you the process that we went through in determining that this was an insubstantial change, and I need to give you a little bit of history. This process really has been ongoing. Our meetings with the Princess Park property owner have extended over a fairly lengthy period of time; really, over the past two years. We've had several meetings, and those meetings precede my moving into the position as planning services director. During those meetings, several different types of uses were proposed, and the staff analyzed many of those uses and suggested that those were not appropriate unless we did a PUD amendment. Ultimately __ MR. PIRES: Madam Chairman, if I may interpose. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Excuse me, Tony, wait, let him finish, please. MR. PIRES: I guess maybe I was trying to interpose an objection, because none of this is in the file. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: This isn't a trial, Tony. MR. PIRES: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Ultimately, after some period of time, the applicant proposed the addition of a lazy river swimming pool type facility with a water slide, and a rendering was issued by then planning services director Wayne Arnold that that use was similar in nature to the permitted use of swimming pool within the PUD. But Mr. Arnold issued some concerns over the mechanical nature of that amusement, and indicated that while it was an appropriate use based on the nature of the use and the specificity in the existing master plan, that a insubstantial change to the PUD was required to facilitate that use. Subsequent to that, the property owner approached staff again and wished to add two additional uses which were defined loosely as kiddie amusement rides; a kiddie roller coaster and a pirate swing. Staff had a number of meetings with the applicant. Susan Murray is in attendance as the principal planner who reviewed this insubstantial change to the PUD, and she can comment, if the board so desires, specifically on the meetings and the review process that occurred. I do want to say that after we looked at those, we requested some iljustrations of those rides. Based on the iljustrations, the scale, the nature of the project, the size of the project, consideration by the transportation planning -- transportation planner, Ray Bellows, consideration by the transportation services director, Ed Kant, several site visits, several additional meetings with the applicants, several internal staff meetings, and a very serious review of the criteria within the Land Development Code for approval of an insubstantial change to a PUD master plan, the staff issued a finding in the form of a staff report that this was in fact an insubstantial change to a PUD. I want to say for the record that the decision wasnwt made lightly, that we spent a lot of time looking at it. We analyzed the traffic impacts. In fact, we conditioned several issues on the insubstantial change to minimize the impacts of these uses, including additional noise attenuation, including additional landscaping, and in addition, addressing the location of those uses in -- which would minimize the impact on the adjacent property owners. We are very well aware of the code enforcement history of this property and the adjacent property. Wewre very well aware of the concerns that the adjacent property owners have. But also in consideration is the fact that this use existed on the side preceding those uses, that this is an approved PUD, and that in our opinion, and in the planning services directorws opinion, and the PUD provides the opportunity with language that says any other use which is similar in nature and compatible in the opinion of the zoning director, now planning services director, may be permitted. As we looked at the number of uses that were existing on the site: Go-kart track, junior go-kart track, merry-go-round, boat -- kiddie boat rides, batting cages, amusements, those were very comparable in nature when we looked at the scale of the kiddie amusements, which are very small in nature. I have some drawings -- some iljustrations here which Iwll put on the video visualizer for you. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Please do. MR. MULHERE: Our finding was that that would not substantially increase traffic to the site beyond many of the other uses that are permitted already within the PUD, there was no additional land being proposed, no language changes being proposed, no additional parking being proposed. We looked at the traffic generation issue. And when you use the ITE trip generation manual, you must be adding parking or physically adding land to the approved project in order to have an additional increase in trip generation. Again, considering that these uses were found to be comparable with other uses, both existing and approved for the PUD. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: My question was -- is specifically with regard to a water slide. MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Do you have some renderings of that? MR. MULHERE: Yes, I -- no, I donlt believe I have any renderings of the water slide. Again, we used the example therels a water slide at the Golden Gate Aquatic Facility. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: No, no, no, no, no. Do you have kids? MR. MULHERE: Yes, five. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: A water slide -- a water slide is whatls at Cape Coral. MR. MULHERE: Well -- COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Thatls a water slide. MR. MULHERE: That is a water slide. I thought so was the one at Golden Gate Aquatic Facility, but I could be mistaken. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The one at Golden Gate is pretty good. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's -- MR. MULHERE: There are height restrictions -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- really cool, but -- MR. MULHERE: I do want to add, Commissioner -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thirty feet. MR. MULHERE: Thirty feet, correct, correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't -- I'm having trouble how that's the same as the swimming pool, and I haven't heard you say that yet. I haven't heard any evidence that that's -- MR. MULHERE: I think that it's -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- the same as a swimming pool. MR. MULHERE: -- an ancillary use to the swimming pool. I mean, I recognize they're slightly different, but again, I think the question is whether or not we had competent substantial evidence to make a determination. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I honestly have to say, I haven't heard any evidence to make a determination that a pool has the same impact as a water park water slide. Tell me, please. MR. MULHERE: Well, again, my experience in looking at swimming pools, and it is a permitted use in the PUD, is that they are customar -- that there are certain customary accessory uses, and a water slide certainly could be a customary accessory use to a swimming pool. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One little slide going into a pool. But that's -- is this -- is that all they propose, or do they propose something 30 feet high with -- MR. MULHERE: It think it's got some height to it and it's got some twirls and twists, yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't if I -- I just don't see it. MR. MULHERE: But I do not think that it is any way comparable with the scope and scale of the water park in Cape Coral, which I have been to, which has five or six water slides, and they go 50, 60, 70 feet in the air. So I don't think there's a comparison there either. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I need to know. MR. MULHERE: I mean, it's a question of scale. At least in the opinion of staff reviewing, it was a question of scale. The primary function, in our opinion, was to determine whether or not there was a language change to the PUD, an additional traffic or -- impact, which we didn't find that there was, and then whether or not -- and whether or not these uses were comparable in nature with the other uses, which we did find. Therefore, moving into the process, we just measured against the criteria for insubstantial change. And again, that's why we did place some restrictions, or recommend some restrictions, to the Planning Commission on the location of those uses. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Before asking some questions that I have, planning is not much different than a lot of other professions. Two professional engineers can disagree on a design, two attorneys can disagree on what the law means. And there is some subjectivity and interpretation in the field of planning. And I noticed as we were discussing, I heard moans and groans and whatnot. What I'm going to ask is if you folks will let us try and get all the information we can to try and determine whether our staff did base their decision on competent substantial evidence, without kind of jumping on their back, it will help us make a good sound determination today. Everything's not always concrete. And what you feel personally, someone else may feel entirely different about. So I just want to ask, please, let us try and gather and get information here to make a decision today. Mr. Hulhere, you -- one of the things you mentioned was that, first of all, a lazy river and a water slide was requested, and it was determined by Wayne Arnold, who's no longer on staff, that that was similar to a pool. Do you, sir, hold that exact same interpretation as Wayne? MR. HULHERE: Yes, I do. I'd like to just place a caveat on there. I'd like to -- you know, and this did occur prior to our determination, so I think can I refer to it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. HULHERE: I would like to read the specifics of Wayne's letter, if I can place my hand on it here, and I -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: While you're looking for that, Commissioner Hac'Kie's point is something that -- just because there's a single SIC code or single type of use that is permitted, there are obviously variations within that that speak directly to compatibility. And what you've cited is something that's interesting to me. You cited the existing PUD and you mentioned as being sufficient for certain things. The existing PUD on file from 1980, is it? MR. HULHERE: '84, I believe. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: '84, is not valid in that it doesn't even represent what is on-site -- MR. HULHERE: That's -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- today. MR. HULHERE: That's absolutely true. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There were changes made without the PUD being amended, and although that can happen, PUD's can be flexible, you can move things from one place to another, I feel like that statement was almost as if saying we're comparing a potential use to a PUD master plan that is not representative of what's on the face of the park today. MR. HULHERE: I didn't mean to give that impression. What I -- you're absolutely right. In fact, that was one of the issues that the staff considered when we looked at that process. The truth of the matter is that given the language in the PUD, the planning services director could determine that those uses are compar -- compatible and similar in nature to other uses. And if the master plan had not been so specific, they simply would have come in for an administrative amendment through a site development plan and placed those uses in the park. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to question you on your determination of compatibility on something else specifically. MR. HULHERE: Yeah. I have that letter, if you want to -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, please. MR. HULHERE: Yeah. Regarding King Richard's, I offer the following: It is my interpretation that wave pools and water slides are ancillary uses, which are similar in nature to permanent principal use of swimming pools, and as such, they are permitted uses within the Princess Park PUD. However, I am concerned that although off -- all these uses are primarily recreational in nature, swimming pools, wave pools and water slides are not necessarily functionally, structurally or mechanically similar in nature. Therefore -- and I'm cutting down to the chase. Therefore, the PUD master plan should be amended to show the plan location of the wave pool and/or water slide. This could be accomplished through the PDI process and would require a public hearing before the planning commission. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And you did receive an amended PUD; is that correct? Is that what -- MR. MULHERE: An amendment -- amended master plan. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Master plan. MR. MULHERE: Yes, we did. And to get to your other issue, that was a concern of staff, which was the fact that the site visits revealed that the -- many of the uses on site, the parking and many other improvements on-site, did not mirror the original approved master plan from 1984. There was an SDP approved in 1993 that allowed some additional uses. The uses were not problematic, but the locations were not reflected on the master plan. We, the staff, felt that this was an opportunity for them to reflect exactly what uses were located in the park and where, in addition to the two new uses that were being proposed. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The focus -- go ahead. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, my question is how could that have happened if there was an approved PUD master plan? How was there -- how were building permits and SDP's issued that contradict it? MR. MULHERE: The only answer that I can give to you is that there had to have been an interpretation that that master plan was conceptual in nature and that, you know, the parking may not be in the exact location but nevertheless is in the approximate location; the lake may not be the exact same configuration, but it's in the approximate location and configuration. That is often the case. I'm not saying that I would agree with that; however, I did take this opportunity to suggest to the applicant that this was an opportunity for them to reflect exactly what did exist out there. MS. STUDENT: Madam Chairman, I need to ask Mr. Mulhere a question so the board fully understands one of the concepts. I believe you stated -- used the term compatible. But usually in my experience, the PUD's in our zoning districts talk about comparable MR. MULHERE: Right, right. MS. STUDENT: -- in nature rather than compatible, and there could be a difference, so I -- MR. MULHERE: I'm quite sure -- MS. STUDENT: -- could you clarify that, please? MR. MULHERE: I'm quite sure that Mr. Pires will bring this issue up. The executive summary actually uses the term comparable in, I believe, the first -- on the first page. The PUD does actually use the term compatible. But the first test, the first thing that you're going to look at is whether or not the uses -- it uses the term similar and compatible. So the first thing you're going to look at is whether or not those uses are similar to other uses that are existing and approved or approved in the PUD. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's half of the test. MR. MULHERE: That's half the test. The second half of the test is compatibility. If they are similar in nature to other uses, and that finding is made, then they can be made and deemed to be compatible, albeit that some mitigation may be required. There are a number of other uses that are approved pursuant to the PUD document that do not exist in there. And when we looked at these, some of the existing uses, including the batting cages, which appear to be the predominant noise generator and problematic use because they're in closest proximity to the residences, when we looked at where the -- for example, the water slide and lazy river were going to be located, they were going to be located the furthest away from the residential uses, out towards the parking area. And we thought that was the most appropriate location on the site. The reason I bring all these issues up is that I would like to be able to convey to the board that there was sufficient and adequate review of this PDI, whether or not individual -- individual board members or individual Planning Commission members or even other individuals reviewing the project may agree with the final decision or outcome. Whether or not there was substantial or competent evidence used is the issue. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: To continue, Bob, our planning staff, as long as I've been on this board and prior to this, has done exhaustive work. And I don't think any of my questions here should be deemed or taken as my not thinking that you have tried to dot every I and cross every T. But I need to understand the basis for your determination, what you used to get there. Because if I believed there wasn't competent or substantial evidence for that decision, then that is an opinion I'm going to have to render based on the information you've provided. MR. MULHERE: I understand. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That's the purpose for my question. MR. MULHERE: I understand. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- MR. MULHERE: I fully understand. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. On the issue that Ms. Student just brought up, compatible versus comparable, I -- let's switch to comparable, if that seems to be the litmus test that is -- we're being held to here. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think it's compatible, isn't it, instead of comparable? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If it's compatible -- MR. MULHERE: The PUD document uses -- well, let me get it out and I'll read it again. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's both. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what, I'll hit both -- MR. MULHERE: It is both. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and that way we'll -- okay, it is both. So in your determination, when you said it either is or is not an insubstantial change, you were looking at issues of comparable uses and compatibility? MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, good. One of the uses that draws my attention is this thing called the pirate swing. I've been on one. Great ride. Every time it goes up, about 30 people scream; it comes back down and goes up and 30 people scream. And this goes on for as long as the ride is occurring. Are there any rides currently at King Richard's which produce the kind of noise and reaction from people -- and I'll let you know, I was there with my daughter a few weeks ago. MR. HULHERE: Well, there's -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I didn't see anything there that is current that has that kind of a thrill reaction. MR. HULHERE: They have the ride where several people sit on it and it brings you up and then -- and it's got a big hat, cowboy hat. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. Any eight-year-old would be thrilled to be on that thing. MR. HULHERE: That was -- that was one of the rides that on my site visit -- and I don't want to speak for Susan Hurray, because she actually reviewed the project and also made several site visits. But the question was whether or not these were similar in nature to other mechanical rides out there, whether or not the PUD document reasonably could allow for these uses. And I think if we had been talking about -- and again, we're talking about an ll-acre project, so there are certain limitations automatically on the scale and size of what could be put in there. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Bob, I'm going to ask you if I can get through some questions -- MR. HULHERE: I think these are kiddie rides. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That's where I think that we -- staff may have made an error. This type of ride, as is pictured here, is not a kiddie ride. I have a two-year-old. I wouldn't put my two-year-old on that thing. MR. HULHERE: No, I think they wouldn't let the two-year-old on it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I wouldn't put a four-year-old or maybe even a six-year-old on this ride. One of the first ones in the state was called the Phoenix at Busch Gardens. I rode it the very first time it was open, because I was working there. And the first thing that happened when it wound up is everybody lost the change in their pockets and their wallets and everything else. But their restrictions were kids were not allowed on it. So that's where I'm kind of going with this is what is there right now is of a kiddie nature. Even right down to the bumper boats. Yes, teenagers can use them, but kids can too. This ride, because of the number of people it seats, do you still feel that you would classify this as a kiddie ride in the same way that the merry-go-round and little car that goes around the track is? MR. HULHERE: No. No, I don't think it is a kiddie ride in the same way -- and perhaps kiddie ride connotates a much younger child. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Wouldn't you agree that this type of ride elicits a different reaction than what is currently on-site from people, and one that is very vocal at times? MR. HULHERE: It very well could be. I think there are some other activities that are equally as loud that generate as much noise. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Like? MR. HULHERE: Like the go-karts, like the batting cages. And they do -- and the reason -- part of the reason that we came to that conclusion, also we met with code enforcement staff and, you know, there's an ongoing effort out there to measure the volume generated from this property. And as I understand it, they have been in conformance with the county's noise ordinance over the last several tests that have been made. And again, they would still need to maintain conformance with the county's noise ordinance. They do make this -- I don't disagree, Commissioner, that this ride could be apparently very large or very small, because, you know, there's various seating capacities for the ride. The indications were to us that it would be a very small attraction, you know, the smaller of the sizes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What were those indications? Because I see a picture in front of me with seating for about 30 or more people. MR. HULHERE: Well, that's it, the lower size, 30 to 42 people -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: MR. MULHERE: -- yes. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: So that -- okay -- -- you're considering 30 passengers as -- -- as small? Okay. HR. HULHERE: Now, the other thing is that when we met with the applicant, we did ask, you know, what their intent was in adding these. And, you know, part of the discussion revolved around a business plan that would allow the applicant to attract people to King Richard's for a period of time, to be able to market the park for a period of time. In other words, you buy a bracelet that's good for a half a day or a full day versus buying tickets that are good for each individual ride. In order for them to accomplish that, they wish to bring in some rides that would be attractive to a wider range of age groups. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Understood. MR. HULHERE: And that was -- and that was their intent. When they explained that to us, that made sense from a business perspective, and -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: However, a business perspective is not a part of our decision -- MR. HULHERE: Understood. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- in compatibility. MR. HULHERE: Understood. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Doesn't it fly against the argument, though? I mean, doesn't it go exactly against the argument that it is compatible since it is an absolutely new marketing perspective, a whole new market would be attracted to the park? Doesn't that make -- does that factor into compatible? MR. HULHERE: I don't think that that's the case. I think that it's an additional amusement, an additional amenity within the park, just like the swimming pool. Again, the swimming pool is expressly permitted. So you take the swimming pool a little bit further, you make it a lazy river with a slide, is it comparable in nature to other amusements? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, I'm not trying to dominate, but I do have some specific questions -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Go ahead. MR. MULHERE: Sorry, Commissioner, go ahead. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- I'm trying to get to. On the issue of comparable, are there any rides that hold 20 people that are currently at King Richard's? MR. MULHERE: Individual rides, probably not. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And are there any rides that are what you would consider thrill rides? I know the ride you're talking about, I sent my two-year-old on there with her mom, so I wouldn't exactly call that a thrill ride. I care about my daughter too much to have her thrown off something. Are there any other thrill rides that you would -- things you would consider this type of a thrill ride at King Richard's? MR. MULHERE: No. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: On the issue of transportation -- let me make sure I don't have anything for you else, because Mr. Kant may need to answer some of these. Okay, the next question I have, additional noise attenuation, buffers and landscaping. What I've seen is a berm of I think two or three feet in height with a six-foot fence -- MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- on top of it in additional landscaping. So we're talking about an eight or nine-foot total height. Is that the extent of noise attenuation that was -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- requested? Okay. MR. MULHERE: Yes. And the location. And the general location of those uses. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What height would this ride achieve in its action? MR. MULHERE: Well, I think that probably depends on how big the individual ride is. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. MULHERE: And I really couldn't surmise. I really don't have an answer specifically as to how high it would be. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, I'll make the assumption it's not -- MR. MULHERE: I don't think unreasonably higher than 30 or 35 feet swinging, but, you know. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: When you stand on the back porch of some of the homes that are nearby and look over an eight or nine-foot fence, will you be able to see the top of this ride? MR. MULHERE: Well, right now there's a very substantial landscape buffer in existence there. And it's very thick and fairly high. At least when I went to visit, there was a ficus and some other vegetation I'd say 10 or 12 foot high. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: All right, but we also -- MR. MULHERE: Very thick. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Vegetation's not a great noise buffer. It's a good visual buffer, but it doesn't do as well with noise. MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, and so -- MR. MULHERE: But I think visually -- visually I do not think that you would be able to see that. Perhaps Susan Murray, who actually I think took a vantage point from the other property as well may be able to more specifically answer that question. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. The next question I have is on transportations, so if anyone -- do you want me to go to that? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Go ahead, please. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Kant, in the ITE manual, amusement complexes are kind of in one category with a broad range; is that correct? MR. KANT: Edward Kant, transportation services director. Well, there's several different listings. There's an amusement park, land use 480; video arcade, if you will, could be part of one, land use 895; a water slide park, land use 414; a multi-purpose recreational facility, land use 435. And there may be a few others in there. If that's the answer -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. KANT: -- you were looking for. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason I ask is there is on things such as this, a scale, the size and scale of what's going on, the cumulative impact of several things has two effects: One, on external impacts and two, on track. It just seems to me, and I want to ask you this question, if I have four rides, I have a carousel and a go-kart track and putt-putt golf and a swimming pool, or a bumper boat, and I add four more rides, is it reasonable to assume that I would attract any more trips to my site by adding rides on site? MR. KANT: I'd have to give you an attorney's answer to that one, yes or no. The measurement in the ITE manual for a number of these uses is by parking space or by employee or by acre, as opposed to per amusement device. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. KANT: Therefore, if they're not adding any parking spaces, if they're not adding any land area, if they're not increasing the size of any buildings or that type of thing, then the obvious conclusion that I would draw would be that there wouldn't be a significant impact. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And you have to base that on ITE transportation standards that really give those three variables as measuring traffic? MR. KANT: That's correct. Typically we use the trip generation publication, which is more of a planning level document for this type of use. Obviously, if we had a number of these types of parks within our jurisdiction, or close by, we could go out, take actual measurements and then relate that back to this. But that's why that publication is so valuable, because it gives us planning level advice. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And when I looked at the updated PUD master plan, I saw that there were parking spaces on the southern property line that looked like they're off-site, or they're on-site but are accessed off-site? Do you have a copy of that master plan? MR. KANT: I believe I do. I -- you're talking about this page? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, up here on the upper center of that, it looks like where -- where you see the go-kart track to the right and you move left, there are parking spaces that are kind of drawn in there that extend into a landscape buffer? MR. KANT: Well, I -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It would be on the southern property. MR. KANT: I believe it's -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, you're pointing to it. MR. KANT: -- in this area you're referring to, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. Do we know if those parking spaces physically exist on-site today? MR. KANT: On the master plan they're noted as existing gravel parking. I do not have first-hand knowledge, no, sir. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. The reason I ask is that -- MR. MULHERE: We do know, Commissioner. Susan -- Susan's been out there, she can discuss that issue. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Now, did those -- have those always -- has it been on the master plan since '80 as gravel parking spaces? Or did they just get added on as existing gravel parking spaces in this plan? MR. KANT: I can't answer that, Commissioner. I don't know. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Here's my question: If you look at the 1980 plan, those spaces are not added, are not evident, on the 1980 plan, they were not anticipated. If they're now on the new plan, they're new parking spaces, thus a traffic generator. That's the reason for my question. Or thus anticipating a generation of increased traffic. MR. KANT: I see where you're going with that. These -- the two plans, the two that are shown on the visualizer, the upper and the lower, which would be the existing and the modified, as well as the revised site plan, show all of those, and I would have to defer to someone on planning staff, or someone other than myself that could give you first-hand information. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, because we have a master plan from 1980 that shows things that were never built and things that are not current. So my question is, are there spaces there? MS. HURRAY: Susan Hurray, for the record. The spaces located on the -- or shown on the southern boundary are not in existence. The -- there are some spaces on the northern boundary that there is an actual space for them. But I believe the painting is just very light, and I don't believe they're actually utilized as parking spaces. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, but the ones on the south to your knowledge do not physically exist today? MS. HURRAY: Correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My question then is when we looked at -- and this may be for you, Susan, since you may have done the calculation. We looked at the parking necessary for the site. Did we include those spaces on the southern property boundary? MS. HURRAY: Generally when we're looking at parking, we're doing a parking analysis at the SDP phase and not necessarily at the PUD phase. The PUD master plan is very general. In fact, most people don't show striped parking spaces on a PUD master plan, and I do not count parking spaces on a PUD master plan. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If we didn't do an analysis of the parking required, how can we really say whether or not there is or is not an increased traffic demand, since that's one of three criteria that ITE uses? I'm not trying to be rhetorical, but did we -- you're saying we did not do a study of whether or not parking on-site is sufficient? MS. HURRAY: We -- let me back up, because it's my understanding that the traffic generation was based -- or the trip generation was based on whether or not acreage was being added, and so no, parking was not a consideration at that analysis. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. But we just heard from Mr. Kant that acreage is one of three possible indicators of increased trips, not -- MR. KANT: If I may, Commissioner, perhaps I was unclear, but I did not mean to infer that those were cumulative. Those are either/or. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. MR. KANT: One use may be measured by parking spaces, one use may be measured by land area, et cetera. So they may be either mutually exclusive or they may be an either/or situation. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. All right. Thank you. Commissioner Berry? MR. HULHERE: You also had a question that I think Susan can respond to relative -- first of all, relative to the number of riders on that and the height of that swing. And we did -- Susan refreshed my memory that we did meet with the applicant and he indicated that the height was 15 feet and the number of riders was maximum 15. I did not go onto the adjacent property owner (sic) to sort of take a look and see what the visual impacts were, but I do believe Susan did, and maybe she could add for the record some comments on that. MS. MURRAY: Susan Murray. I did spend quite a bit of time out at Princess Park. I actually was there on a Friday night walking around, driving around, I spent quite a bit of time in the neighborhoods. I will tell you that the landscape buffer on the eastern boundary is quite substantial. It visually basically blocks out the entire park. Most of the land uses on the adjacent property, the living areas, i.e. porches, et cetera, are directed out towards the back of the properties. They're very little -- not a lot of windows, not porches or anything out towards the front closest to the park. I also had discussions with the petitioner's representative with regard to the height of the water slide, and he indicated to me that there is an existing structure out there. I call it the skull structure. It basically sits -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I'm all for getting rid of that thing. MS. MURRAY: He indicated to me that the height of the water slide was not going to exceed that skull structure, and so I did a visual observation of the existing landscape buffer on that side, on the northern side of the boundary, which is also quite substantial, and basically found no impact. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So from the adjacent property owners for a compatibility standpoint, visually you're comfortable with the determination you made? MS. MURRAY: Very comfortable, yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: However, by adding rides, there's also a noise factor there that that buffer does not address entirely; would you agree with that? MS. MURRAY: Well, we tried to address that through the noise attenuation buffers and the landscape buffers that you described earlier. There are very specific placement on the site with regard to the placement of the new rides and the existing rides. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Did I see a third go-kart track, a separation of a second track into a third smaller track on the plan? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sure did. MS. MURRAY: It was staff's understanding that they were going to be separating a portion of the existing go-kart track, that portion being closest to the eastern property boundary. And that would be used for children's -- or very small kiddie cars, smaller size track and for smaller children. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Was there any commitment on their part that you're aware of that would keep the number of cars total on the site the same or less? MS. MURRAY: No. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we have, in essence, another use there that has been a source of complaints in the past on a compatibility standpoint that in a way is being expanded is -- MS. MURRAY: Well, actually, staff viewed it as a decreased impact, basically reducing the size of the existing go-kart track, which has what I would call the larger cars on it. Actually reducing that size and creating -- or not creating but reconfiguring the track to allow the smaller size cars, and hopefully that would actually act as a decrease for the noise. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. MS. HURRAY: That's the way staff viewed it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you, Ms. Hurray. MS. HURRAY: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris, do you have any questions? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, just a question about -- I'd like to see the -- well, Ms. Student, am I allowed to look at the traffic study that was done? I assume it had to have been done before you rendered an opinion that there were no traffic increase, no impacts. MR. HULHERE: No, no traffic study was done. We simply, as we do with all of these petitions, we forwarded the application to those review professionals, and they commented that there were no -- in their opinion, no traffic impacts. There was no specific TIS done, and one is generally not required for an insubstantial change. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I guess that's sort of the point. MR. KANT: Edward Kant. If I may, my Hay 7th, 1998 response to the planning services request for review, I said there do not appear to be any significant transportation impacts for this proposal and we offer no further comment at this time. And that was based on an examination of the package which is sent which is the site plans, a small narrative and the background data. And again, without rehashing my previous testimony, that's basically what we did was looked at the ITE criteria, looked at what was proposed, and made some professional judgments and came to a conclusion. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Would -- Mr. -- excuse me, did you have -- did you have anything to measure that against? Was there an original traffic study back in '84, whatever? MR. KANT: There may have been. I didn't -- I didn't find anything in my files. The original that I found in my files went back to the PUD documents, which was dated -- and I don't have it exactly in front of me here. Was it '84, I think? Well, this was 1990. That was amended in 1990. That was all I had to go back on. Our files, apparently there was a separation of files back in '89 or '90 when the development services division was taken off. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So I don't understand what you used to compare then. MR. KANT: We looked at what was there versus -- again, this was a PDI, or an insubstantial change. We looked at what was there versus what was being asked for and made a determination based on what we felt the additional or new impacts would be. There was no -- in our opinion, there was no need to go back to the original. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay, thanks. MR. HULHERE: I could find no record in the original PUD file of a traffic impact statement. I can attest to the fact that there wasn't one; there was none in the file. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we don't even have a baseline from which to look at today to say is what's being proposed the same as this or different? MR. HULHERE: That's correct. Again, I would, perhaps just to reiterate, that once we -- staff reviewed the uses and determined that they were similar and compatible. Then the traffic impact, it would be like any other PUD that has a list of permitted uses that already has gone through the zoning process. Someone can reasonably come in and through the site development plan process build those uses. In this case, however, again, because of the specificity, there was an additional step of amending the master plan, and that was the process that we took. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Maybe my question is one of that process. Because it seems to me when you talk about the compatibility, you're talking about, you know, comparable. Having some traffic data in front of you can help you make that determination, as opposed to saying because the uses are similar, therefore, the traffic data is not required. I wonder if maybe those aren't a little backwards. MR. HULHERE: Well, I don't disagree with you. In fact, that is an issue that we will be resolving or reviewing in the process of looking at this whole PDI process. I recognize we have to deal with the -- what we have, the legislation that we have on the table right now. CONNISSIONER HANCOCK: Understood. MR. MULHERE: But I don't disagree, in light of not only this issue, but the previous one that you referenced, which was Pavillion. Different issue, but still a criteria, drainage. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: One more question? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just I appreciate your answering my question and that was what was the evidence that you used to determine that this was insubstantial, and I think you have answered that, and I appreciate that. My question, you'd be surprised to hear a lawyer ask, but is there ever just a commonsense element here? I don't -- I can't look at this from just plain common sense. And if they're doubling the number of attractions, there's no impact, they're adding what they must hope is going to be extremely attractive and successful, a water slide of some kind that's 30 feet high. How can that have no substantial impact? MR. HULHERE: I don't disagree with you that that I'm sure is their hope. I guess my point is that there are also a number of other uses permitted in the PUD we wouldn't even be having this discussion that they could have added. We wouldn't even be having this discussion. Because those are permitted uses within the PUD. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I see. So, I mean, we're comparing -- MR. HULHERE: Once -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- what's permitted to what's proposed, not what's existing -- MR. HULHERE: That's -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- to us. MR. HULHERE: That's correct. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I understand that. MR. HULHERE: And I -- we do try to use common sense, but again, we're trying to represent both the property owner and the concerns -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Absolutely. MR. HULHERE: -- of the adjacent property owners. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think the concern is that it comes down to an amusement park is an amusement park is an amusement park. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think -- and I know we -- I'm sure we have speakers on this -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm sure we do. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, you do. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and we'd like to go to them. But I'd like to pick up on that comment, Commissioner Berry, when we're done, because I think there's something else to add to that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Let's hear from our speakers, please. MR. FERNANDEZ: First speaker is Richard Yovanovich and then Anthony Pires. MR. YOVANOVICH: I would think just since Mr. Pires brought the petition -- THE REPORTER: You need to be on the microphone, please. MR. YOVANOVICH: For the record, Rich Yovanovich. I just think since it's Mr. Pires' petition, he has the burden to go forward and argue his petition and I would have the opportunity to provide rebuttal. So I think he should probably go first. Would you agree, David? MR. WEIGEL: I would. And Mr. Yovanovich, would you indicate to the board for the record whom you represent here today? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, I represented Bic's Investments, who is the owner of King Richard's. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That is the normal course of things, the petitioner presents first, so -- MR. PIRES: Members of the board, again, for the record, Anthony Pires, Jr., law firm of Woodward, Pires and Lombardo. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Pires, you're going to tell us why the information that they considered was not substantial nor competent? MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And nothing else? MR. PIRES: I'm going to focus on those issues, yes, sir, myself and Mr. San Filippo. We have here -- we're representing Walden Oaks and some other individuals and homeowners' associations that are adjacent to the property that's the subject matter in this petition, PDI and this appeal. A number of them are still here today. They've been waiting all morning. They recognize -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: They're getting -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: They're very patient. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- happier by the minute, we can tell. MR. PIRES: Yes, I can -- yes. And they recognize that this is an item, you know, based on the record, and so Paul and I will be doing the speaking for them, arguing what we believe to be the merits of our particular position. But the fact that they are not up here does not mean that they are not concerned. Obviously they are very concerned. And we appreciate the seriousness by which this board, in this deliberation, takes this particular matter. I think what's important to note in this particular PUD, and if I could hand this out to -- I don't know who I should give this to to hand to the board members. MR. WEIGEL: Why don't you give it to me, please. Okay. MR. PIRES: On the left-hand side, it has the list of the uses listed in the PUD, on the right-hand side, the uses on site and/or approved. What they're asking for in this particular request is to add uses and not forego uses. For example, the swimming pool has not been totally eliminated. The swimming pool is a permitted use in the PUD. They are not asking to amend the PUD to delete the swimming pool as a use. And as to the swimming Fool, the letter from Mr. Arnold that was referenced by Mr. Mulhere indicates that a water slide is ancillary to a swimming Fool. Ancillary, as this board is very familiar with, from its prior issues involving accessory uses, is subordinate and accessory to a principal permitted use. They are not showing on that plan or this application the swimming Fool. They are having a freestanding water slide, which has now become a permitted principal use; it is no longer ancillary, as outlined in Mr. Arnold's letter. I think what's key in his letter, and it's in your packet of materials that's part of the appeal, is when Mr. Arnold -- this is an outline: Water slides are ancillary uses, which are similar in nature to the permitted principal use of a swimming Fool. However, he says swimming pools, wave pools and water slides are not necessarily functionally, structurally or mechanically similar in nature. Wave pools and water slides generally require mechanical and/or structural means of altering the water and/or users of the structure. This creates high levels of activity, both in the users and with the water; whereas, the water and activities which occur in swimming pools tend to be more static in nature. That's just one of the uses. The application in this case went on and asked for a number of uses. They wanted to add a water slide, wanted to add this lazy river ride, wanted to create a third go-kart track, wanted to create and add a pirate swing ride, and wanted to add a kiddie roller coaster in this particular instance. So you have not only the existing uses logged onto the PUD, they want to add basically five more new rides. I think another aspect that's important -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: There's no cord. MR. PIRES: If I -- another aspect that's important -- I'll try to wing it, thank you, David -- is that this is the original aFFroved 1984 PUD master plan. The item denoted in pink is the race track, and the item denoted in green is a large lake. This item on the top part is where they propose to have the golf course, miniature golf course, and over here in this area is the parking lot. What has happened in the last 14 years, and since this is the first PUD master plan revision, the track which used to be in this area on the far western side is now way over here to the far eastern side closest to the abutting residential property owners, as opposed to being close to a major arterial, which it was in the original '84 master plat, has now been shifted. This is about 1,200 feet. It's been shifted about 900 feet. So it keeps encroaching further into the residential areas. We also have added -- I'm not sure what process, whether it was a permit or an SDP; not through a master plan, not through anything else -- we have a kiddie railroad that's not listed in the PUD. That's on site. We have a kiddie merry-go-round not listed in the PUD. That's on site. We have a kiddie rodeo, I think that's the hat, bouncing hat, that's not even on the site plan that is supposed to be an accurate depiction of all the uses. That's not in the PUD. We also have requested by this request a water slide, a lazy river ride, that will replace a substantial portion of a relatively static quiet miniature golf course. You don't hear too much hooting and hollering on a golf course, or miniature golf course -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: You do if I'm putting well. MR. PIRES: Well, I get to the 19th hole and I get a hole in one, yeah, I agree. Or if I lose my ball in the water, which I do all the time in miniature golf courses. But you're taking up probably almost a half. If I may? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Go ahead. MR. PIRES: Thank you very kindly, Madam Chairman. About half of the miniature golf course is now gone, eliminated, with very active uses. Over on this side you have the flying dragon, pirate swing, whatever we want to call this, is outlined in the color concept plan. And be sure the results will be strikingly imposing. I'm sure the neighbors would agree to that, as you'll hear from Mr. Paul San Filippo, that that swing ride will be strikingly imposing. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excuse me, Tony. MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, if we're going to have a series of speakers, then we have to comply with the time requirement. MR. PIRES: It will just be myself and Mr. San Filippo is what we're anticipating, Mr. Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm just -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I understand. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. PIRES: We're co-attorneys on this one. I apologize, I'll try to be brief. But thank you very kindly for that point of order, Mr. Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Chairman's meeting. MR. PIRES: We have a large portion of the miniature golf course here, once again, an open space being eliminated for a very active activity, along with the kiddie dragon ride. So we don't have -- we don't -- our argument is that the application wanted to reconfigure a park -- reconfiguration of parking area, which is -- we're not sure what they mean, and go-kart track, which means creating a third track. That's -- reconfiguration, I guess that's a euphemism for creating a third track is reconfigure it. Indicate water slide. Not add it but indicate it. Indicate lazy river uses. Indicate kiddie roller coaster. Show removal of swimming pool. Show revised lake configuration. It doesn't say show merry-go-round, show kiddie railroad, show rodeo. We have -- nor does it say show substantial shift in the race track. We believe by all of these activities that we do have a substantial change that should go through the more detailed review process. I think what's also troublesome is what did the staff have at the time that they performed their analysis? They did not have the original TIS, as we've heard the testimony. They did not have a new TIS. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's a traffic -- MR. PIRES: Impact statement. I'm sorry. They did not have a rendering or description of the lazy river ride at the time they made their decision. They did not have a rendering or description of the water slide. They did not have any prior master plan amendment. They did not have an accurate site plan of the property. As I indicated, the parking is off, potentially. They had no horizontal dimensions. What we do have, and it's troublesome, a number of conversations with the applicant where the applicant indicates and says they will limit this, say it's only for kiddies, we plan a daily pass, we're going to have it 15 feet, we're going to have "X" number of passengers. None of that is in the staff report. That's part of the record that was performed by Ms. Murray. No, that is in the application. That's -- so all the staff had was a very skimpy brief application, a letter from Wayne Arnold that says water slide is ancillary, that is, subordinate, to a swimming pool, is mechanically, functionally and operationally not similar to a swimming pool, and that by itself would require a PDI, not counting all the others. We have more peaceful static uses being replaced by act -- mechanically operated uses. We have knowledge that they can be 30 feet in the air. That's the maximum height under this PUD. We have a master plan not prepared by an urban planner or landscape architect with an engineer as required by the Land Development Code. And we have a location of uses and structures that have been shifted more than 100 feet from the original master plan. We believe what we have is substantial competent evidence to show that it -- they are substantial changes. We have a lot of unanswered questions, which underminded in determination by the staff that this change is insubstantial. We have, as I said, substantially active uses getting closer to a residential area. In conclusion, we believe, and we request this board to make a determination, that these changes are substantial changes to the PUD, that it go back to the proper hearing process, that is, before the Planning Commission, then back before this board with a PUD amendment. If it -- the name of the PUD is still called Princess Park. I think the irony is, if they were going to change it to King Richard's Park on the PUD, they'd have to come before this board and go before the Planning Commission. But yet they can come and not have to come before this board, if the determination of insubstantial change is upheld, and load onto this site five or six additional uses, substantial uses, reduce the size of the lake from the original master plan by a couple of acres by pushing the race track over there, taking this 11.3 acre site; it's basically a -- you know, taking 10 gallons of gasoline, putting a five-gallon can and having the effects spill over onto all the adjacent neighbors. We believe it's substantial, and we request the board to make that determination that it is a substantial change, needs to go through that process, have this board hear that PUD amendment, and give the neighbors and residents an opportunity to have their day before this board. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't recall the question. Mr. Pires, the portion of the race track that you have over there -- yes -- that is yellow bordered with red nearest the lake there? MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That essentially exists and is being operated today; is that correct? MR. PIRES: This entire race track over to here does exist as one COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. MR. PIRES: -- large race track. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So they are operating the little go-karts on that stretch, right? MR. PIRES: Correct. Without going through a master plan. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Now, I believe I heard you say that the property is 1,200 feet deep, approximately? MR. PIRES: It's approximately 1,252 feet, according to the -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Quarter of a mile. MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So how far is it from the nearest homes there to the nearest point on the race track? MR. PIRES: It's approximately 200 feet. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: 200 feet. How many feet would it be from the nearest homes then to the water slide? About 9 -- MR. PIRES: Probably about 900 feet. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: 900 feet. A long ways. MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. We also have the very visible active use, we have a recreational facility over here, part of the Walden Oaks common area. So we have a substantial revision to the master plan pushing everything towards the COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, well, that issue's been addressed earlier in the comments. We understand about the master plan. Thank you. MR. PIRES: Thank you very kindly. MR. HULHERE: Madam Chairman, may I just add that I would take exception with one comment, and that is that the renderings were not a part of the staff report. Well, they were attached to the staff report that went to the Planning Commission. We're not supposed to talk about the Planning Commission findings, but the staff report had attached to it those renderings which we had prior to us making a decision, as well as references to the master plan, revisions to the master plan. This is the normal process, to meet with an applicant and work with them to something that we believe is acceptable. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Next speaker? MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Mr. Paul San Filippo. MR. SAN FILIPPO: Following up with what Mr. Hulhere said, I don't believe that there were any -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Your name, please? MR. SAN FILIPPO: Paul San Filippo, with the firm of Seidensticker and San Filippo, here on behalf of Walden Oaks Homeowners' Association, Barrington, Huntington and several individual homeowners within the Walden Oaks subdivision. I myself am also a homeowner in Walden Oaks, and I have specific knowledge regarding the visual and sound of the existing attractions, as well as the proposed -- what would be proposed. First I'd like to pick up on a point regarding the traffic generation. I appreciate staff's indication of their reliance upon reports that were done, even though there was no baseline comparison. But the staff report actually indicates that their analysis of the traffic was reliant upon a 1984 traffic impact study. Now, it's undisputed, that study does not exist. If it does not exist, I ask, in rendering the staff report, how could that statement be substantial and competent evidence if it does not exist? And I have a portion I'd like to read. There are no substantial increases in impacts of development, due to the proposed changes to the master plan. The addition of other attractions or the replacement may bring more users to the property; however, the traffic analysis conducted at PUD adoption should account for the replacement or addition of uses provided there is no additional land area added to the site. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What are you reading? MR. SAN FILIPPO: And my question -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What were you reading from? MR. SAN FILIPPO: That is the staff determination that the changes are insubstantial. And that is dated -- the last signature by Mr. Cautero is June 8th of 1998. That is -- that is -- that appears in the staff report. And we've heard testimony that they relied on other things. But those other things that they relied upon don't appear in there. And there is no 1984 TIS study, because I asked for one myself, and contacted staff and asked if they could provide that, because we'd like to know what about that '84 took into account the additional -- the additional uses. So with regard to the traffic, I think there is no substantial and competent evidence to support staff's decision. With regard to the site, Ms. Murray indicated she was on the property and these proposed rides would not create any type of a sight disturbance for the residents of Walden Oaks. I live there. I drive in and out of Walden Oaks every day. The batting cages do not exceed 30 feet. You can see them. The buffers that exist and that were referenced are Walden Oaks' buffers, and they exist on the northern -- on the southern border of the Walden Oaks subdivision. There's little or no buffering on the northern border of the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I object to his testifying? I mean this is -- this evidence is irrelevant to the determination we have today on whether or not staff's decision was based on competent substantial -- he may have other evidence, but it's not relevant to that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I asked the question on buffering of Ms. Murray and how she determined whether she deemed it to be visually compatible or not, so I believe I probably asked for this. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'm so confused, frankly, about -- we have an item in front of us that our county attorney tells us we can only consider the record as of June 8th. Is that the magic day? I don't have a single thing in my agenda packet that is dated June 8th or prior. So how am -- I wish that what I had is Mr. Mulhere's file as it existed on June 8th so I could look at it to see what the evidence was that he reviewed to see if I agree it was substantial and competent. MR. WEIGEL: You do have the report that Mr. San Filippo mentioned, and the June 8th is Mr. Cantero's sign-off date. It's actually, I think, a June 1 document on its title front page. Yes, June 1 document. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm going to need somebody to help me find the page. MR. WEIGEL: It's appearing on page 32 of this agenda item. MR. HULHERE: It's the actual staff report for the PDI. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So we have three pages of paper that we Can use. MR. MULHERE: That is the rendering. That's why that date is important. That's the rendering of the staff determination. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But what do I have? Where -- can you refer me -- and you'll get your time, but where can I see in this agenda packet, where can I look at the evidence that the staff had so that I can see if I agree or disagree that it was substantial and competent? MR. MULHERE: Every piece of evidence that we have was contained in the staff report and accompaniments that were sent to the Planning Commission, which we apparently cannot discuss. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So how am I supposed to make a determination? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Pam, that's why I asked the questions I did, because we do have the right and ability to question staff on what they found and what they felt in making their determination. And that's why I asked the questions I did, because there wasn't that information in the packet. Believe me, I don't understand the intricacies of this all that well myself, and I'm not that comfortable with them, but I am at least getting information that's going to help me make a decision. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, I appreciate that. MS. STUDENT: If I might, again, this is a new -- I won't say a new procedure, but it's a procedure in our code that's never been utilized before. And I -- you know, just from my own experience, and I don't review these things, but I am in the records quite a bit. And at that staff level, you know, before it gets anywhere, typically there's not -- there's not a whole lot there. They may have it in their head, but it's -- there's not a lot there. And, I mean, that's all I can tell you about my inexperience with these things. MR. HULHERE: Hay I also add that the process again -- the opportunity for affected property owners to register their concerns or complaints relative to the PDI staff report and the PDI process is at the public hearing at the Planning Commission. When that information is in the staff report, any backup we have was contained in the staff report, the iljustrations were contained in the staff report. That's the process when that occurs. Personally, this process is -- this appeal process of the planning director's determination that the -- that the amendment is insubstantial in nature is wide open. Anyone can appeal that the way it's written in the code right now today. Obviously we're looking at that issue. There should be an appeal process. I 100 percent agree, my professional opinion is the appeal process should take place after the Planning Commission's finding. And when I bring these changes to you in the future, that's what I intend to offer to you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Then we'll have a whole record. MR. HULHERE: But in this case the appeal process took place at the stage of the staff's rendering of the opinion that -- which is the staff report. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. So the only thing we can do is ask you for a record, because there's not a physical record, okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was my understanding. MR. PIRES: I guess for the record also, just a brief chronology, June 4th was when Bob signed the staff report which qualifies as being the written determination. We had 30 days under the ordinance in which to file an appeal. We filed that June 16th. The Planning Commission hearing was set for June 18th. We asked that that be continued. There is a section in your special act that says when you take an appeal from an administrative official it stays all proceedings. Based upon a recommendation of staff, we didn't think we had a right to appeal. The Planning Commission went ahead and heard it on June 18th. It should have been continued. It never should have been considered. The board makes the first blush interpretation. And also, I take issue with Bob saying, you know, that's the opportunity, the opportunity is through this process. And we have objected -- you know, we're willing to -- you know, one thing we recognize, as the chairman indicated out of court, Mr. Yovanovich is objecting to information coming from Mr. San Filippo, yet we heard extensive testimony, not part of the record that was provided by various county staff, that the board felt was important for its determination. And so if it's going to be an objection, we have a continual objection as we made before. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, Madam Chair, we're sitting through an hour and a half of in essence discussion on a staff report that's three pages long. You know, either it's there or it's not. And that's why I questioned our staff so extensively to try and get information out in terms of what their considerations were so we could base it on that. What Mr. Pires and Mr. San Filippo have to say I'm sure is important to them, I'm sure it's important to their client. But unless it goes to the information that staff has provided us either verbally or in writing, it's no good to us. And if we use it in our decision, this thing will get overturned on the other side in a heartbeat. So I would ask again, let's keep it to that and let's get through it and let's get to a decision today. MR. SAN FILIPPO: If I may follow up on the sight issue in terms of compatibility of sight, which I believe is one of the criteria that was used in the staff report. As I was mentioning, there's little or no buffering on the northern border of the Princess Park PUD. All the buffering is on the Walden Oaks side. Now, the buffering is very good here, but it's not that tall, and it's certainly not 15 to 20 feet tall. It's important, as I recognize Commissioner Norris said, that the water slide is back here and it's away from these residential uses, but it is not away from the clubhouse. This is the proposed site for the kiddie flying dragon, and there was also a proposed roller coaster, which was 150 feet long, from what we understand. This is the proposed site. It is in direct line to people who want to sit at their pool and enjoy a Sunday afternoon or a Saturday afternoon. That buffer is not going to cut it. I go in and out there every day. It will not cut it. All the uses are right here on the pool. At times I have actually run by here and almost been hit with batting cage balls. That buffering is not sufficient. It is the proposed -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sufficient is an opinion, Mr. San Filippo. We can only consider testimony countering what Ms. Murray said. MR. SAN FILIPPO: I understand. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So I need data, I don't need opinions. MR. SAN FILIPPO: From a sight aspect we believe that it will be incompatible with the neighboring use, which is the Walden Oaks subdivision. Last point I'd like to make, because it's been a long day for the board and for the residents and everyone here, is with regard to what we didn't have and what staff didn't have, is we don't know how these water slides are going to be lit. Are they going to play music on the water slide? Is it going to be played through amplification? What are the lighting -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not a part of the staff report. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't think so either. MR. SAN FILIPPO: It's not a part of the staff report, exactly. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that's your point. MR. SAN FILIPPO: And that's my point. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that is the point. MR. SAN FILIPPO: Absolutely. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So is the evidence substantial and competent if we didn't even ask those questions. MR. SAN FILIPPO: And that is my point. And the water slide schematics were not part of that, and I think they should be. And the people sitting here who have been sitting patiently want to know that, because it's important to them because they live there. And with that, I'd like to close and just with one remark is while we've sat here for over an hour and argued about what is substantial and what is insubstantial, what I propose to the board is, is it that bad if we determine if it's substantial and we have to go through this process, which may ensure over 300 residents their day before the board? Is that such a bad penalty? Is that such a bad thing? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: As you understand, we can't make our decision because of that. MR. SAN FILIPPO: I understand. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not just someone may have liked it. MR. MULHERE: I'll just make a very brief statement again. The issues of noise, lighting, those are generally issues that are addressed not for the PDI process but through the -- in the case of lighting, through the SDP process. And besides, they weren't being requested, and we had no intention of authorizing, you know, additional music through a loudspeaker system. It was not an issue that we -- that we addressed. It's not part of the criteria for being addressed -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think -- MR. MULHERE: -- not as part of the PDI process. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think the concern is suppose that they went forward with the project and then we find out six months later that they have music or have installed lights. Do we have redress ability? MR. MULHERE: Yes, we do. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, my -- my question, though, is aren't there certain -- it would sure help me if I could see a picture of this water slide, this water park, if I knew what it was going to look like. Because if it is not what's in Cape Coral and it's something between Cape Coral and Golden Gate, then I could understand why you wouldn't ask about lights and sound. But if it's what's in Cape Coral, you're going to have to ask do they -- MR. MULHERE: I apologize. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- are there going to be loudspeakers saying please hold onto the rails? I mean, what's going to happen? MR. MULHERE: Let me place this segment of the master plan on the video visualizer here. There we go. Password. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There are three slides there. There's two corkscrews and a straight one. MR. MULHERE: Right there. That is -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Into a landing pool. MR. MULHERE: And the lazy river -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is all around. MR. MULHERE: -- I'm going to -- yeah, I'm going to narrow the angle there. The lazy river, we'd go around that. There's the castle building, so that gives you a little bit of scale. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Those are bigger than Golden Gate, obviously. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Little bigger. MR. MULHERE: Oh, they are bigger than Golden Gate, definitely. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the idea -- this big square at the back is where they climb up and slide down or something? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's the platform. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the platform that -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's probably going -- that's going to be the highest point, would be my guess. MR. MULHERE: Which is limited to 30 feet. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thanks once again to my, you know, working at Busch Gardens in high school. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And then you'll end up at the end of these -- you'll go through all these little circles before you land in the pool? MR. MULHERE: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, it depends on which side you go down. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There's different ways of going down. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh. See, you could tell that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There are three slides. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can't tell that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, you can go straight down or you can go COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, I see -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- through the little circles. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- there's three slides. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Like that 3-D test you took on the L side or something. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, it wasn't -- I didn't do well on it. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chair? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Would you like to call on the final speaker at this time? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Please. MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Richard Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: I almost don't want to talk. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We kind of threw you off with that last one, didn't we? MR. YOVANOVICH: For the record, Rich Yovanovich, representing the owners or Bic's Investment Corporation. I don't want to spend a whole lot of time. I think staff did a very good job explaining to you the several meetings they had with the applicant and how they analyzed whether or not this was a substantial or insubstantial change. I do want to point out just a couple of quick things for the record. First of all, I'm not even sure under the current LDC provision that they have any right to be here in the first place. Under the LDC -- I'm just making arguments for the record. On the LDC it says that the applicant applies for a determination. The determination is given -- a written determination is given to the applicant and that determination may be appealed. There's no mention of any outsiders entering into the process at this point. Then the next step in the process is you go to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission hears evidence and determines whether or not they agree or disagree with county staff. And that's the process that we went through. So I'm not sure that we should have even heard this appeal, but we did. So briefly I just want to put on the record that I don't think they have any right to be here. Next is this appeal is not a reconsideration of the PUD. That PUD is there, the permitted uses under the PUD are there, and staff has to interpret the PUD. Nowhere in this PUD does it say there's going to be five uses on the property, 10 sites on the uses -- 10 sites on the property. It only says these are the types of uses, and then it has the catchall of any other similar and compatible recreational use approved by the zoning director. So there is flexibility on the types of amusements that may be at the park. And Bob went through that analysis on whether or not the kiddie ride or the water slide and lazy river are similar and compatible uses, and he determined they were. So they are permitted uses under the PUD. The original master plan even contemplated future activity. It never said this is an exhaustive list. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to see that future mas -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It says it right here. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's right here. This says future activity. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: In a particular pod, or generally? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, it's in a location. Now, admittedly, what happened was, is we went through a site development plan process and the master plan is not -- it doesn't mirror the original master plan, so we're here to make it consistent. So what is actually on the ground is consistent with the master plan to the PUD. And every one of those uses that is on that colored drawing is depicted on the master plan, including the location of the new permitted uses we want to identify on the master plan. So at that point, since it is a permitted use, staff is left with the decision on whether or not where we want to show these uses on the property meets the criteria of an insubstantial change. And staff went through that very detailed analysis, and I'm not going to repeat everything that staff said that they did do in rendering their decision. But I do want to highlight that the only experts who have testified here today are your staff, and they have told you exactly what they considered in rendering their decision. They are the experts. I'm an advocate. I'm advocating a position. Mr. San Filippo -- Filippo, is that right -- is an advocate. MR. SAN FILIPPO: Close enough. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I don't think he has any particular training on land use matters and compatibility or planning matters. So whatever he has said is just that. It's just his opinion and has very little weight. Susan Hurray did extensive site visits. Bob and Susan met with my clients. They were told exactly what was going to be out there. They have told you what they were told. They had the information available to them at the time they made their decision, and they made the right decision. You may disagree with their decision and come to a totally different conclusion, but that's not the parameters of today's discussion. You don't get to reweigh the evidence. You just have to decide whether or not Bob and Susan had evidence and was it competent and substantial evidence that a planner can render a decision on whether it's substantial or insubstantial. And they rendered their decision. This park has been there for years, will hopefully be there for many more years. It is subject to all of the county's ordinances, it's subject to the noise ordinance, it has height limitations. Their hours of operation are basically from 10:00 in the morning 'til effectively 9:00 at night when the track has to close down. The track, probably one of the noisiest things, closes at 9:00, so essentially the park closes at that time. You've had testimony from qualified individuals. You haven't had any testimony from anybody who's not qual -- who is qualified to rebut their testimony. The residents of Walden Oaks knew what they were buying when they bought their property. As Commissioner Berry said, an amusement park is an amusement park is an amusement park. They knew it was going to be there. I -- buyer's remorse, because it turned out to be a little bit different than what they had hoped it would be is no excuse for overturning staff's decision that this is an insubstantial change. Staff had the evidence there, the evidence is substantial, it is competent, and your staff's decision has to be upheld at this stage. And there has been, for your -- a lawsuit filed challenging the Planning Commission's decision. So they've had their day in court, they attended the Planning Commission, and they said what they needed to say. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just a question for Harjorie. MS. STUDENT: Yes, ma'am. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The comparison here is not -- let's see. My question is -- why am I having such trouble with this? Is staff's -- I am judging whether or not there was substantial competent evidence to say that the change shown -- the change proposed is '- MS. STUDENT: Substantial. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- is substantial as compared to -- here's my question. Am I comparing to what's on the ground, what's in the SDP, or what was permitted in the PUD? MR. HULHERE: It's based on the criteria in the code for '- MS. STUDENT: It's criteria in the code -- MR. HULHERE: -- insubstantial changes to PUD's. MS. STUDENT: -- that -- that -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know. MS. STUDENT: -- you look at, and it would be -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But I gotta know what I'm comparing to. Am I comparing what's proposed to what's on the ground, or am I comparing -- are you comparing what's proposed to what's in the PUD? MR. MULHERE: Both. What's permitted in the PUD or could be permitted in the PUD, as well as what's existing, as well as the existing master plan. When you look at the criteria, it addresses all of those, that criteria. Perhaps I -- I mean, I could briefly review that for you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm not asking -- I'm not asking it better. Let me ask it better, Bob. When you -- when you analyzed this, were you comparing -- were you assuming that everything that's in the PUD could be -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- constructed, could exist there -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- and so the question is are these worse MR. MULHERE: That's part of the -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- others? MR. HULHERE: -- analysis, yes. MS. STUDENT: Commissioner Hac'Kie, I believe there's an answer in the code, because it states upon receipt of the amended PUD master plan, the development services director shall review said plan, which would be the amended plan, against the criteria established within section 2.7.3.5.1. And those are the criteria that are detailed in that staff analysis that has the final date of June 8th on it. So that is what our code sets forth as how it's to be viewed against those criteria. And then you have to look at each one of the criteria. For example, one says there's a proposed change in the boundary of the PUD. So obviously you would have to look -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MS. STUDENT: -- at that proposal vis -- you know, against the original PUD to see if there's a change in the boundary from the original PUD that's there approved to what the amendment proposes. Then there's a proposed increase in the total number of dwelling units or intensity of land use -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I got it. MS. STUDENT: -- or kind of buildings within the development. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I think what's happened -- what's happened for me is I came in here imagining that I lived next door to Princess Park, or whatever its name is now, and they're going to add these uses, would I be shocked? Is that a tremendous change? The answer is certainly yes. But that's -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's not the issue. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- not the question. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The question is if I bought property in Walden Oaks and I looked at the PUD to see what were all the potential things that could happen next door to me, should I have assumed that these are included in the potential list, and that's a different question. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. I don't disagree with you, but I think it goes a little further. And let me ask a question of Ms. Student in order to help determine this. Isn't this a great job? It's law on the cuff here, Marjorie. In this application process, is the responsibility placed upon the applicant to show that their change is insubstantial, or is the burden on our staff to deem it either substantial or insubstantial? Who does that burden rest with? MS. STUDENT: Well, I think the burden rests with the applicant. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MS. STUDENT: And it states in the code to provide -- he has to provide documentation which adequately describes the proposed changes, along with the fee and so forth. So I think it's up to them to provide the documentation, but I believe it's up to staff to take that documentation and look at the criteria and make a planning call, utilizing all the criteria, whether or not it's insubstantial. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I -- or if this board determines that our staff failed to consider one or two elements that we feel are necessary to determine compatibility or comparable uses, does that qualify as not meeting the competent and substantial evidence requirement if we feel they failed to consider elements? MS. STUDENT: I think it could. And to support that, I'm going to read a definition from the case of Lee County versus Sunbelt Equity, a competent substantial evidence, and that states, the competent substantial evidence has been defined as evidence that a reasonable mind could accept as adequate to support a conclusion. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So enough. Not just persuasive, but that there was enough information. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me -- MR. MULHERE: May I just -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and that's kind of where I'm heading to in this. I believe when we look at these uses, for example, the water slide and the lazy river, I think staff did a more than adequate job in looking at that and determining its impacts and whatnot, and reviewed the code and said look, if it's lighting and music, that's covered elsewhere, and whatnot. But what bothers me is two things: Is the pirate swing, which is a new use. As I look at the balance of uses, I don't see a comparable use in the PUD. That's one. I don't believe that was met. Second thing, though, is if part of the compatibility issues and part of what staff considered was in fact traffic, which was cited in their staff report, yet there was no traffic report to be reviewed from 1984, and no traffic impact statement was requested from current conditions to future conditions from the applicant, that in my opinion our staff failed to review a necessary element of determining whether or not this is compatible or comparable to what is on this. So it may sound like splitting hairs. And I have to say, one of the problems I have is that King Richard's has a place in this community. I mean, there -- I would like to see it succeed in many ways, because kids need places to go, I've been there, you know, I want to see it succeed. But it's got to do so in concert with the community. And I think by our staff not really having any comparison of the traffic information, they failed to review a necessary element of making the insubstantial or substantial determination. I'm not trying to be critical, Bob, but that's just one thing that I wish you had done, because if I had the information in front of me and it said there is no difference, then I can say yes, you did consider that, yes, you did weigh it, yes, you did request the proper information. I don't have it, it doesn't exist, and for that reason, I don't think that we can hold -- I don't think I can personally vote to uphold the determination that this is an insubstantial change. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My problem -- I want -- I want to agree with you. My problem with that is that we have Mr. Kant who says it's so obvious that he didn't need a traffic study. Did I hear you right, Mr. Kant? MR. KANT: Edward Kant, transportation services director. That's essentially correct. Based on the proposed changes, we did not feel that there was going to be any substantial increase or impact, if you will, from the traffic. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The problem -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask -- let me ask a question here of Ms. Student. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Get back up there. MS. STUDENT: I'm getting questions from everybody right now. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I haven't asked you one yet, so this is my chance. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I understand it, it doesn't matter what the opinion of the staff was, as long as the evidence that they looked at to make that opinion -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's true. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- in our opinion is competent and substantial. MS. STUDENT: That's correct. Because if you went beyond that, then you're in the scenario of reweighing evidence. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Can't do that. MR. HULHERE: And may I just add that it seems that definition that Ms. Student read of -- that a reasonable person would determine to be substantial and competent, I mean, it -- obviously it works both ways. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yet in your -- in Mr. Hulhere's testimony he did state, when I asked him the question are there -- would he deem any other use at King Richard's that is currently there, or I'll throw in permitted, comparable to the pirate swing ride. Now, I didn't say permitted, I said what's there. MR. HULHERE: Yeah. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, let me change that to permitted. Do you -- would you deem that a consistent or comparable use to what's in the permitted column here? MR. HULHERE: I do think it is, yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And whether I disagree or not, that doesn't get us anywhere, does it? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could you '- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I still feel that the consideration of traffic information, the failure of that is warrant enough for the insubstantial determination to be appealed successfully. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could you tell us, Mr. Mulhere, which of the -- which of the permitted uses you think this whatever we're calling it -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Pirate swing. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- pirate swing -- MR. MULHERE: Again, there are all kinds of mechanical amusements in that -- in that -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: List of permitted uses. MR. MULHERE: Right, there are all kinds of mechanical -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Like -- I threw mine -- MR. MULHERE: -- uses. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- in the trash. Sorry, Tony, but -- MR. MULHERE: We may disagree as to the level of intensity of those uses, but the list of permitted uses assumes and includes a number of mechanical uses. Again, the go-kart rides, they create more noise than perhaps the pirate swing might create, but they're lower to the ground. You know, there are other rides that are higher. You get the hat, the bouncing hat I call it. I don't -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I haven't seen the hat. MR. MULHERE: -- know what it is. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could I see the hat? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Really not very exciting, Pam. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No offense. MR. MULHERE: No, I understand. I didn't go on it myself, but -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay, you -- you answered my question. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think the real problem here is our codes and procedures here. If we're limited only to whether or not substantial evidence was submitted and we have no other criteria on which to base a decision legally than that, I think we need to change that policy in the codes. That's not right. We've got to have more latitude than that. There's -- there are issues of compatibility, there's issues of integrating into neighborhoods and all sorts of other issues that this board needs to have to keep our community the way we want. I don't know, I'm not comfortable at all with what -- what the position is that we find ourselves in today. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hu-huh, me either. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I am. I think we are in a position to look at this and determine that this is a substantial alteration to an existing PUD based on uses being added that are not comparable to what exists when you look at the impacts those uses will have on adjacent properties. I think that's there. And I think the traffic consideration is there. If I'm the only one that feels that way, then I'll just shut up and let this go on, but I do feel they are there. And I know it's a difficult decision. I mean, there's -- it's not clear-cut on either side here, because we do -- we're operating with our hands somewhat tied here by our own code. And you're right, we need to fix that. But I do feel there is enough that should have been considered and was not considered to the extent that I think our staff had the responsibility to, and particularly in the traffic area, and I just -- I can't get away from that; I'm kind of stuck on that, to be honest with you. So I don't think I'm going to change one way or the other, but I'm stuck there. In that case, I'm -- tell you what, I'm going to go ahead and make a motion we deny -- or approve the appeal of petition A-98-2 on the grounds that cumulative noise impacts from uses that are substantially different from those on site were not considered, and that a traffic impact statement being absent made a comparison from what was approved to what is being proposed impossible and should have been considered also. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I have a question for Mr. Mulhere again on the motion. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If you close the public hearing? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I will close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I apologize, Madam Chairman. I -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's all right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: On the -- I've heard your answer on the traffic. The traffic question, your answer is I sent it to the traffic engineering but the county -- MR. MULHERE: My answer I think goes beyond that. I think I -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay, give it to me. MR. MULHERE: -- again -- again, if these were two clearly permitted uses within the PUD, we would not be looking at a traffic impact, because they are permitted uses in the PUD, that issue was decided when the PUD was rezoned originally. Once the determination was made -- right or wrong, once the determination was made that these two uses were comparable, similar and compatible to the other uses in the PUD, then the traffic impacts were not -- they were not an issue. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that isn't what I'm asking. I'm asking -- MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- didn't you use -- didn't you consider -- did you or did you not consider the traffic impacts of the proposed changes when you made the decision that -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- this was insubstantial? MR. MULHERE: Yes, we did. We -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the information that you used for that purpose was Mr. Kant's opinion? MR. MULHERE: As well as Mr. Bellows' opinion, yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me go to that opinion, if I may -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please. I'm -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- Commissioner Mac'Kie. Three elements that we were told by Mr. Kant that were considerations were increases in parking space, increase in acreage of the site and increase in employees. Water slides don't run themselves, they require lifeguards, they require operators. New events don't run themselves, they require operators, which means more employees. We may be nitpicking over 12 employees, but I've seen us kick things out for 12 parking spaces before -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: one or two parking spaces. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed. -- and I've seen us kick things out for Yeah. So there is at least an increased demand on employees due to the expansion of what appears to be four new rides, if you include the go-kart track. Even though acreage wasn't expanded, even though they're not asking to expand parking spaces, there will -- is an increased demand for employees. Again, I think just getting a baseline TIS and expanded TIS on the proposal would have shown definitively whether that is or isn't the case. And I do think that one of the criteria has been hit with the employee issue. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What about that, Mr. Kant? MR. KANT: In respect to the issue raised by Commissioner Hancock, when reviewing the list of permitted uses and proposed permitted uses, the issue that was raised was whether or not this was a substantial deviation. And as I stated earlier, the issue then becomes one of judgment. If there are 35 employees, are one or two extra substantial or 10 or 12 extra substantial, at what point -- what's the cut-off point? And I think as a professional on your staff, we have to make determinations every day based on our experience and our judgment. And at this point I can only rely on approximately 35 years of that, so I have to provide the best information to you that I can. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm only 31 years old, so you got me beat there, Ed, but -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can't substitute my judgment for -- and that's not -- that's the whole point here. I can't substitute my judgment for theirs. I'll be honest with you, I would -- I strongly wish that this could go through the PUD amendment process. But I can't substitute my judgment for Mr. Kant's or for Mr. Mulhere's, and in that case, I'm stuck. I wish I could. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So basically what we're saying is did they have substantial information in which to base their finding? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Apparently that's what Ms. Student has told MS. STUDENT: It's adequate was the definition I read into the record, was the information adequate that would support the conclusion that staff reached. And we can't tell you the answer to that. You'd have to rest -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's why you make the big bucks. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And again, understand that, you know, I wish no ill on the operators of King Richard's. I want to see this thing succeed, but at what point, if we add every single thing on this list, does it become a substantial change. Even though they're permitted uses, when does it become substantial that the changes that are being made need to be considered in the area of traffic to a higher degree? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: When they propose a stadium there. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, so -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't know, I'm just being facetious. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I beat that dead horse. I'm not trying to make anyone uncomfortable here, and I'm certainly not trying to question the professionalism of our staff, because I have all the respect in the world for Mr. Kant and Mr. Hulhere. I just happen to disagree with you on this. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's what it's all about. Okay, I'll close the public hearing. Did you make a motion? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- my motion will stand, yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do I have a second? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The motions dies for lack of a second. Do I have another motion? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, if no -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Then not seeing that, then I will -- I believe I have the authority to make a motion. I will move that -- to uphold the staff recommendation on this particular one. Do I have a second? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. If there are no further questions, I'll call for the question. All in favor? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Aye. Opposed? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries three-one. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We gotta change this code. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right, we're going to take a five-minute break for our court reporter, please. (Brief recess.) Item #13A2 PETITION, CU-98-13, HIREYA LOUVIERE REPRESENTING NORRIS WADE BETHEL, REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE "2" OF THE AGRICULTURE ZONING TO ALLOW FOR A HORTICULTURAL HULCHING FACILITY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF IHMOKALEE ROAD (CR-846) AND WOODCREST DRIVE - DENIED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Moving on to our last item today. And I tell you, I must commend all of you for endurance. You have been here basically with us I think since early this morning, moving from one side of the room to the other side of the room back to this side of the room. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Madam Chairman, could I suggest that we take a dinner break before we hear this? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Feeling hungry. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I do think better on a full stomach. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I didn't think we'd get a good reception. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I understand. ***This next item is petition number CU-98-13. It has to do with a conditional use of ag. zoning to allow for a horticultural mulching facility. Mr. Bellows? MR. BELLOWS: Madam Chairman, since this is a quasi judicial hearing, we'll have to swear in the speakers. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Would all the individuals that are going to speak to this item please stand and be sworn in by the court reporter, please. (All speakers were duly sworn.) MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows of current planning staff. Petitioner is requesting a horticultural mulching facility for property located on the southeast corner of Immokalee Road and Woodcrest Drive. Petitioner indicates the proposed facility comprises of two types of power equipment: One is a tub grinder that will create mulch, the other is a tree debarker. The traffic impact review indicates that the project could -- MS. LOUVIERE: I'm sorry, for the record Maria Louviere. I'm representing the property owner. I just wanted to let you know that they decided they will not keep a debarker on the site anymore; they've done away with that. MR. BELLOWS: Strike one debarker. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: One debarker. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: One debarker. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would that be used on a dog? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That would be to unbark, okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't know, it sounds kind of serious to me. HR. BELLOWS: The traffic impact review indicates that maximum 15 trips could be generated on the site. That's based on the ITE. However, more realistically will probably see three of the semi trucks hauling in the larger logs, and the rest of the trips will be the half-ton type pickup type trucks visiting the site. The site is located in the rural agricultural district on the future land use map. The surrounding properties are vacant agricultural lands. To the north is the earth mining operation, the Mule Pin (phonetic) earth mining operation. Therefore, staff has determined that there is strong compatibility between this mulching facility and the earth mining operation. However, their access to the site is provided from a private road, Woodcrest Drive. Larger trucks traveling in and out of the site may cause dust and maintenance problems to the roadway; therefore, the applicant has agreed to pave Woodcrest Drive from Immokalee Road to the project entrance. That should alleviate a lot of those concerns. In addition, staff's of the opinion that this is in a corridor that's going to be developed in the future, and it's single family. We started seeing some of that with the TwinEagles type development. There is talk of future extensions of the urban service lines further out in this area in the future, possibly. Therefore, staff is recommending that this conditional use be limited to five years, and at that time, if the earth mining operation ceases to operate, then the conditional use would have to end for this mulching facility. And at the end of this five years, they can apply for a conditional use again to keep the mulching operation going, and we can determine compatibility with mulching -- or with the earth mining and any other uses that may come on line during that time. The Planning Commission has agreed with that. They approved this by a vote of four to three, with four votes recommending approval, base their decision on the findings that it is consistent with the growth management plan, that the access was safe, and that it would be compatible with adjacent land uses. The three voting against felt that they could be incompatible with the residential uses on the street. Two individuals spoke at the Planning Commission in opposition also concerning children and the bus stop. Any other questions that you may have, I'll be happy to answer. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, I have to disclose the fact that I have had contact by the other side on this particular issue. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I've had outside contact, but I'll base my decision on the information in the hearing. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nobody talks to me. I don't understand. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We talk to you, Pam, just on Tuesdays. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've had contact as well. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I too have met with individuals representing adjacent property owners. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have any speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let's hear from the petitioner first, I guess. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. MS. LOUVIERE: Actually, I can see that you're very tired, you've had a very long agenda today. I just -- I don't want to add anything on to staff's comments. I think he has pretty much stated that I'm totally compatible with the surrounding uses at this time and with the future land use element. If you have any specific questions, I'll be glad to answer them. If not, then we can hear from the other speakers, and then I'll address their comments. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Barb? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ms. Louviere, do you represent the property owner or a contract purchaser? MS. LOUVIERE: I -- actually, he purchased the land and he is the owner. It's the Bethel brothers, they own the land. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So there's no contract purchaser involved? MS. LOUVIERE: Originally it was a contract to purchase with the intent of developing this site in this manner, and then they decided to actually go ahead and purchase the land. Because we kept asking for extensions, because as you know, it's very hard to get before the board. But the Hatper brothers, who owned the land, told them that they had to make a decision, and they intend to place their business there. It's going to employ these two brothers. So they bought the land. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Your -- you mentioned deemed -- our staff has deemed that it is compatible. That's yes and no, because there is a potential incompatibility on the fact that it's adjacent to the urban portion of Collier County, which is allowable at four units per acre. What my concern is is that if we approve a five-year conditional use, most people frankly wouldn't want to build a house within a coup -- a hundred feet of a mulching operation. MS. LOUVIERE: Actually, I -- and you're right. You're very good with that. That's why this is compatible with the existing use of the rock mining operation. Which I have contacted representatives from Florida Rock who have stated to me that they intend to stay on that site for five years. And that is why the conditional use has been limited to five years. I am of the opinion that no one is going to want to live across from Florida Rock. In the future, if we decide if the County Commissioners -- although Mr. Jassy's told me that he thinks the land use line -- no, the future -- the urbanized line will be moved very rapidly here. If the commissioners decide -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Wait a minute. Whoa. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Don't count on it. MS. LOUVIERE: Well, anyway, I do not want to open that can of Worms. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Where is he? Who said that? MS. LOUVIERE: If -- if the commissioners decide to move the urban line, then, you know, and my proper -- or this property then falls within the urban boundary, I will have to come back up here. What I don't -- my whole point is -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me just make a comment on that. One sure way to make sure that the urban line is not going to be moved is to keep these commissioners in office. MS. LOUVIERE: I don't see -- I don't see anyone wanting to place any kind of subdivision there. I don't care if you put one house or five acres or if you put four dwelling units per acre, it's just not going to happen with Florida Rock Mining (sic.) In the future, if Florida Rock ceases to operate there, then maybe -- and the urban boundary moves, then maybe that area will become very urbanized. As it stands right now, you have Florida Rock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct me if '- MS. LOUVIERE: And I'm tying my conditional use to their activity. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand that, and I agree there's a compatible in what you want to do and what Florida Rock is doing, but Florida Rock is across Immokalee Road, right? MS. LOUVIERE: That's right. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Immediately to your east, doesn't the urban line extend one mile beyond 9517 MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Which is one section of land? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. This road is roughly the urban line. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Which means that Woodcrest Drive is the separation between urban and rural agricultural. So you're talking about compatibility of something across the street. I'm talking about your adjoining property line '- MS. LOUVIERE: My adjoining property -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- across Woodcrest. MS. LOUVIERE: My adjoining properties on both sides right now are agricultural. And to the south is also agricultural. The person that lives there has a nursery facility. So I have addressed compatibility issues on all four sides of my site. The lady to the west contacted me and she has no opposition to what we are proposing to do there. She's intending to -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you have a letter from her or anything? MS. LOUVIERE: No. Actually, I just had a phone conversation with her. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MS. LOUVIERE: Because she called -- she was interested in perhaps doing something like that on her land, which I do not recommend. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. MS. LOUVIERE: Did that answer your question? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, it did. Thank you. MS. LOUVIERE: You're very welcome. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, do we have any other questions from commissioners? If not, we'll go to public speakers. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Kent Kolegue, I believe, and then Bruce Tyson. MR. KOLEGUE: My name is Kent Kolegue, and I live on Woodcrest Drive. I'm the first residence on the street. And I wrote letters to all of you. I hope you all have received them. I thank you for the responses I've received. My whole goal is to defeat this, because it is not the right place for this to have a debarker or saw mill mulching operation and having that traffic problem. And, you know, they're saying 15 trips and then more trucks. We already have a serious problem in that area. We've had recent deaths in traffic there. We do have children that are picked up by the school bus and dropped off in the evening that are going to be facing trucks slowing down there. It's already difficult enough to get in and out of Woodcrest Drive without having an additional logging truck and more pickups picking it up. Additionally, you know, we do have approximately 15 children on the street, and they also would have to face that. You know, that's a main road in and out. You know, I did get all -- a petition from all of the residents there, signed, sent to you folks against it. There was no one that spoke for it. They do not want it, I do not want it. It is incompatible with the existing -- never mind tomorrow's use, but today's use as much. That is, you know, the main concern. You know, we bought to be in a quiet residential area, and that's what it is. I do have across the street from me my neighbor, Mr. Herb (phonetic) runs a nursery. He has 10 acres of land there, and it's probably the quietest nursery you've heard in the world. There might be three or four deliveries a month there and that's it. And Mr. Herb spoke at the Planning Commission meeting as well in -- against having them on the corner. It's just not the right place. There are plenty of other places in our rural area that this could go without impacting any residential areas existing today. And that's my statement. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Bruce Tyson and then Joseph Trunkett. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Great tie. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I was going to say, I think Bruce Tyson will win the tie award today -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Great tie. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- for color. MR. TYSON: Thank you very much. For the record, Bruce Tyson. I'm a planner with Wilson, Miller, Barton and Peek. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll withhold my tie comment. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The girls like the tie. MR. TYSON: Thank you very much. And as probably important for this, I am a registered landscape architect in the State of Florida, a member of the American Society of Landscape Architects, and a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Fine organization. MR. TYSON: I think recently the board itself, staff and various interest groups have been focusing their attention on this Immokalee Road corridor, mainly because of the growth demands that are occurring in this area. The area has drawn the attention of numerous investors, primarily because of the large tracts of land that do exist. And it was referenced even by Mr. Bellows that the TwinEagles development certainly exemplifies the quality of the residential development that is occurring in the corridor. If this were simply a horticultural mulching use, then I would probably have no agreement or disagreement about the fact of what is happening here. But when you add tub grinding and a potential of other things that are going on, I find that to be much more closely related to an industrial or manufacturing use, and I think you'll even COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What's tub grinding? MR. TYSON: They can probably explain it better than me, but it's a large tub that you wind up dumping stumps or timber or wood products into. It grinds and shreds up material, and it comes out at a point where you can use it as mulch. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is it loud? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not real quiet. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is it loud? Well, I'll ask them. MS. LOUVIERE: We'll address those comments. MR. TYSON: Anyway, if you've looked in the SIT codes, I think you'd find that that part of it is much more comparable to a manufacturing use than it is to a horticultural use. I think, as you look at this, one of the primary clues is the fact that the project generates truck traffic approximately, what I can gather, in about 75 percent to 25 percent over regular passenger vehicles, which leads me to believe that it's certainly not residential in nature, but definitely much more industrial in nature. And to make any comparison or draw comparables between this use and Florida Rock is simply perpetrating something that I don't know anyone wants to see occur in the area. And it's also the changes that are occurring in the area. I think it's a very good use, it's probably a needed use, but I think is definitely in the wrong location. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Joseph Trunkett. MS. LOUVIERE: We have one more speaker. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, they don't -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You have to go when they call. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes or no. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Either you want to speak -- if you want to speak and you're called, that's the time to do it. UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: He's going to pass. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: He's going to pass? Okay. Who's the next speaker, please? MR. FERNANDEZ: Lance Bethel. MR. LANCE BETHEL: For the record, Lance Bethel, B-E-T-H-E-L, last name. I would just like to address Ms. Hac'Kie's comment about what is MS. LOUVIERE: Hac'Kie. MR. LANCE BETHEL: Hac'Kie. -- what exactly is a tub grinder. There's several different model sizes. They have them for large municipalities, such as the landfill, the City of Naples Recycling there on Goodlette-Frank Road. The one that we use is not a -- is not made, designed or can be used in large municipalities. I have a picture, if you'd like to see one, actually what it is. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thanks. MR. LANCE BETHEL: I'll give it to him. There's a couple of them there you can pass out. As far as a commercial -- you know, as an industrial site, you know, as far as -- I don't understand how he rolled that over from horticulture into a manufacturing. We are manufacturing mulch, if that's -- if that's what you would like to call it. Manufacturing anything, it's just mulch. The trucks -- or let me -- let me speak a little more on the manufacturing. It's a mulch product that we use from -- that we receive horticulture debris. We don't receive large stumps. The machines that we have, you know, that we would get will not grind it. It's not made for a landfill type use, you know, for a large municipality like they have in Collier County. It's made more for the smaller downsized landscapers, nursery men type, you know, people that do that. I have pictures of some of the trucks that would frequent, if you would like to see some of them. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would. MR. LANCE BETHEL: They're not -- they're -- at our zoning board meeting or whatever you want to call that -- MS. LOUVIERE: Planning Commission. MR. LANCE BETHEL: -- thing -- Planning Commissioner meeting, it was addressed that they were going to be dump trucks, you know, and large tractor-trailers. We were trying to do a pole-making process, a fence post making process, which would have occurred and had the tractor-trailers, but we are not going to do that no more. We've -- you know, we've went back on that and just decided that it's -- you know, to leave well enough alone to, you know, get this o~e. So those are the trucks. You know, there will be no dump trucks that are like in -- that are like that in Florida Rock, you know, and it's just not a large volume of traffic. We will have approximately three -- I would say a maximum of eight tractor-trailers of mulch going out. You know, that's not on a weekly basis, because we have to accumulate it, grind it, and then it has to hauled out. It's not an everyday all day situation that, you know, a working process. You have to do -- you have to stockpile it, you know, the raw material for three or four days. You have to grind it up. And it takes a lot of whole wood to equal, you know, a yard of mulch. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How does the raw material get there? MR. LANCE BETHEL: They haul it in the trucks there that -- you know, the landscapers and the tree trimmers haul it. Other than that, it's not a large volume like the municipalities have, you know, in -- I don't know of another site around here that's doing it. It's a small scale -- you know, it's not a large scale situation, you know, and they address -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Were you involved with the site up in Fort Myers, south Fort Myers or whatever it is, Alico Road, up in this area? You weren't involved with Gulf Coast Grinding or whatever it's called? MR. LANCE BETHEL: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You weren't? None of you were? Okay. Just curious. MR. LANCE BETHEL: I was employed by FRI at one time, a long time ago, which is Fortester Researchers, you know, that big one in Fort Myers. But other than that, that was it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, just curious. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have a question for you before you leave, Mr. Bethel. I'm curious as to why you would pick this particular property for this type of operation when this property would seem to be fairly expensive, I would guess. And if all you wanted to do was to do some mulching, there's got to be some cheaper properties somewhere that you could buy. Can you address that for me? MR. LANCE BETHEL: Yes, sir. Actually, we've been looking for over a year at property, and then we found several sites. We've went to the cost of spending eight to $10,000 to have them environmentally -- you know, an environmental done from the Southwest Florida Water Management, the Army Corps of Engineers; we've paid an environmental specialist to go out there with them and flag the wetlands. And it's the only upland area that we found that we would not be impacting the wetlands and, you know, that it was out of the urban area. We were trying to get as fur -- you know, as far away from people as we could. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But you didn't make it. You're abutting the urban area. MR. LANCE BETHEL: You know, it's -- you know, it's really -- it's defeating our purpose of business if we get too far away from -- you know, if we get too far away from, you know, from civilization, so to say. You know, if we travel out Immokalee Road, then we're -- you know, we might as well not run a business. You know, we'll just be there, you know. Therefore, where a ghost town with property that's worth $10, well, that's what we make is $10. You know, it's a hard -- you know, Collier County's hard to find land in. And -- you know, and one day maybe we can develop it, you know, and put houses there, you know, when we can't operate there no more. You know, we're willing -- that's what we're willing to do. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So really, what you're doing is land banking. MS. LOUVIERE: No, they're going to use it. MR. LANCE BETHEL: No, we're going to use it. But, you know, if -- you know, when we come back in five years, or whatever the situation may be, you know, and we -- and we're denied, you know, the opportunity to work there, well, then we'll have something that we can develop, you know, and sell for houses or land, however we can split it up. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's called land banking. MR. LANCE BETHEL: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: At least he's saying they're going to use it in the meantime. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any other speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Norris Wade Bethel. Final speaker. MR. NORRIS BETHEL: For the record, my name is Norris Wade Bethel. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Catchy name. MR. LANCE BETHEL: I kind of like it. It travels down through generations. First of all, I'd like to say that on the acquiring of -- why did we acquire this parcel? Well, we looked at a piece off of Wolf Road, which is off of 951. It was a 20-acre parcel. It was, I think, $240,000. I had the environmental consultants with Pastoral and Associates look at it. 18.35 acres was wet. So I would have -- you know, you have to weigh the consequences of -- I've heard that it can cost up to $35,000 an acre to impact wetlands. Well, we started looking and it's like well, do you go way out and buy a cheap piece of land and hope that we can get our clients to come all the way out there, or do we try to find a central located area and -- that's not wet? And we've looked and looked and looked at all types of parcels. We looked down by Southern Sandstone on the -- it would be the east side. And the same situation, a lot of that land was wet. So that's why we picked this area. It's a pricy piece of land, but I think the value is going to go up. And we're not denying that the future is not moving that way. Like Ms. Berry said, that on the TwinEagles -- when it was up here in front of you, that everybody can -- anybody can say that okay, this is going to be this and in this many years, this is what we see. But like she said, you have to go by what's on the books today, by what we have to follow today. And I think we're very compatible with Florida Rock. Florida Rock uses very large machinery. We're compatible as far as what they do and what we do, not as far as -- we're not compatible as far as equipment size, because we're only a two -- two machinery operation. We have the small tub grinder and we have this small end loader. So that's all we have. And a small office trailer, what's really just a storage trailer. There won't be -- me and my brother will be the only employees. I think when people first hear about this, they think that it's a big operation where there's going to be a warehouse or some type of plant built or -- where there's a lot of, you know, machinery. Like Florida Rock has big warehouses, they use their -- you know, fix their equipment and everything. This is very low key. Our parcel's going to have a 30-foot buffer all the way around it. And on Immokalee Road it's going to have a hundred foot buffer. It's a visual buffer, a noise buffer. MS. LOUVIERE: You've done really great. He did really good. As he stated, we are -- I have designed the site with 100 foot buffer along Immokalee Road and a 30-foot perimeter buffer in order to address noise. And also, I have located all the machinery in the middle of the site in order to address noise compatibility issues with the surrounding property owners so that visually they will not even know that this machinery is there. We have also limited hours of operation between Monday through Friday, 8:00 to 5:00, and we will work -- even though Florida Rock is there and there are trucks going there, you know, through this supposedly bus stop, I will work with Ed Kant to make sure that some signs get put up to address the fact that there are trucks entering and leaving the highway. And we have paved the road up to our entryway. We want to be good neighbors, and we -- my client, as you can see, is very willing to work to make this a functional site for everyone. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I appreciate the fact a couple brothers want to make an honest living doing something here, but I have some real specific concerns, and one is the traffic element and the safety impacts there. Because of the history in the last couple of years on Immokalee that has been dismal at best in that area from a safety standpoint. But also, the compatibility issue I think is a genuine one. If you go roughly a mile or less to the east, you go to TwinEagles and you have the Bonita Bay course. Those aren't future, those are now. You go just about a mile to the west, you just had the purchase by Panther Holdings for another upscale property, right at the intersection of 951. Florida Rock is there. Florida Rock has some long-term plans, I understand, also for an upscale community. I realize you're only asking for a five-year window here, but I think in terms -- we had several months ago a local developer who was going to purchase a bunch of this property for -- and was going to try to ask us to fezone it industrial. And there was such a human cry, if you recall, that he withdrew that before it got so far as to be before COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Was that Hardy? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, that -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right, that was Hardy. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mining operation. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- so when we talk about compatibility and what the neighboring residents are thinking, I don't have to think more than six months back to when an industrial type use similar to this was being -- was a very valid concern to the public there. The other problem for me is what goes there. If we allow this use, it sets a pattern for that five years. It is unlikely that directly adjacent to a mulching operation you will have someone go in and develop single-family homes or other things. And what happens then is at the end of five years, it is almost a self-creating compatibility if we say now. I heard you say earlier, Mireya, you know, well, we can reassess in five years. But if you have had that there for five years, the chances are that sets the pace. And what goes in, if anything, adjacent to it is something else that is similar in use, and I really fear what appears as though it's headed in the direction between TwinEagles and Bonita and Panther Holdings and those __ MS. LOUVIERE: I -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You don't mind if I finish, do you? MS. LOUVIERE: I'm sorry. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- to be a very upscale stretch there could be stopped in its tracks. And I'm not sure that's what we want to do. I find some irony in the fact that we're talking about a mile east of 951 and saying boy, that's not compatible, it's too close. I understand the dilemma you all face trying to still be close enough to do business and not be in the heart of everything. And I just think the timing here is probably 18 months off. I think when we look at the events that have taken place in the last couple of years, that whole stretch isn't just in the future going to be that way, it is turning right now. It is -- those things are appearing right now. So I think if those industrial uses weren't -- that were proposed six months ago weren't something that made the neighboring properties happy, I don't think this is going to either. I think there is a very real compatibility issue. I also -- Kent had turned in a letter with signatures. I wanted -- I think all of you have seen a copy of it, but I wanted to make that part of the record, if we could. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's about 12 residences on Woodcrest and Acremaker. More residents than that, but I think 12 individual homes -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that use this road for access at least taking the time to object to this particular use, and that's something __ CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Were you aware of those objections, Hireya? MS. LOUVIERE: I was not aware of the written petition. I was aware -- I never saw that -- the letter signed with the 12 petitions. I do want to address the compatibility issue again, because I -- I understand that you're saying that in the future -- right now Panther has brought this holding and that they can develop it with commercial uses, and that you have Eagle Development down the road. But what I see happening is that nothing's going to happen to that -- this parcel or to the adjacent parcels on either side with Florida Rock there. So that's why we were so in agreement with limiting to -- as long as Florida Rock is there, this is a compatible use. When Florida Rock goes away, this will no longer -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Excuse me, I think maybe I disagree with you, because if you go directly across the road from Woodcrest to Florida Rock property, right now all that's there is a big lake. It is not an active part. You have to head down the road a little ways before you get to the active part of their operation. And that is only going to get further away a year from now, two years from now, three years from now. They have already mined the area directly across from Woodcrest. MS. LOUVIERE: You still have -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's nothing there but a lake right now. MS. LOUVIERE: You still have the traffic generated by this use. And I think that you still have the traffic and you still have the visual impact, and you still have the dust that's associated with the use of that nature. And I think that that is what's going to keep these particular parcels from being developed with single family residences. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You know, a little irony here that's occurring to me is, I said earlier today when we were talking about another issue, that I would love to be able to stop or slow down growth outside the urban boundary '- MS. LOUVIERE: Here it is. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- until we get to evaluate what we -- you know, what we end up with on our density reduction. So the fact that this use might discourage residential development argues for it, not against it, in my judgment. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I think if you'll recall, just within the last few months we had another petitioner in here with another use of land that wanted to take place not too far out in this particular area. We certainly took into consideration the neighbors that were around that area, and we gave them consideration. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That issue was exposed. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That issue was exposed, Mr. Norris, that's true. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It was a nudist '- MS. LOUVIERE: I think that Ms. Hac'Kie has made a very important point and that is that this site is outside the urban boundary. Because we constantly keep looking at this beautiful line, and everybody just keeps inching us a little bit further out there. Here's that Twin Lake development. Boy, oh, boy, they went past that line, didn't they? They found a way. So all of a sudden you're telling me that this s going to be urbanized, that that's why I'm not allowed to -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, no, ma'am. MS. LOUVIERE: -- put this out there. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, no, no, Hireya. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That isn't my reason. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, no, no, no. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That is not my reason. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If that urban boundary line moves, you may get more work, but we're all going to be out of a job, so that isn't going to happen. What '- MS. LOUVIERE: Right now -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're talking a lot about '- MS. LOUVIERE: Right now I have agriculturally zoned land. This is a conditional use that is allowed in agriculturally zoned land. It is in concurrency with the future land use element. As long as I buffer it properly and I meet these four criterias, I'm allowed to place this use here. And compatibility -- I know compatibility's one of them. And I think that with -- I have agricultural on one side and I have agriculturally zoned land on the other side. The back of me, I have a nursery which is outside agricultural land, and across Immokalee Road I have a rock mine. Existing uses in existing zoning is compatible. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, and about a dozen homes whose only access is on Woodcrest. MS. LOUVIERE: And we have by -- we have paved it in order to address that. And supposedly there's 12 homes back there. One of them is a nursery. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In order to address what? MS. LOUVIERE: The issue -- the egress and egress (sic) to these property owners. We have paved this road corridor. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You have already paved it? MS. LOUVIERE: We will, as soon as I -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And what part -- I mean, that will make it compatible because you paved the first 100 yards of the road? I'm not following the argument there, I guess. MS. LOUVIERE: No, I'm not -- I'm not making it -- actually, I'm not saying that it's -- that -- what I'm saying is that the nursery is certainly compatible. And if there's residents back there, they bought that land and they developed it in that manner when Florida Rock was there. I'm not putting anything that's more intense than what is existing there now. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think perhaps one of the concerns could be too, though, Mireya, is the fact that that -- like a lot of those little roads out in there, those were private roads, they are not county roads. MS. LOUVIERE: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And I think that perhaps is a concern to the individuals that are also there. Though you are talking about paving a very small portion of that roadway -- MS. LOUVIERE: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- again, it is increasing some more use in terms of traffic, truck traffic kind of thing. Whether it's -- you know, granted you're not talking about an 18-wheeler, that kind of thing coming in there necessarily, but you are increasing the truck traffic out in that particular area. And I'm sure from a noise compatibility, I think that the people are concerned about that as well. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If I was Mr. Kolegue, I'd be very worried, because I know where his home is there, and it's almost across the street of Woodcrest from the back of your lot. And so from -- I mean, just the noise standpoint alone -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, exactly. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- is clearly not compatible with residents. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mireya, you're being a very passioned advocate for your client, and I applaud you for that. But the problem is you stated something that isn't true. When something's a conditional use, it doesn't mean you're allowed to have it in a certain location. It means that it has been identified by this board by virtue of policy that there may be associated activities with it that may or may not be compatible with the adjacent land uses. That's why it's a conditional use, and that's why it requires this board to take a look at it again. When you talk about compatibility across the street, no argument there. But to me, that's where the compatibility really ends. The fact is that this road, like it or not, has become more of a rural/residential character. There is a nursery operation on there, but it's a small one that doesn't do retail business of any degree, so it's not really generating traffic. We have a road that is lime rocked that was without sidewalks, but we have families living back there with kids that go to a bus stop every morning. You don't own the land to the east that would be required to provide a sufficient turn lane in order to make sure that I could be -- I could be comfortable that the kids at that bus stop are going to be safe. And I'll give you something that concerns me: When APAC, I think it was, was looking at expanding a mine out in the Estates, one of the big concerns was even though the people moved there, a lot of people moved there after APAC was at the end of the street, they moved there knowing that the use was going to end at a certain point. And they still had concerns about the fact that their children had no sidewalks and whatnot. And that street was paved all the way. And there are some real horror stories of truck drivers that don't work for you, you don't control them. They're bringing stuff onto your site, and they're not employees of yours. At APAC, most of them are employees of the company and still had difficulty in control. So what is the big difference here and the reason that I just don't see how I can support this is because of the fact that it sits on Woodcrest. Woodcrest already has a residential -- even though it may be rural -- character to it and that's the differentiation. If we moved you a half mile down the road where you had ag. on both sides, you didn't have any houses around you, you know, I might feel differently about it. But those houses that are very near your operation that rely on Woodcrest to get home, that the kids rely on Woodcrest to get to and from the bus stop, I think that's where we run into a real problem that we could talk about compatibility. But in the real world, how these people rely on that road and how the children rely on it every day is tough for me to accept. So I just -- I don't feel comfortable with it. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's called the caring -- MR. LANCE BETHEL: Could I just say one -- a couple things? Real short. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Sure. MR. LANCE BETHEL: The first thing I wanted to say is that we don't want a long-term thing, that we would be more than happy to operate until -- if Florida Rock shuts down six months from now, then we will pack -- I mean, and we'll pack up our stuff, clean the mulch out, leave it like it was, and then turn around and sell it to a developer or build a house on it or anything like that. The other thing is that we would be -- I mean, we would -- I have a little girl, she's two years old. And this means nothing to me compared to her. So, I mean, I know what it is to feel for children. I didn't know this until two years ago, but it's a big difference. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's amazing, isn't it? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Two years and four months for me. MR. LANCE BETHEL: Right. So two years and two months, yeah. So she's everything in the world to me. So I know what it's like to worry about your child. I live in the middle of nowhere, and I don't let her go outside without me being with her. We'd be willing to make provisions for the children that live on that road to have a bus stop. I mean, we'll make them a spot where they can -- where they will not have to worry about vehicles, if that's -- you know, I mean, I don't want any children being hurt. I mean, that's the last thing on -- you know, on my mind. So I'll do anything it takes to -- you know, to make sure that these children are safe when they -- and most of the children, I don't know about Collier County, but I'm pretty sure that they -- they're at school before 8:00, or they're at least on the bus stops and gone before 8:00. I don't really know exactly the time frames. So I think that all you'd have to really worry about is the coming home end of the school bus stop. But we would be willing to do anything for these children to where they're safe going and coming. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I appreciate that. I don't doubt your integrity or sincerity in any way, sir, but I am looking at the character the street has taken on as houses -- more and more houses get built on the street. It takes on a residential flavor. And what you're asking for is certainly not a residential use. I think from a compatibility standpoint, when it's possible to avoid those kinds of conflicts, we try to. And I think that's the decision for us. MR. LANCE BETHEL: Well, also, it seems like that all of Immokalee Road, on the frontage, on the corner of 951 and Immokalee Road, is like a 40-acre nursery that sells to the public. And then right down the street is a golf course driving range. And then right down the street is Florida Rock's entrance. And then right down the street is Woodcrest. It would be our entrance. And there's another nursery right down the street from us. It's a -- half a mile from our entrance east is a brand new nursery going in called Fogg's Nursery. And they're going to sell to the public. So it seems to me that everything that's on the road frontage-wise of Immokalee Road is some type -- it's not necessarily commercial. I think it's some type of business, whether it be a nursery or a driving range or something like that. And one other thing, that the first house on Woodcrest from our -- to our closest property line is a quarter mile. It's 1,320 feet. From our fence post from Immokalee Road to the end of our property is 1,320, and then from our fence post to the very first house is 1,320 feet. So we're all -- we're a quarter mile from the first house. And then there's nothing else around it. So the -- and the thing is that when will this start to develop? And where is the point to where it develops to where it's time for us to leave? I mean, I don't want to be backed up against a whole bunch of houses, but at this time there's nothing around our parcel, I mean, except for one house, and he's a quarter mile down the road. So he's actually a half a mile, roughly a half a mile, from the Immokalee Road and Woodcrest. MS. LOUVIERE: And there has been the discussion regarding access through Woodcrest Drive. There has been some suggestions from the property owners that perhaps we could access the site just directly off Immokalee Road and not go into Woodcrest Drive. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: They would need a turn lane then. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There would have to be a turn lane, yeah. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My question, what's the -- if they -- I don't understand what they're saying about if they were willing to only -- they have a conditional use that expires when Florida Rock leaves? MS. LOUVIERE: Exactly. They have put a five-year stipulation on this conditional use. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Florida Rock's going nowhere, let's just understand that now. They have acres they haven't even touched in excavation. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So how -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So Florida Rock's not going anywhere. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, then '- MS. LOUVIERE: And the reason -- and the reason that they put a five-year stipulation is because Collier County planners were projecting that there would be no organization or no real residential development along the frontage of Immokalee Road until Florida Rock leaves. And I contacted Florida Rocks, and there -- they stated they intend to stay there for at least five years. So that's why they gave the five-year window. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I hope they stay there a long time, if that's what's going to prevent the urbanization of that corridor. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I don't know that I agree with that. Also, it's 6:55 p.m. Unless we have new information to introduce, rather than rehashing the same, I wonder if the Chair might close the public hearing. MR. LANCE BETHEL: Can I just say one short thing? Two seconds. If I was to move the entrance and put it on Immokalee Road and put a turn lane in, would that make a difference? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How wide is the entire lot? How -- MR. LANCE BETHEL: The lot is 660 by 1,320. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I don't know how you can realistically have a road and then within 600 feet have another turn there. I don't know how you do that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Like from Woodcrest over to the entrance? MR. LANCE BETHEL: Yeah, what we'd do is we would start the turn lane from, let's say, 20 feet past Woodcrest. And most turn lanes, the turn lane for the driv -- the golf course driving range is only I think 120 feet. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's because they don't have 18-wheelers turning in -- MR. LANCE BETHEL: We won't have -- we don't have -- the only things that we'll have coming in are one-ton dually trucks that you can buy at Sam Galloway Ford, or the one down here. I forget the name of it. And then your single axle trucks that have like 14 and 18-foot boxes on it. It's just -- it's not a big where there's semis rolling in and out. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I appreciate your willingness to try to make this work, but unfortunately, Mr. Kolegue and the other neighbors would still be listening to the equipment, regardless of where the entrance is. I understand you're trying very hard to make this work. MR. LANCE BETHEL: I happen to have a decibel reading, if you want. I mean, it's not as noisy as everybody thinks it is. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If we have -- do we have any further speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: No, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, I'll close the public hearing. I have to tell you, for one thing, for sitting here all day, these are two of the greatest guys. I want to be able to do something here, but I've got a real problem in terms of the -- whether this is compatible with the surrounding area, and the problem is that we've got a bunch of residential people out there on that -- on that particular roadway that's a concern to me. So I'll entertain a motion or any other thoughts that you might have. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, you know, I agree with you, I'm almost sitting here thinking well, you know, can we find another site for these guys? Because you just -- you know, you strike me as being honest and straightforward, and I greatly appreciate that. And you strike me as being concerned about the neighborhood. But I think again, one of the things we try and do here is be very, very consistent from one decision to the next. And when there was a mining operation that involved trucks on Immokalee Road and whatnot, and it wasn't even accessing Woodcrest Drive either, and a certain type of use that could be considered something other than farming, which is what agricultural land allows, we saw a real human cry. And I think this board probably would not have supported that application, had it come forward. This is something that -- of a smaller scale, but is in the same category. So as much as I'd like to see it differently, I just can't get comfortable with it, and I'm going to move we deny Petition CU-98-13. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You know, the more I think about it, the more I see that it's an ag. use in an ag. area. I mean, it's -- what's the difference between this and nurseries? I mean, if -- if all of your fears were to be realized and it was 18-wheelers and it was some big giant noise thing, but apparently none of that's real. Why isn't this similar to an agricultural use with tractors and stuff? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think your typical nursery -- and let's use the one on Woodcrest Road -- has a bunch of noise generating from -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I was -- with an agricultural use. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually, ag. uses, when you think about tractors and whatnot, if you go out to ag. fields, they may work in a portion of a field for a given day, but it's not like every day there's, you know, machinery activity day after day after day after day on -- in the same -- you know, right next to somebody's property line. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That would be Commissioner Norris' oil fields where they work day after day. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Day after day. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: After day, rolling in the dough. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So, you know, there are, you know, ag. uses -- you know, ag. land lays fallow typically for a portion of the year, and it is not farmed, so it's deemed a conditional use. Again, Commissioner Hac'Kie, I'm struggling with it a little bit myself, but I just can't find comfort based on the residents that live off this street, off their concerns. I can't find comfort in approving this -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I think to answer your question, if it were just a typical ag. use, it wouldn't have a conditional use requirement. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Are you seconding it? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I will second the motion. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. Do we have any further questions? What was the -- state the motion again? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The motion was to deny Petition 98-13. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, that's what I thought you said. All right, I'll call for the question. All in favor? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Aye. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Opposed? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries four-one. MR. LANCE BETHEL: I have one question. Why was you all (phonetic) mulching approved, when -- and they're in the same type of development? They have houses right across the street and right beside them. THE REPORTER: Do you want this on the record? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's not on the record, but -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, moving on then. Any comments, Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: No, thank you. I'll be thinking about you the next few Tuesdays. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez, do you have any -- MR. FERNANDEZ: No comments. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No comments, no nothing? MR. FERNANDEZ: No nothing. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioners? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ditto. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I had a very nice comment, but last time I -- last week I got -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You got booted on. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- made fun of for -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: By three of your colleagues. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- complimenting you, so I'm not -- you know, I'll just -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I know that today has been a very long meeting, but since we're going to be recessed for the next three weeks, if you will divide up the time that we have spent here today over the next three weeks, you'll see that today's meeting was a relatively -- a very short meeting. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the way to look at it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's right. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay? Anyway, if there's nothing further -- Ms. Filson, do you want us to go home? MS. FILSON: Yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm sorry, let the record reflect that our deputy would like to comment, but we're going to say it's time to go home. Good night. ***** Commissioner Hancock moved, seconded by Commissioner Mac'Kie and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent and Summary Agenda be approved and/or adopted: ***** Item #16A1 RETENTION AGREEMENT WITH ROBINSON & COLE, LLP FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Item #16A2 RESOLUTION 98-273, AUTHORIZING THE DEFERRAL OF IHPACT FEES FOR A 240 UNIT AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING PROJECT KNOWN AS WHISTLER'S COVE APARTMENTS TO BE BUILT BY AFFORDABLE/WHISTLER'S COVE, LTD AND SUBORDINATION OF LIEN Item #16A3 RESOLUTION 98-274, AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY ADHINISTRATOR TO ENTER INTO AN URBAN AND COHMUNITY FORESTRY GRANT MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES, DIVISION OF FORESTRY Item #16A4 EXTENSION TO THE TOURISH ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND MARCO ISLAND CHAMBER OF COHMERCE, INC. Item #16A5 - Moved to Item #8A5 Item #16A6 BUDGET AMENDMENT AND EXTENSION TO THE TOURISH ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND VISIT NAPLES, INC. Item #16A7 RESTATED HORTGAGE AND PROHISSORY NOTE FOR A SIXTY THOUSAND DOLLAR ($60,000.00) LOAN FROM COLLIER COUNTY TO THE COHMUNITY HOUSING PARTNERSHIP OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC. Item #16A8 RESOLUTIONS 98-275, 98-276, 98-277, 98-278 AND 98-279 RE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NOS. 70502-082, 70507-043, 70521-001, 70521-006, AND 70612-027 Item #16A9 RESOLUTIONS 98-280, 98-281, 98-282 AND 98-283 RE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NOS. 70724-030, 70729-071, 70805-028, 70905-005 Item #16A10 RESOLUTIONS 98-284, 98-285, 98-286 AND 98-287 RE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NOS. 71117-017, 71210-016, 70210-051, 80105-066 Item #16All EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.656, ODUS LANDRETH EXCAVATION LOCATED IN SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST; BOUNDED ON THE NORTH BY VACANT LOTS, ON THE SOUTH BY CANAL R/W AND ON THE WEST BY 18TH STREET N.E. R/W - SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS Item #16A12 FINAL PLAT OF PELICAN HARSH UNIT TWENTY - SUBJECT TO CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND PERFORMANCE BOND Item #16A13 FINAL PLAT OF "BRIARWOOD UNIT SIX" - SUBJECT TO CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS Item #16A14 FINAL PLAT OF "THE COVE" - SUBJECT TO LETTER OF CREDIT, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS Item #16A15 FINAL PLAT OF CARLTON LAKES, UNIT NO. 2 - SUBJECT TO LETTER OF CREDIT, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS Item #16A16 FINAL PLAT OF "TWIN EAGLES, PHASE ONE" - SUBJECT TO CONSRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS Item #16A17 PETITION AV-98-014, TO DISCLAIH, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN A 30' WIDE PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO COLLIER COUNTY AS A DRAINAGE EASEMENT, RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 1193, PAGE 1126, LOCATED IN SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25, EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND EXECUTION OF THE QUIT CLAIM DEED Item #16A18 FINAL PLAT OF AVILA UNIT TWO - SUBJECT TO CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND ESCROW AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS Item #16A19 - Deleted Item #16A20 FINAL PLAT OT "THE COTTAGES AT GULF HARBOR" - SUJBECT TO LETTER OF CREDIT AND CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS Item #16A21 RESOLUTION 98-288 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF PARK PLACE WEST Item #16B1 ACCEPTANCE OF ACCESS ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY FROH THE STTAE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, JOB 03175-1409, LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN THE QUITCLAIM DEED Item #1682 AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HOLE, HONTES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR MASTER PUMP STATION 1.02, CONTRACT #89-1506, Item #1683 - Deleted Item #1684 EASEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN A.J. VIGGIANI AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF EASEMENTS KNOWN AS PARCELS 147 AND 847 FOR THE LIVINGSTON ROAD FOUR LANING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Item #1685 A_MENDHENT NO. 4 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEHENT WITH COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING SERVICES NECESSARY IN PERFORMANCE OF ANNUAL MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MARCO ISLAND BEACH RENOURISHHENT PROJEC Item #1686 CHANGE ORDER NO 1 TO KYLE CONSTRUCTION INC. FOR THE CITY/COUNTY WATER INTERCONNECT, PROJECT NO. 70040 Item #1687 AGREEMENT TO EXTEND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT WITH SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Item #1688 AMENDMENT TO APPRAISAL AGREEMENT WITH REAL PROPERTY ANALYSTS, INC. FOR VALUATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE RADIO ROAD FOUR LANE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Item #16B9 RENEWAL OF ANNUAL CONTRACT 95-2388 FOR FIXED TERM PROFESSIONAL MATERIAL TESTING SERVICES WITH ARDAMAN AND ASSOCIATES, LAW ENGINEERING, INC., AND UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES, INC. Item #16B10 BID NO. 98-2814, RE GOLDEN GATE PARK FITNESS CENTER - AWARDED TO J. L. WALLACE, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $419,400.00 Item #16Bll CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 WITH BETTER ROADS, INC. FOR PATHWAY CONSTRUCTION WORK FOR COUNTYOWIDE PATHWAYS II, (BID NO. 97-2744) (PROJECT NO. 69081) Item #16B12 - Continued to 9/1/98 Item #16B13 SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH HOLE, HONTES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR FINAL DESIGN AND PERMITTING SERVICES FOR LIVINGSTON ROAD IMPROVEMENTS NORTH OF IHMOKALEE ROAD, CIE PROJECT NO. 021 - IN THE AMOUNT OF $428,840.00 Item #16B14 - Deleted Item #16B15 BID #98-2812, PROJECT 74024, FOR THE NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY - AWARDED TO MILMIR CONSTRUCTION, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $795,000.00 Item #16B16 ASSISTANCE TO SENIOR CRAFTSMAN THOMAS STIERS CONCERNING AN ISSUE WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION - IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,301.90 Item #16B17 CHANGE ORDER NO. 7 TO MILMIR CONSTRUCITON, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $112,456.00 FOR THE NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT Item #16B18 RESOLUTION 98-289, ACCEPTING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS SECTION 404 PERMIT NO. 199602789(IP-CC) AND THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION CONSOLIDATED JOINT COASTAL PERMIT, SOVEREIGN SUBMERGED LANDS AUTHORIZATION AND VARIANCE NO. 0128463-001-JC, A COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE RESOTRATION AND ONGOING ADMINISTRATION OF THE CLAM BAY AND AUTHORIZATION FOR PELICAN BAY SERVICES TO SIGN THE PERMITS ON BEHALF OF COLLIER COUNTY Item #16B19 BID NO. 98-2830 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD BRIDGE STRUCTURE AT THE JUNCTION OF IHMOKALEE ROAD - AWARDED TO ZEP CONSTRUCTION INC. Item #16C1 BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING INSURANCE CLAIMS FROM THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT Item #16C2 - Moved to Item #8C2 Item #16D1 FIRST AMENDMENT TO LAND LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND GTE MOBILNET OF TAMPA, INCORPORATED Item #16D2 CONTRACT FOR SERVICES WITH "SOURCE COMPUTING, INC." FOR COMPUTER PROGRR_MHING TO HAKE THE EXISTING UTILITY BILLING SYSTEM YEAR 2000 COMPLIANT Item #16D3 RFP #98-2785 PROPOSALS RECEIVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE REGARDING SOLID WASTE AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PROGRAMS REJECTED; DISCUSSIONS TO BE CONTINUED WITH VENDORS FOR ALL THE PROPOSALS RECEIVED FOR UTILITY BILLING PROGRAMS UNDER THE SAME RFP Item #16El COUNTY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS TO ABOLISH THE TAXING DISTRICTS WHICH ARE NO LONGER USED Item #16E2 BUDGET AMENDMENTS 98-325, 98-338 AND 98-354 Item #16E3 AUTHORIZATION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR SELECTION OF UNDERWRITERS AND TO ESTABLISH A NET PRESENT VALUE SAVINGS TARGET OF 7e IN ANTICIPATION OF REFUNDING THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER/SEWER DISTRICT REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1991 Item #16G MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the various departments as indicated: Item #16H1 CONFISCATED TRUST FUNDS TO SUPPORT A CRIME PREVENTION PROGRAM AND RELATED BUDGET AMENDMENT BY THE COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE Item #16H2 CONFISCATED TRUST FUNDS TO PURCHASE SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT AND RELATED BUDGET AMENDMENT BY THE COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE Item #16H3 CERTIFICATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE SUBGRANT AWARD FOR THE ANTI-DRUG ABUSE GRANT #99-CJ-9H-09-21-01-003/SERIOUS HABITUAL OFFENDER COMPREHENSIVE ACTION PLAN (SHOCAP) PROGRAM OF $147,421.00 Item #16H4 CERTIFICATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE SUBGRANT AWARD FOR THE ANTI-DRUG ABUSE GRANT #99-CJ-9H-09-21-01-002/STREET GANG PREVENTION AND APPREHENSION PROGRAM OF $59,224.00 Item #17A ORDINANCE 98-66, RE PETITION PUD-81-4(5), QUARLES & BRADY REPRESENTING THE WYNDEHERE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE WYNDEHERE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PLANNED LIVINGSTON ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY ONE HALF MILE NORTH OF GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY, IN SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Item #17B ORDINANCE 98-67, RE PETITION PUD-88-10(2), ROBERT DUANE OF HOLE, HONTES & ASSOCIATES, INC. REPRESENTING GULF COAST NATIONAL BANK, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND "RSF-3" RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO UPDATE THE CURRENT SURREY PLACE PUD AND EXPANDING THE AREA BY AN ADDITIONAL 0.46+ ACRES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF IHMOKALEE ROAD LYING EAST OF VETERANS PARK DRIVE AND WEST OF THE WEST LIMIT OF THE STONEBRIDGE PUD, IN SECTION 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST Item #17C RESOLUTION 98-290, RE PETITION AV-98-027, TO VACATE TWO DRAINAGE EASEMENTS AND A COUNTY UTILITY EASEMENT IN "DOVER PARC" ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 22, PAGE 61, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Item #17D RESOLUTION 98-291, RE PETITION AV-98-007, TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN THE REMAINING PORTION OF A 60' WIDE AND 30' WIDE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOCATED IN SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Item #17E RESOLUTION 98-292, RE PETITION AV-98-015, TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN A 15' WIDE PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO COLLIER COUNTY AS A ROAD EASEMENT, LYING ADJACENT TO U.S. 41, IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Item #17F RESOLUTION 98-293, RE PETITION NUA-98-1, RAYBURN C. CRAMER, REQUESTING THE ALTERATION OF A NON-CONFORMING HUNTING CABIN IN THE CONSERVATION ZONING DISTRICT BY ENLARGING THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, ADDING ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND FENCING, ON PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE BIG CYPRESS NATIONAL PRESERVE, TRACT NUMBER 670-83, IN SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 52 SOUTH, RANGE 32 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:00 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL BARBARA B. BERRY, CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, NOTARY PUBLIC