The URL can be used to link to this page

BCC Minutes 12/08/1998 RDecember 8, 1998 Page REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHHISSIONERS Naples, Florida, December 8, 1998 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, 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: CHAIRPERSON: Barbara B. Berry Pamela S. Hac'Kie John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine James D. Carter ALSO PRESENT: Item #3 Robert Fernandez, County Administrator David Weigel, County Attorney REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA - APPROVED AND OR/ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning. I'd like to call to order the December 8th meeting of the Collier County Board of Commissioners. We're pleased to have with us this morning Reverend Harold Brown from the Lely Presbyterian Church. If you'd rise for the invocation, remain standing for the pledge of allegiance. REVEREND BROWN: Let us pray. Our Father, we welcome Jim to the board and we thank You for all the blessings of relationship in these happy holidays. Bless our friends who celebrate Hanukkah, and bless our friends who surround Christmas trees and see Christian Christmas magic and all that you mean to us as Christ of God. Bless us today as we try to celebrate also our relationship in the county. Help us to be mindful of the needs of those who are less fortunate than we in our very prosperous and lovely county. We thank you for the day you've given us. Help us use our minds and our bodies and our spirits to rise to the occasion of the next period of delightful vacations as we look forward to being with our families. Help us to think of our friends, too. We give thee thanks for all the bounty of blessings, food, clothing and shelter, as we try to provide for others. We thank you for the opportunity to share. In the name of your love, O, God, Amen. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Reverend Brown. Good morning, Mr. Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: Good morning, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have any changes to our agenda? MR. FERNANDEZ: Just a couple. First one is to add item 8(E)(4). This is a recommendation to amend the agreement for Referendum Information Services with Floridians for Fairness in Court Funding. This has to do with consideration of the unexpended funds that we discussed in Tallahassee at the Florida Association of Counties. The next item is to move item 12(B)(1) to 17(F). This is a PUD 98-7, request to fezone A agriculture to PUD to be known as Wyndham Park PUD for single family and multi-family land uses. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd just as soon keep that on the regular agenda. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I would as well. MR. FERNANDEZ: We'll leave that one on. The next is to continue item 8(E)(3) to the December 15th meeting. This is staff report on the potential impact of the Clerk of Courts yield burning lawsuit on the pending refunding of county water and sewer district revenue bonds. This is at my request, given the fact that we need some additional information before we can make a full report to the board. Next item is to continue item 17(E) to the December 15th meeting. This is petition PUD 98-13, Collier Development Corporation requesting AR fezone from A rural agriculture to PUD, and PUD to a planned unit development known as Collier Tract 21. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Why is that? MR. FERNANDEZ: That is as a request -- at a request from Mr. Varnadoe. This is to be added to the public hearing agenda for that meeting of -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- December 15th as a companion item to be -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, I see. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- continued -- considered that same day. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That request came to me, and it has to do -- if we were to take it -- obviously the 15th is our last meeting, and they didn't have all the necessary things ready. But to hold it up any further than that until our first meeting in January, that -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Silly. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- seemed like a ridiculous kind of thing to do, so '- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thanks, just curious. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay, these next two items, 17(A) and 17(D), are to be moved from the summary agenda to the regular public hearing agenda. Request of Commissioner Carter. This is -- 17(A) is petition CU 98-18, American Funding and Service Corporation, requesting additional use. 6 of the RMF, that's 6(3), zoning district to allow for an assisted living facility located on the west side of Goodlette-Frank Road and east side of 12th Street North. And item 17(D) is the petition PUD 86-12(3). John B. Goodman, Limited Partnership, requesting an amendment to the Bretonne Park PUD for the purpose of eliminating commercial land uses on the commercially designed tract, and replacing those uses with an existing living facility located on the northeast quadrant of Davis Boulevard and Embassy Woods Boulevard. That completes our list, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Hac'Kie, do you have any changes? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just one item I'd like to move, 16(B)(1) from consent to regular agenda, just for a brief discussion. This is where we have ranked and selected engineering firms, and I just want to have a brief discussion about the process. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, where do you want that to go? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: 8 (B)(2). COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Fernandez, I'll go to 8 -- MR. FERNANDEZ: 8(B) (2). CHAIRPERSON BERRY: 8(B)(2)? Okay. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: 16(B)(1), was it? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes. That's all. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, just a question of -- and maybe you could answer. Why are we continuing 16(B)(5)? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: 16(B) -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: This is the second continuation for that one. Why are we continuing that? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What was the topic there? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Traffic signal at RP. MR. FERNANDEZ: That was requested by Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry, what was the question? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Why are we continuing the traffic signal at RP? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We've got a meeting with those folks. There's a couple of different issues with that. One is the traffic study was conducted on a Monday, which is the day they're closed, so it's probably not the best day to get an indicator of when traffic was. But also, they are looking to construct a different entrance off Country Club Drive, so they'll probably be open in 18 months anyway. And the question being, is there any harm to our overall system -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: To hang on for 18 months. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, and take it down at that time when they then are going to have a different entrance anyway. So I've got a sit-down scheduled for next week with them and staff and everybody to see -- to answer all those questions and then bring it back to us in January. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No changes? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No. I just wanted to know why we were -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to add an item under 10(C), and that will be looking for discussion and board direction on the intersection of Recreation Lane and Santa Barbara Boulevard, traffic signalization issue. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Santa Barbara and -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Recreation. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is that the one we just got copied on a memo from the county administrator to -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, Commissioner Carter? COHMISSIONER CARTER: No additions, thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No additions. Nor do I. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion that we approve the agenda, consent agenda and summary agenda with the changes as noted. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Item #4 All right, we have a motion and a second. Hotion carries five-zero. HINUTES OF THE REGULAR HEETINGS OF NOVEHBER 10 AND 17, 1998 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And I'll move approval of the minutes of November 10th regular meeting, November 17th regular meeting. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion. Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero -- four-zero, excuse me. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, five. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Five-zero, from the hallway. Item #5A1 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF DECEMBER 7-11, 1998 AS NOAA WEATHER RADIO AWARENESS WEEK - ADOPTED This morning it's our pleasure, we have a proclamation, I believe Commissioner Carter. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you. WHEREAS, local weather conditions can change quickly, bringing severe weather which can cause injuries, death and property damage; and WHEREAS, Collier County residents need to be alerted to the possibility or imminent approach of severe weather to protect the lives and property; and WHEREAS, NOAA Weather Radio is a network of 450 radio transmitters across the United States, providing current weather observation data and forecasts for use by the general public 24 hours a day, seven days a week; and WHEREAS, NOAA Weather Radio provides severe weather information in the form of watches and warnings for severe thunderstorms, tornados, flooding and hurricanes in order to protect the lives and property of the people of Collier County; and WHEREAS, the watches and warnings issued by National Weather Service through the alarm capabilities of NOAA Weather Radio can provide precarious (sic) minutes of additional lead time when dangerous weather threatens our area, even in the middle of the night; and WHEREAS, the National Weather Service, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, and local emergency management agencies across the country recommend that every building be equipped with a NOAA Weather Radio, just as they are with smoke detectors; and WHEREAS, in the past year Collier County and the State of Florida have worked together as a place -- to place a NOAA Weather Radio alert receiver in every public and private school, as well as other public facilities where the public gathers in large numbers in Collier County; and WHEREAS, NOAA Weather Radio receivers are readily available and may be purchased for $25 to $100 at consumer electronic stores throughout Collier County; and WHEREAS, the newest NOAA Weather Radio transmitter in the United States is now in operation, serving the people of Collier County, Florida, on a frequency of 162.525 megahertz, 24 hours a day, seven days a week through the partnership of Collier County, the National Weather Service, the State of Florida and WAVV Radio, which has generously provided the tower space for the antenna rent for two years. NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of December 7 through 11, 1998 be designated as NOAA Weather Radio Awareness Week, and urge all Collier County residents to acquire a suitable NOAA Weather Radio receiver for their home and place of business to receive this critical and potential life-saving information in as timely a manner as possible. Done and ordered this 8th day of December, 1998, Board of Collier County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Barbara B. Berry, Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Arnold? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make that motion that we accept that proclamation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries four-zero. (Applause.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If you'd like to say something, Gary, please do. MR. ARNOLD: I'm very happy to be able to stand before you today with a small NOAA Weather Radio. As you know, over the past 10 years or so, it's been very difficult to receive a signal out of the Fort Myers transmitter, unless you have an outside antenna in much of Collier County. And you'll notice there's no antenna pulled up on this one. We're just operating with it folded up. And our transmitter in Golden Gate is transmitting very nicely throughout all of Collier County. We would also like to present a receiver to the board. As we say, we are trying to put them in as many public places in the county as possible, so Chairman Berry, we'd like to present this to the board. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. I will accept this graciously. Thank you very much. (Applause). MR. ARNOLD: And we hope to see you Friday at our dedication and commissioning ceremony here in the boardroom at 11:00 a.m., as the Weather Service and the State -- Collier County puts the service formally into full service for Collier County. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, very good. Thank you so much. I just noticed recently, I believe -- have the schools, are they doing anything with these? MR. ARNOLD: Every school, public and private, in Collier County now has a receiver. And we're in the process now of switching them over from Fort Myers transmitter to the Collier County transmitter. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Very good. I think that's really critical that they have that awareness as well. So that's super. Anyway, here's the radio, and these are available to the public, right? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. Go to any consumer electronic store. Right now Radio Shack is the only one that provides the county specific alerting. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: But there are some new radios coming out this fall. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Very good. So here's what it looks like and this is what you ask for. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. Item #5A2 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING DECEBHER 7-11, 1998 AS FLORIDA YARDS AND NEIGHBORHOODS WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY - ADOPTED All right. Commissioner Hac'Kie, I believe you have a proclamation this morning. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I do. I have a proclamation I'd like to ask Noelle -- and I hope I get this right -- Kauramaki? Close? MS. KAURAMAKI: Very close. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay, close. -- to come forward while I read the proclamation for Florida Yards and Neighborhood Week. WHEREAS, the Cooperative Extension Service -- wait a minute, before I go, how do you really say your name? MS. KAURAMAKI: Kauramaki. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Kauramaki. Not bad. Okay. WHEREAS, the Cooperative Extension Service is an integral part of Collier County government, in partnership with the University of Florida; and WHEREAS, the Florida Yards and Neighborhoods Program, implemented through the local county Cooperative Extension Service, offers special education programs for residents and neighborhoods, distributes an FYN landscape guide, and certifies yards as following the FYN program guidelines; and WHEREAS, that by enlisting residents in the battle to save Florida's natural resources by recruiting them to adopt environmentally friendly landscape practices, they volunteer their time and energy to a common good of Collier County; and WHEREAS, urban impacts on water quality and natural ecosystems will be reduced as Floridians adopt landscape practices that decrease stormwater runoff, reduce water consumption and minimize the use of fertilizers and pesticides; and WHEREAS, Collier County and the University of Florida Extension Service have been cooperating for many years to identify and combat the threats associated with invasive exotic plants, Florida Yards use plants that more closely harmonize with Florida's natural areas and wildlife; and WHEREAS, Noelle Kauramacki is the first Florida resident to be certified as a Florida Yard homeowner. NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that December 7th through 11, 1998 be designated as Florida Yards and Neighborhoods Week in Collier County, and that gratitude and appreciation is extended to all the county residents who have coordinated their efforts to change their yard maintenance practices to conserve Florida's coastal waters. Done and ordered this 8th day of December, 1998, Board of County Commissioners, Barbara Berry, Chairman. I'm proud to move acceptance of this proclamation. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. MS. KAURAMAKI: You have before you a -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You have to go to our microphone so our friends at home can hear what you have to say. MS. KAURAMAKI: Okay. You have before you just a little booklet that we put together for before and after. And I would like to introduce Elizabeth Glennon, horticulture agent, who helped me work all this through. MS. GLENNON: First of all, I would like to go ahead and give Noelle the first certified Florida Yard plaque to be placed in her yard and congratulations for her doing all her hard work. It's been incredible what she's done. If you'll look through this real quickly you can see some of the improvements that have been made. It first of all shows you right on the waterfront where her property is. And it gives you the A, B, C, D, E and F of the photographs that we've included in the report. She's removed all of her invasive exotics, she's replanted that with a butterfly garden that has attracted up to about 12 species of -- is that right -- 12 genus and species of butterflies that some of them aren't even known to have been in Collier County yet, they're in Noelle's yard. Then there's the front drive where she's increased -- she's done vegetables and fruits right next to her driveway. On section C, she's totally replaced all the sod with natural ground covers that don't require water. She's reduced her water consumption by about 50 percent, increased her wildlife habitat by about 100 percent, she's increased her water availability by about 60 percent, and her maintenance and time and labor has been reduced by about 50 to 60 percent. In section C, you'll see the area next to the waterfront. It is now all completely covered. It has mulch paths and nothing but open soil area to permeate the rainwater and whatnot. And in section C, she's put in aqua-scaping. Section D is the area right next to the waterfront that was really bad. It caught all the winds from Hitch and Georges, but she's maintained her plant cover by having succulents and plants that can handle high winds and all those kinds of things. And it's maintained the soils. And nothing has gone flying into the neighbor's next yard. She's also restored and had restoration and surgery on the orchid tree that was there. And that's no small cost to the homeowner for that. But that holds all the soil there. And in section F, you can see the before and after of the surgery of that tree. So I just want to commemorate her with the first certified Florida Yard and tell her that all her hard work has definitely been appreciated. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It certainly is. Could you be sure that the Naples Daily News gets a copy of these photographs? MS. GLENNON: Yes, ma'am. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because these are incredibly -- very -- MS. GLENNON: She's done an incredible amount of work. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- descriptive. Wonderful work. MS. GLENNON: All right. Thank you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. COHMISSIONER CARTER: And have her come over and work in my yard. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's great. It's pretty impressive. If any of you would like to take a look at this, I'll have this available when we have a break here. You're welcome to come up and take a look at it. She's done a good job. Item #5B EHPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED Okay, and Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Hadam Chairman. I have a few service awards today. Our first one is for Daisy Rodriguez from code enforcement for five years. (Applause.) COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The second one is Charles Smallwood, from wastewater, also for five years. (Applause.) COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And our third one is Hartha Vellos, from building review and planning, five years. (Applause.) COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And finally, we have Heliton Almendarez from road and bridge, 10 years. (Applause.) Item #5C EHPLOYEE OF THE YEAR FOR 1998 - DEBRAH PRESTON, PRINCIPAL PLANNER, PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION, RECOGNIZED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And now it's my pleasure to present the employee of the year for 1998. So if we could have Debrah Preston come up here and turn around, and we're going to talk about you, Debrah. Debrah has been very active with the redevelopment efforts underway in Immokalee and the Gateway Triangle/Bayshore area. She coordinated a competitive grant application through the State Division of Historical Resources to have Immokalee designated as a Florida Main Street. This designation was received, along with a cash award of $10,000 and technical assistance in developing a revitalized downtown area. Debrah developed a program that provides for grants of up to $1,000 and technical assistance on design resulting in facade improvements for five businesses along Main Street. Her efforts also included coordinating volunteers, securing donations, painting, and serving as a member of the Main Street board. She also keyed in -- served in key rolls with the Friends of Roberts Ranch, seeking funds to purchase and develop the site as a living ranch from the turn of the century, and with the Lake Trafford Restoration Committee. Debrah has participated in several community programs, including cleanup projects in Immokalee and the Gateway Triangle, Paint Your Heart Out efforts in the Gateway Triangle, Habitat for Humanity house raising in Immokalee, Christmas dinner at the Immokalee Friendship House, as well as volunteering countless hours for fundraisers at Pepper's Preserve, which that is to promote the nature tourism of the Immokalee community. She has served as a resource for the Economic Development Council Redevelopment Committee by acquiring free legal assistance for facade improvements on the Arcade Theatre. As a lead person for the Gateway Triangle area, she initiated the process of hiring consultants to prepare an initial assessment of redevelopment potential in the Triangle, coordinated several public workshops to seek input on the concerns facing the area, formed a steering committee to provide input from the community, and organized a cleanup day and Paint Your Heart Out event for the residents. These efforts have been expanded for both the Triangle and Bayshore areas, and a redevelopment plan is currently underway with a consultant team of planners, architects and an economic analyst. It is my pleasure to recommend this lady, Debrah Preston, as the employee of the year for 1998. Debrah, we'd like to present you with a plaque to commemorate this occasion, which you can display in your office. And last, but not least, we have a check for you. And certainly offer our congratulations and our sincere thanks and appreciation. Thanks so much. (Applause.) COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I can't resist saying, because I've been working with Debrah on the Gateway redevelopment, just every now and then we get an absolute gem as an employee, and Debrah is that. And she not only has the expertise to help us with the technical parts, but she's not shy about getting a paint brush and getting out and doing the actual on-the-ground work, too. And to all the private firms out there, stay away from her, we're keeping her. MR. FERNANDEZ: You're right, she's not shy. She asked if she could say a few words, and I said sure. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Great. MS. PRESTON: Good morning, commissioners. I would just like to thank the commission and the administration for having this award, and I hope that it's an award that's always here in Collier County, available to the employees. And it's especially rewarding for me because I was selected from my peers, and that's important. And I'd like to just say that in the last four years since I've worked in Collier County, everyone that I've worked with, from our receptionist to our support staff, from my co-workers at the comprehensive planning department, everyone's very helpful and knowledgeable, and without them, I wouldn't be able to do my job. And I couldn't go without saying thank you to my supervisors, Vince Cautero, Bob Hulhere, and especially Barbara Cacchione. They created an environment that I can work in and I can excel in. And without their direction and support, I wouldn't be able to do the things that I like to do. And I really enjoy working for Collier County, and my job is challenging but rewarding. And most of all, we all seem to have a good time, and that's important. So thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. (Applause.) COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, before we go on with the agenda, I had added the item regarding what is now 10(C), Recreation Lane and Santa Barbara Boulevard, to which Commissioner Hac'Kie responded, oh, is that the memorandum I received? I have received no such memorandum. And now we've inquired with the administrator's office and they can't seem to get us one. They tell us they don't have a copy. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There is one. I mean -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I mean, if it's in response to something I've sent, I'd kind of like to see it before the item comes up, Bob. Nobody downstairs can get us one. MR. FERNANDEZ: I apologize. The question that Ms. Filson asked me about, I was thinking about a different memo than the one that you referred to. I was thinking about the memorandum that you had mentioned earlier on the item that you asked to remove from the consent agenda. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's on the engineering thing. MR. FERNANDEZ: And Barbara is looking for that one. But I'll be glad to get a copy of the Recreation Lane -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think mine is still on my desk, maybe if Sue just wants to dig around in there. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Does that answer -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. Item #SB1 REPORT ON THE STATUS OF THE LIVINGSTON ROAD ROADWAY CORRIDOR AND CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS - STAFF RECEOHMENDATION APPROVED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Moving on then to item 8(B)(1), the status of Livingston Road corridor. MR. KANT: Good morning, commissioners. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning, Mr. Kant. MR. KANT: Edward Kant, transportation services director. Several years ago, during discussions of the county's transportation system, this particular roadway corridor was one of the subjects of discussion. And at that time, the board directed staff not to proceed with certain segments of that roadway until it was absolutely necessary. I'm back. And this time we're here to present to you an update status on the entire corridor. I've put on the visualizer, you have as part of your package, just a sketch showing the corridor in a very broad brushed sense. I've labeled the roadway segments in that sketch so that they will match the roadway segments that are mentioned in your agenda package. We've basically broken it into five segments: Radio Road to Golden Gate Parkway, Golden Gate Parkway to Pine Ridge Road, Pine Ridge Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road, Vanderbilt Beach Road to Immokalee Road and Immokalee Road to the Collier/Lee line. Roughly two -- one and a half -- they vary from one and a half to three miles an average of two-mile segments. By itself, Livingston Road has no concurrency implications. It can't go below a certain level of standard, because it doesn't exist. However, it does play a very important role in the overall transportation system characteristics in Collier County. And we recognize that there are few alternate sites north-south or east-west. The development pattern over the last two to three decades, especially in the last two decades, has basically foreclosed a number of potential routings for either north-south or east-west corridors. Consequently, it's becoming more difficult to maintain levels of service, both along the segments and at the intersections. Many times we have situations where the segment, the roadway segment from point to point, is operating at a reasonably acceptable level of service. However, the intersection begins to break down, as people must wade through a number of cycles of the green light. We are beginning -- or we are about to let to construction the first segment of Livingston Road, which will be from Radio Road up through the intersection of Golden Gate Parkway just to a point just north of Golden Gate Parkway. Typically when we have -- over the last five years, at least, five to seven years, as I've been involved in this program, when we have let these construction contracts -- when we go through a major intersection, we try to get that intersection to its ultimate configuration, or as close to it as is reasonably possible. I cite as an example Airport Road and Vanderbilt Beach Road, where you'll notice there seems to be an awful lot of pavement out there that's striped out. And the reason for that is it's much easier to overlay and erase some striping than it is to go in and try to rebuild an intersection over more than one time. The proposed section from Radio Road through Golden Gate Parkway will provide a small degree of relief to Airport Road. However, the traffic at the northern end will then only have two ways it can go. It can turn west to Airport Road or to Goodlette or 41, or it can turn east to Santa Barbara or 951. So based on the traffic numbers that we have and based on what we believe are reasonable assumptions in applying some of the techniques that we use to analyze traffic, we believe that the intersection of Airport Road and Golden Gate Parkway, while it is stressed now, is going to continue to be stressed, and at some point will be over stressed and will begin to operate at a level of service F, which we've defined as an unacceptable condition. We have presented in this executive summary several options to assist the county in maintaining concurrency at its levels of service. The first option that we are proposing is to continue the construction of this first segment as presently programmed. However, we're recommending that under the first option that the segment from Golden Gate Parkway to Pine Ridge Road be accelerated, the segment from Pine Ridge Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road be accelerated, and the segment from Vanderbilt Beach Road to Immokalee Road would remain where it is in the program. I believe that Mr. Ilschner has passed out to you a sketch labeled Exhibit 1, which is a time line. The light gray bars on that time line -- I'll put one on the visualizer so everybody can see it. The light gray bars represent the existing program as we have it in the five-year work plan. The dark bars, or black bars, would be the recommendation that was given to you in alternative number one, to move several of the segments a little bit ahead of the presently programmed schedule. The second alternative arosing (sic) is essentially the same, except that the last two segments would be left where they are. The only one that would be accelerated would be the one from Golden Gate to Pine Ridge. And the third alternative, obviously, is to merely continue with the existing program and not move anything around. In an effort to make sure that we weren't going to affect other projects in the program, I also prepared Exhibits 2 and 3, which unfortunately are very, very small -- I've got a few extra copies here, if anybody is interested -- which show the effect of moving -- Exhibit 2 shows an excerpt of the present transportation planning data base with the program as present -- for Livingston Road as presently set out. And we present a balanced program. And that includes the segment which was added at the MPO meeting on Friday of Immokalee Road from County Road 951 through to Oil Well Road at County Road 858. Exhibit 3 was an example of the alternative number one, if you choose to direct us to go with alternative number one. By moving those particular segments and retaining Immokalee Road, we're still showing a balanced program over the five years. So it is staff's conclusion that there is not going to be a negative effect on our program by making these changes. We've also had -- one last thing I want to make a point of is that we've had quite a bit -- well, it's a relative term. We've had some inquiries from the development community. They -- it seems that the number of inquiries are beginning to come in much more frequently with respect to well, what's going to happen with Livingston Road, can we get in there and do a piece of it, can we work with you to help get it designed quicker, whatever. And over the last, I would believe, about the last year or so, eight months to a year, we've come to the conclusion that we need to reexamine that, and that's why we're presenting this proposal to you today. We're requesting that you take the information that we presented to you and give us direction to proceed in accordance with our recommendation, which would be the alternative number one, which would be to accelerate the two roadway segments in the program for design and construction. And I'll be glad to try to answer any questions you may have. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Carter? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Will this -- I think what I'm processing here is that will this help the total traffic picture in an accelerated program in a way that we can minimize congestion in some of these areas, versus not doing this? Per your change. MR. KANT: Yes, I believe it will, sir. COMMISSIONER CARTER: And will we continue to protect the communities along this roadway, like Wyndemere, with the berms and that, so that these communities are disturbed at a minimum during this construction process? MR. KANT: Yes, sir. The only existing community, as you point out, is the Wyndemere community. We've been working very closely with them for the last two years or so, I believe, since we were given direction to continue to try to ameliorate their concerns. We have looked at berms and walls, and I can't tell you exactly what the answer is, but I do believe that the public works engineering department staff has come up with what are reasonably acceptable alternatives. I don't know if they finalized them yet. The rest -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: You're in close communication with them? MR. KANT: I beg your pardon? COMMISSIONER CARTER: You're in close communication with them? MR. KANT: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Where is Rich Yovanovich today? We've never had a Livingston Road discussion without him being in the room. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: He doesn't represent Wyndemere anymore. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, sorry. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you. MR. KANT: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Kant, just to be clear, the option number one, the acceleration of a couple of those phases, does that -- just to make sure I understood, did you say that that will not cause any other road segments somewhere around the county to be slipped out? MR. KANT: The only -- that's why I prepared Exhibits number 2 and 3, because the only thing that I changed was the timing on the construction phase of those two segments, and then I made sure that the Immokalee Road issue was handled at the same time. Now, as you're aware, priorities tend to change from year to year. We try to set out a five-year program that's balanced, but sometimes something happens. As a perfect example is the inclusion of this Immokalee Road segment, which wasn't there last year or the year before. It's become to the point where both the board and staff agree, it's become more critical, and so we've added it in. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But your answer is that we're not accelerating these segments at the scheduling expense of some other segment. MR. KANT: No, sir. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is this a public hearing? Because I think the staff's recommendation, number one, is an excellent one. I'm prepared to make a motion to approve staff's recommendation number one. So moved. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Is that a question? Could you restate it? COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're moving staff recommendation? COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, I am. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that, but I have a question. Is there any truth to the rumor that staff has been referring behind the scenes to Livingston Road as Ronald Reagan Boulevard? MR. KANT: Not within my earshot, sir. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't know, I thought we were looking for something to name Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard. Just thought I'd throw that in there. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I hadn't heard that rumor. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You haven't? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think we just should leave that alone. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: For today. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I certainly am in concurrence with stepping up this process on this particular roadway. I don't think there's anybody that has driven around here that wouldn't think that this would be beneficial. So anyway, we have a motion, and I believe we have a second. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So all in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Now's a fine time to ask, but do we -- MR. KANT: Thank you, commissioners. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- have anyone to speak on this item? MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Sorry about that. I'll do better the next time. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Great job on staff's part, as far as I'm concerned. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think so, too. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And getting ahead of the ball. Item #882 STAFF SELECTION OF FIRMS AND AGREEHENTS AWARDED WITH FIRMS FOR THE FIXED TERM PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES 'RFP-98-2835) - STAFF RECOHMENDATION APPROVED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, the next item ms item 8(B)(2). Commissioner Mac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just asked that this item for the selection of -- you guys know this, but I'm just going to say it for general introduction. This is the annual contract whereby we select seven engineering firms that are sort of on call for county projects going forward for the next year. And basically, what troubled me most about this is that of the top five firms, four of them are not local companies. And I really think that we need to address the process. Perhaps we aren't giving enough weight to the value of using local firms. And my comparison, Madam Chairman, would be when the school board learned such a hard lesson on construction companies that -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, we did. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- were not local. And I don't want to have to learn that lesson on engineering work in the county. And I just wanted to pull it off for the purpose of asking Mr. Ilschner to tell us about what kind of a weight we give to the local companies. And also, just -- I'm surprised a little bit about the makeup of the committee and wonder if the selection committee in fact has the very best people with the most experience and the most -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Expertise. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- ability to judge engineering firms. And maybe the whole procurement officer status or upper level management, there ought to be some way to look at that. So I wanted to pull it off for those purposes. MR. ILSCHNER: Madam Chairman -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Ilschner. MR. ILSCHNER: -- commissioners, Ed Ilschner, public works administrator, for the record. The committee process involved utilizing a criteria -- a selection criteria for local firms that involved only a two-point adjustment for being a local firm. And I might add that in going back and reviewing the records this morning again after you mentioned you'd like to discuss it, we have three firms: Hartman and Associates, Camp Dresser and HcKey, and Pittman, Hartenstein and Associates, that are located in Fort Myers. And I also noted that in the selection criteria a local firm was deemed to be any firm in Collier and Lee County, and so that rendered six of the firms then being local, with only one being in -- I believe in Orlando -- no, Tampa, Tampa Bay Engineering, Inc. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And maybe that is -- and my suggestion would be that the points for being a local firm should be more than two, and that the definition of a local firm be Collier County, because we have such premier firms here in the county. And I just didn't know if that was something that the board wants to discuss or if there's anybody who agrees with me. And then also, the -- I'm troubled by -- one of the firms on the top seven list, I know there has -- has had a bad experience with the City of Naples, for example, and is no longer used at the City of Naples because of that bad experience. I'm wondering if there is a way of checking references with local government in a more thorough way. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree with your concern, and whether we decide today in this forum or not how to correct that I don't know what's appropriate. But I want to be real careful not to give too much to the locals, not only in this, but in anything we do, because I think can you get to a point where your locals can charge you more simply -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sure. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- because they're local, and we want to avoid that. But I've got to agree, Hole-Hontes has done projects for Collier County successfully forever, and they're ranked 17th out of 24. I may have that number wrong, but as I counted them -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's hard to imagine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I cannot follow that. I simply cannot follow that. And I understand it's very competitive and there are a number of them that are tight. Hole-Hontes wasn't even tight in the scoring. They were 20 points off. And so I -- and I use them only by way of one in which I'm particularly familiar, because we've used them for so many projects in my six years on the board. But I've got to agree, there -- it appears, anyway, that the scoring process may be flawed and we probably need to review that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just to add another example, Turrell and Associates is one of the Premier coastal engineering firms in the country and didn't score well, as they had joined in with other firms, and I don't know how that could happen. And I agree with you, Commissioner, it's probably not possible for us to solve this today, but it might be useful to -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But it needs to be solved. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. It's an annual event, so if we don't bring it up today, we probably won't -- MR. ILSCHNER: Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Ilschner? MR. ILSCHNER: Mr. Cornell, our purchasing director, Mr. Bibby, our public works engineering department director, and I intend to thoroughly review the consultant selection process and make appropriate changes where those need to be made to ensure that we have a system that you would be in agreement with and of course the consulting community as well. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. My feeling is I don't want to compromise Collier County, but I think when you look at a project and you look at expertise available, if all things are equal, then I would certainly like to see the nod given to the local group. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Ditto. MR. ILSCHNER: We concur with that, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I mean, if at all possible. These are people that are in our community. Now, if there is a specific expertise that you're looking for and none of the local groups have that, then that certainly -- you know, you're justified. I want you to get the best possible that in your opinion, your professional opinion, that we can get. But I think if there's -- if there's a little weight going one way or the other, then I certainly would give the nod to the local people, because for the most part, they employ the local people. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And Madam Chairman, before you came on the board, possibly before Commissioner Hac'Kie came on the board, Commissioner Constantine will remember this, that we made that a commission policy, that unless there was a distinct separation in abilities or perhaps some specific expertise, that if possible, we wanted local firms to get the nod on that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Would it be too complicated, Mr. Ilschner -- I mean, I don't want to vote against the item that we have today. Is it too complicated to continue it for a couple of weeks? Are there repercussions to that, to allow you to go back and look at it, or should we just -- MR. ILSCHNER: I have thoroughly looked at this particular process and feel like I could find nothing concrete that indicated this process was flawed. I believe they followed the appropriate selection criteria. I do intend to go speak to each of the committee members and try to determine the basis for their ranking so that I can share with the consultant how he might improve his presentation to ensure that his greatest chance of selection is there. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And will you look at the makeup of the committee to -- not anything to do with individuals, but the level of expertise and contact with, be sure that we have the people who are the most qualified to make that decision. MR. ILSCHNER: We basically are in agreement with this entire board in what you're asking us to do. In fact, we are going to look at that makeup and make sure there's a broad spectrum and some -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is it a -- MR. ILSCHNER: -- understanding -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Ilschner, is -- MR. ILSCHNER: -- and as well as the equal decision with respect to -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is the problem -- MR. ILSCHNER: -- the order. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- perhaps -- is it a policy that the board -- that we need to change? Is this the problem? If it is, then we need -- MR. ILSCHNER: It is a policy -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. ILSCHNER: -- that we're following, and we would intend to review that policy, revise it and bring it back to you for your review and -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, it sounds like -- you know, if we have to live unfortunately with a policy that's there, then we're kind of stuck at this point in time. But if it's something that we think we want to change, then we need to have that brought back to us and review that and make sure that we're all in sync here with what's -- what we think we want and that the policy states that. MR. ILSCHNER: Madam Chairman, that was the dilemma I faced. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. ILSCHNER: If we're following the policy, then I -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. MR. ILSCHNER: -- need to come back with some changes to that policy so that we can move ahead with -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I would ask you to contact the city manager for the City of Naples about his experience with some of these firms and see if you might want to, well, at least be advised of that. MR. ILSCHNER: I certainly will. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, considering the fact that they've assured us all our current policies were met, I'll go ahead and -- and while recognizing they're not necessarily the same ones I would have selected, the process worked as it was laid out to. So I'll make a motion we approve this, but as part of that, also give staff direction to bring back to us some specifics of that policy after the turn of the year, and we can review that and make appropriate changes. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. COHMISSIONER CARTER: I second -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. So all in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. MR. ILSCHNER: Thank you, Madam Chair. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you very much. Does that answer -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I appreciate that. Thank you. Item #BE1 FURTHER DISCUSSION REGARDING FUNDING FOR LAW ENFORCEHENT SERVICES TO MARCO ISLAND - STAFF TO COME BACK WITH A LISTING OF OUTSTANDING ITEMS CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right, moving on then to our county administrator. Further discussion regarding funding for law enforcement services, or lack of funding -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- Marco Island. MR. FERNANDEZ: City of Marco Island last night was scheduled to consider the item of funding for law enforcement. In anticipation of this morning's presentation, I directed our staff, Mr. HcNees and Mr. Smykowski, to be present at that meeting so they could give you a firsthand report on the deliberations. Unfortunately, the firsthand report was very brief to me this morning, but I've asked Mr. McNees to present to the commission the status of the agreements that are pending between the Board of County Commissioners and Marco Island, and the bottom line of what was done last night. Mr. McNees? MR. McNEES: Good morning, Madam Chairman, commissioners, Mike McNees from the county administrator's office. To refresh your memory, although that's probably not necessary, when you last discussed this issue, you directed the Chair to send a letter to the chairman of the City Council on Marco Island, asking that the city contribute six months' worth of cost for the provision of law enforcement services through the Sheriff's Office. I believe that number is $526,000, approximately. They were to discuss that at last night's meeting, as Mr. Fernandez said. Mike Smykowski and I went down there only to be able to report to you accurately what happened. What happened was, as they discussed their agenda, one of the council members said that certain items that he wanted to be resolved before the Sheriff's funding was discussed, he had learned immediately before the meeting had not been resolved. Those were not specified at that time. Hence, he was suggesting that it was not appropriate for them to discuss the Sheriff's issue until all items had been resolved. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could you tell us who that was, so maybe we can contact him? MR. McNEES: That was Councilman Day. He made a motion to that effect -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And just to reiterate, we don't have any idea what those items are? MR. McNEES: We do now. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, you do now, okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good. MR. McNEES: I believe. I have a couple of ideas, anyway. I'll get to that. He made that motion, that motion was seconded, passed without discussion. It was then suggested that in place of discussion of the Sheriff's budget, they put on their agenda a discussion of their creation of a law enforcement agency -- and I'm not using their wording -- but that was added to the agenda in place of the discussion of the Sheriff's budget. At 11:00, with their meeting running long, they adjourned without having that discussion. So there was no resolution of that issue either. I spoke to the city manager at one of their breaks to see if we could determine what are the outstanding issues. He mentioned the public road right-of-way dedication as one, whereas, you will recall, you approved an agreement, directed the county attorney to add some language to that agreement that included stormwater drainage easements that had not originally been included, which the County Attorney's Office, forwarded that all to Marco, and apparently there's -- some of the wording in there that they're not happy with. And that is apparently one of the things that he has said is not resolved. And we had just gotten a letter from him in the last day or so saying that they have a problem with some specific wording having to do with drainage easements along State Road 92 -- or what's now County Road 92. The other issue -- and I don't represent this as the council's wish -- but I know that Councilman Day asked me about it at one of their breaks, and I expect this is what he was referring to, is the issue of the cable franchise fees. Apparently there is a question regarding the effective date from which cable franchise fees collected from residents of Marco Island would be given to the city. I had told chairman -- or City Manager Moss a couple of weeks ago that whatever that -- during your discussion of that, on November the 3rd, you were not specific. In fact, Commissioner Mac'Kie asked the question, what will the effective date of this be. I responded -- and I just listened to the tape this morning so I'd know exactly what happened -- that it would take some time to modify the appropriate agreements, and that we would come back to you with those when they were completed. We didn't specify a date. I informed Mr. Moss a couple of weeks ago that when we brought those agreements back to you for the appropriate amendment, we would ask you to specify the appropriate date. And it seemed or what would be fair would have been what they are asking for, which is from the date that you made the motion that we would go ahead and give back the fees collected. And we certainly had no objection to that, but that hasn't made paper yet, because you haven't directed that as a body. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, Mr. McNees, it was my motion the last time we discussed that item, and the intent of my motion was to have those fees effective as of the date of that motion. And I've made that clear to them in Marco, and -- MR. McNEES: I understand that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- they don't seem to be willing to accept our word. I mean, we've sent them letters memorializing what actions we have authorized to happen, simply because those actions are still in transit in paperwork. MR. McNEES: Commissioner, I understand completely, and I believe that was your intent. What I represented to Mr. Moss was that since that wasn't stated, and it wasn't formal direction that we as staff couldn't just give them the money based on something that wasn't directed, but that we would certainly ask you and certainly had every confidence that you would reiterate that and make that a formal direction. I think you're exactly right, the issue seems to be that word, either mine or yours, hasn't been good enough that that's what's about to happen. So I think one of the issues you said clearly at your last meeting, or when we discussed this on November 3rd, you did not wish to link the issues of cables franchise fees and the Sheriff's funding. Clearly, last night the City Council was saying they are linked. Since one is not resolved, we will not discuss -- not they will not pay, they will not discuss the other. And that's where we are. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think they're using that as an excuse, myself, but -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would concur. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's my question. I believe I voted with the minority on the cable franchise issue, and therefore, am unable to do anything about it. But I wonder if anyone who voted with the majority would like to change their mind, because we need -- if the bottom line -- and it can't get any later than today. We can't wait any longer than today. And if the bottom line is they're not going to pay anything for Sheriff services, then please, let's not give away -- is it $400,000? MR. HcNEES: Approximately 200,000 per year. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: $200,000, and -- because it's an absolute gift to give that franchise fee money to them. We are not obligated to do it. For God's sake, let's don't do it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask you a question? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And this is open to any commissioner, to staff, to anybody. My recollection is we've been wholly cooperative. We gave away the parks, we've taken care of the roads issue, they wanted the public roads; we loaned staff out at the beginning when they first had no one to help run things; we actually have a couple of agreements where we're doing either code enforcement or some certain services where we're sharing with them. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Contractor licensing. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Cancel them. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We've done -- the cable issue was on a three-two majority, that passed. Can somebody tell me one thing that the City of Marco has done to reciprocate the olive branches that have been offered? I have yet -- I can't think of any. And I'm not trying to be funny, I honestly cannot think of one thing -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think it's an olive tree -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- the city has done -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- at this point. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- to reciprocate -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's been a one-way street. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- the relationship. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It has been a one-way street, unfortunately. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: At this point, unless someone can tell me that, I'm going to ask the board just let's pull back on anything that's in motion, including -- I agree with you on the cable franchise fees. But if we have agreements with contractors and licensing, if we're helping out in code enforcement, if they want to be on their own and are not going to contribute to the public safety, perhaps they need to be on their own on everything. MR. HcNEES: Commissioner, I think I can answer your question. In fairness, there was a significant set of issues originally where we and the city disagreed. And that was -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But Mike, they were bogus issues. MR. HcNEES: -- that was the dedication of all of the roads and all of the right-of-way and all of the bridges on Marco Island. They vehemently opposed the acceptance of those. We, as Commissioner Hac'Kie mentions, never felt like they had grounds with which to refuse, but that was something where along the way they did say, okay, we will yield our position, and hence they came to the county's position. So if you're asking what were the circumstances where they did agree with us eventually, that would be the major one that I can think of. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My point, I guess, is that it doesn't serve the public well for two government bodies to be combative. However, we have made every effort. We have -- in at least half a dozen major issues, we have extended olive branch after olive branch after olive branch, and at this point seems as though they're taking that branch and just slapping the county in the face. And there comes a point where you've only got five or six cheeks to turn, and we've got to respond accordingly. COHMISSIONER CARTER: Well -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You know, I did vote with the -- I'm sorry, you were next, Commissioner. COHMISSIONER CARTER: I was going to say, as an observer to this process, I've always tried to figure out who we're negotiating with in Marco. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. COHMISSIONER CARTER: I mean, their county manager -- I mean, their city manager stood in this room and committed to this commission what they were willing to do, and yet when he went back to his own council they said, well, I don't know where he got that idea. So there has not been, in my observation, a uniformed negotiation process by the City of Marco to approach these issues. And we're being held hostage by -- you pick the area, they want to do it. And they continue to do this. And so maybe the hidden agenda is will we just flatly not go along with this and let the Sheriff go ahead and appeal to the governor and take that process? I don't know what they're doing, but CHAIRPERSON BERRY: See, I think that's exactly their tack. They knew today was the last day, the drop-dead date before the Sheriff could go to the Governor. And by not dealing with the issue last night, this throws this -- either the county is going to put up the money and more or less say to the rest of the county, you are now being jeopardized because the fact Marco is not going to contribute. And so the Sheriff is going to have to go. If he wants more money, he's going to have to go. At the same time, the Sheriff knows and constitutionally is compelled to provide services down there. The level, of course, could be questioned. I mean, I don't think there's any doubt about that. But that situation arises. It's there. And I did vote in favor of the franchise fees for the cable because I thought we were trying to do -- you know, get us somewhere, particularly with the idea of the Sheriff. But as voting in the majority, I certainly would be one to take another look at these things. I'm willing to pull back on everything at this point that's hanging out there. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, if that's -- if that's a motion to reconsider, then I don't need to make mine, because I was intending to make a motion to reconsider all of the votes where we entered into interlocal agreements with Marco Island for sharing our staff -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- primarily sharing our staff with them. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What areas are we doing that in right now? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I have a question, too. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let me just go ahead and say, while they're looking that up, that what I'm proposing -- what I hope to propose is that if Madam Chairman will pull back the vote to reconsider the motion on the cable franchise, I can do the others or we can '- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I would like to propose that we reconsider, and I guess we'll have to bring that back. According to policy, we'll have to bring that back. But I would like to make a motion to reconsider, if we can. Mr. Weigel, can we do that? MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think even Mr. Korn in the audience would agree with me that a motion to reconsider is not appropriate today. The action taken -- the action taken by the board, I believe it was the November 3rd or 4th meeting, right around that time, in regard to this was unilateral action taken by this board. And I will say parenthetically separate from the action taken on the agreement with -- concerning the homeowners' association and the gatehouse, this was not the approval of a contract. This was a determination of the board to take an action. And you are not bound by the -- call it the parameters of the reconsideration ordinance itself -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry -- MR. WEIGEL: -- we're not reconsidering the -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- David, I didn't mean for a second that MR. WEIGEL: -- action we took before. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, okay, I understand. So we don't have to be tied to that reconsideration ordinance, we can just decide today to change direction. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: You may. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Great. MR. WEIGEL: You may. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Now, let me ask my question. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Go ahead, Mr. -- Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If we're not going to receive funding from Marco for Sheriff services, then we need to do something perhaps to encourage the Sheriff to conserve some money as it relates to the services he provides to Marco. We own that substation; is that correct? MR. FERNANDEZ: That's correct. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: How much notice do we have to give the Sheriff to vacate that substation? Thirty days, less? MR. FERNANDEZ: I don't know if there's any contractual requirement. MR. WEIGEL: What was the question? MR. FERNANDEZ: How many notice to -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: To vacate the Sheriff's substation on Marco. MR. WEIGEL: I don't know. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What if we -- could we get an answer on that soon, find out what the arrangement would have to be there? Because we could declare that surplus, sell that off and let the sheriff provide services from his substation that's located in the East Naples Fire building there. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe we could put that on as a formal item for next week and have all the answers to that, what kind of time frame do we need, what kind of notice to we give. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And I'm sure that would help the Sheriff save some of the funding that's he's been expending on Marco Island. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I'm interested in doing -- in looking at that. At the same time -- I hope you guys don't throw anything at me -- but I'm also interested in -- in considering a reduction to the Sheriff's budget that's less than the four million dollars. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let's throw something at her. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I know you're going to throw something at me, but I -- my -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't think that's the item that we're considering here today. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, thank you, but I have a question, and that is whether or not -- and Mr. Weigel, maybe you know this -- if we cut the Sheriff's budget by a million dollars, we know it's going to be appealed, he has to do that. We know he's going to go to Tallahassee. A question -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Doesn't mean he's going to win. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Doesn't mean he's going to win. Nevertheless, my question is -- and if he doesn't win, what are the repercussions to people in this county? And -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's a big if. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- that's our responsibility. My question is if it were appealed to Tallahassee, do the Governor and Cabinet have the authority to order Marco Island to participate, or is that just completely out of the realm of possibility? MR. WEIGEL: I believe that's out of the realm, that they cannot specifically -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What they may be able to do, though, is recognize, because the state statutes allow the Sheriff to request of us what is the area you think should be cut when you are looking to cut my budget. And we are done that. We have outlined exactly what that is, and we have said we don't think those other positions all over the county are being cut. What we have specifically requested is the service on Marco Island. If the appeal fails, that is essentially saying I agree with the Board of Commissioners, and I think that is going to alleviate some of the Sheriff's concern that boy, I am required to provide the exact same level of service everywhere. COHMISSIONER CARTER: I -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Do you think that's what -- COHMISSIONER CARTER: -- would agree. He would have to revisit what his level -- defined level of service would have to be to Marco, and I don't think -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: For all incorporated areas, thank you very much. COHMISSIONER CARTER: Right. And I think we just have to maybe just go that process to find out what happens here, and still leave the door open, if Marco changes their direction in dealing with us. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If we could later, Mr. Fernandez, amend the budget to accept a contribution from Marco or to -- I mean, the process, assuming that the Sheriff goes to Tallahassee, and is -- and loses, and gets then somehow some comfort that he's not required to provide the exact same level of service within an incorporated city as he is an unincorporated Collier County, at some point in the future, if it became necessary to do a budget amendment for the Sheriff's Office, that is always available to us? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And just to clarify, the question isn't about incorporated area or not, the question is about participants in the HSTU or not. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. Good point. Used to be -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: Just to add another point, from what I heard the testimony from the Sheriff the day he came to present to us, it's not the same level of service, but he preferred to Marco Island as the best level of service in the county -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- if I remember that correctly. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's what he said. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He said that -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's what he said. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think what he said was that it was the most successful substation. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And going back to the question I asked before, what areas -- there's contractors and licensing board. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What areas are we assisting in in any way? MR. HcNEES: I think probably only directly in the contractor licensing we provide domestic animal services on the Island that if you amended your ordinance, certainly you would not be required to. Indirectly, pending issues would be the road impact fee agreement that you have not yet approved in final form, and -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Substance of which is? MR. HcNEES: Allowing the city to keep a portion of our road impact fee, based on a certain formula that has been negotiated, but hasn't been brought to you yet for adoption. The amendment to the cable franchise ordinances you have not yet approved, and is still in your balipark. MR. FERNANDEZ: Also, code enforcement cases that were begun prior to October 1st were continuing with us. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We need to stop those. MR. HcNEES: And we have handed responsibility to them. Obviously, we are still providing staff assistance in helping them resolve those. So that would be an area -- thank you for that. There may be others I'm thinking on the fly. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are there any services they have contracted with the county to provide? MR. HcNEES: The -- we had contracted for some plan planning related services, the next to the last item of which was heard last night, that we provided staff assistance to. Mr. Cautero informed me there's one boat dock permit left in the pipeline, and that that's the only one where we -- we are providing service for. I can't think of anything -- we are providing solid waste collection through the solid waste franchise on the Island is another thing. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hm. MR. HcNEES: I can't immediately -- COHMISSIONER CARTER: A little garbage buildup might change their attitude. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we wanted to address that, how would we go about addressing that? What would a time frame be before we could -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Shoot the tires out of the garbage truck. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- drop that responsibility on the city? MR. HcNEES: That one I'd hated to answer on the fly. I think if you asked us to come back in a week with a comprehensive report of what are the issues out there, where are our shared services, or our provided services -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think that's the way. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the way. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think so. MR. McNEES: -- we'd love two weeks to do that, but I think we could probably -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're not coming back 'til January, so I'd like to get it -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's got to be next week. MR. McNEES: I like January a lot, but -- if you need that by next week, we can do that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think that would be appropriate to go ahead and let staff come back to us with a grocery list of outstanding items. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Including the substation. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, absolutely. Anything that the county is providing down there that -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I assume there's general consensus that we -- nothing is in the pipeline right now to move forward in those seven days either. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's right. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I jotted down, and just tell me if I missed any of these. Freeze and possibly rescind the cable franchise agreement, and all cooperation on the contractor and licensing and related programs. Investigate department of -- division of animal services department. I don't know, whatever -- animal control. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Domestic animal services. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you, DAS. Road impact fee issue, code enforcement cases, planning services, one case, and then particularly the solid waste issue and the substation issue, if we could have those brought back in some attempt. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And any others that staff might identify. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, and -- COMHISSIONER CARTER: And any others that staff identifies so we have a complete list to put on the table. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's direction I could support. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: That's direction. I assume that all we need to do is give direction, and I agree with the direction. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I agree with the direction as well. I don't think -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: That's three. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- it requires a vote. I think you all know what we're looking at. MR. FERNANDEZ: We know exactly what you're looking for, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, thank you, Mr. McNees, for the report. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we take a break? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Sure. At this time, we'll give our court reporter a break, and we'll be back in about seven to 10. (Brief recess.) Item #8E2 APPOINTMENT OF JOHN L. COOK, JR., AS EMERGENCY SERVICES DIVISION ADMINISTRATOR - DENIED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. We are reconvene our meeting. We are down to item 8(E)(2), which is the confirmation of appointment of John L. Cook, Jr. as emergency services division administrator. Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, this is a new position that was created in the reorganization that took effect October 1st. This is the fifth division of county government. Mr. Cook interviewed with us as one of five external candidates and two internal candidates, and he was selected by myself and two others on the selection committee to be the most qualified candidate. He comes to us with over 25 years of experience in emergency services, with primarily a fire services background. His most recent employment is Loudoun County, Maryland. Prior to that, he spent time in Denton, Texas, as well as Conroe, Texas. I have selected him to begin as of the first of the year. January 4th I think is the first date. The salary proposed is $80,000. And I would ask for your confirmation at this time. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, unfortunately, I have some problems with the candidate. The one that raised my eye to start with is the -- primarily, as Mr. Fernandez just said, primarily a fire services background. One of the issues we have struggled with in the past several years is a division between individual fire districts and EHS. And I have some concern where this takes us, both in reality and in perception, if we have someone with exclusively a fire services background. More importantly, though, I did, as I do each time we have an administrative approval or appointment of a -- excuse me, approval of an appointment, some calls and talk to people familiar with the candidate. I talked to the county administrator in Loudoun County, and I also have a very close friend, a gentleman who was in my wedding who I visit two or three times who lives in Loudoun County. I talked with him, who in turn put me in touch with a couple of the firefighters and people that worked up there, so I had a real good varied background. Someone who is just a resident up there, someone who Mr. Cook worked for and then somebody who is familiar with the services provided. And there were some questions pertaining to his ability to deal with the public. Some questions about one quote was -- I don't have an exact, I have it jogged in my notes -- but if you supervise him very closely -- he's very intelligent and very capable, and if you supervise him very closely, he's capable of the job. If you do not supervise him very closely, he has a tendency to do what he wants to do. And I had asked him that last week -- in fairness to him, I asked him that last week at the interview, the sit-down I had with him as, you know, what works for you, what is your management style, particularly as it pertains to your preference when that differs with the preference of the board or of the manager. And his reaction was one that concerned me before we even started, I guess, because he said -- before we get too far, he said something to the effect of well, while I disagree with the way your services are set up here now, meaning the division between fire and EHS, I certainly can go ahead and follow what Mr. Fernandez has. And so perhaps if there's close supervision, as outlined by those folks up in Loudoun County, he could. But if he disagrees before we even come in with the way things are going here, that gives me pause for concern as well. In sum, I guess what I heard from each of these people was just kind of hardheaded, does what he wants to do, does not -- really needs close supervision in order to keep him on line, on track, to what the general policy is. At a division level, division head level, that gives me pause for concern. And Iwll leave it there for now. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I am also not supportive of the position, not, frankly, because of the individual, because I have not met with him. I have of course reviewed the resume and respect Mr. Fernandez's ability to select the appropriate person. I have, however, two big problems with the -- with this appointment. One is, to speak bluntly, as you know I do, we don't need to hire Diane Flagg a boss. She doesn't need a boss. She's doing a great job. We don't need to hire Ken Pineau a new boss. When we look at what are the departments that are to be included in this division, they are the award-winning, the working like clockwork, the no problems departments. I don't see why we need to add another level of management and oversight when things aren't broken. Frankly, I voted for the creation of the position thinking that Diane Flagg has been acting as a division head for years, so if this gets her promoted to division head status, then I would go along with that. I don't have any interest in hiring Diane Flagg a boss. In addition, this item, or this position is primarily to oversee EHS and fire. We have two dependent fire districts, both of whom are seriously considering independence; both of whom have asked our staff to make presentations over the course of this calendar year to allow them to make a judgment of whether or not they want to go independent. My, the irony if we hire somebody to supervise the EHS and the two dependent fire districts and they're independent in a year. So for both of those reasons, I'm not going to support the appointment. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Carter, comments? COHMISSIONER CARTER: I was not here for your discussion on the reorganization. I've had those conversations with our county administrator. I told him I would hold him accountable for a decision on that basis, that you need to do this type of thing. I would also hold him accountable for the person he would select to put in that position. I have some concerns and questions about creating a fifth division. I've expressed that. It was related to me we needed to do this, but I'm hearing some things this morning that I'm wondering if this board prior to my arrival was really comfortable with the reorganization, and did we really want to add another person, and have we gone to an expense of looking to bring in another person from the outside when we have internal candidates that may be operating very well as they're doing, and we don't need another level of government or management? So I'm -- I don't know if you can defer this process or what, but it seems to me like we're revisiting a couple of things: One, do we need another division, and we're revisiting whether or not we like the candidates being presented. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I wish we could postpone the creation of the position until we give the fire districts, the two dependent fire districts, the opportunity to go through this calendar year and decide whether or not we're going to continue to have dependent fire districts. COMMISSIONER CARTER: If they were going to be independent, then I would think I'd have to -- I would certainly want to revisit why would I want to spend $116,000 to have two people supervised, and could this not be rethought of in another framework of how we're organized from which they were currently reporting. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, Commissioner Mac'Kie, the last time we discussed this, you made the point that we should let our county administrator do the administration and the management, and I think we all agree with that. It appears that the support for this particular arrangement is not here anymore on the board, but that doesn't mean that Mr. Fernandez could not reorganize internally some other way, if that's acceptable to the board. He doesn't have to necessarily create a new division. I think he could -- if this doesn't go forward today, then perhaps his next charge would be to think about a reorganization within the existing divisions, if that's what he wants to do, which he wouldn't have to come to us about. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of course, keeping in mind again, and you're right, he doesn't have to come to us about it. But I would hope he would keep in mind that it seems to be kind of silly to reorganize and then to unreorganize in a year if the fire districts become independent. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that would be one of the -- one of the benefits of doing it internally. If they do decide to go independent, then they would simply disappear from the county's roster of departments. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going to make a motion not to approve the -- not to confirm the appointment of the emergency services division administrator. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. And it doesn't take too much to count to three, Mr. Fernandez, on this particular item. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We've got speakers here. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I understand. I haven't said anything yet. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sorry. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I've been always very nice to let all of the rest of you talk, and then I wait 'til the last. You know, it's called manners. At any rate, when this came to us, when Mr. Fernandez brought this to us, I have been used to working the segment when the administrator brings the appointment recommendation to the board. It certainly goes without saying, Mr. Carter mentioned it, that obviously they're held accountable for that particular person. Then unless you know something that is very, very compelling, and usually has to do with morally in most cases, something that is not an individual that you'd like to have working and being associated with the county, that would be a reason to not confirm an appointment. I looked at this as a new administrator coming in assessing the situation, making a decision to change an administration, which I think he has every right to do. Whether I agree or disagree, he is still accountable for that particular decision, whichever way that goes. But it doesn't -- I can see this morning that there's two very strong and a third very questionable situation here. We have a motion and a second on the floor in regard to not accepting this confirmation. So at this time, I guess the most appropriate is to go ahead and hear from the public speakers on it. MR. FERNANDEZ: First speaker, Madam Chair, is Ty Agoston and then Mary Dunavan. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just prior to Mr. Agoston, too, I want to clarify. You said normally what you would anticipate is only in the event of some immoral act or question of morality and so on. And just a general disagreement of philosophy there, I guess, because the division administrators require board approval -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I understand. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and because of that, and it's just my opinion, I think we are then held accountable as well, it's not strictly Mr. Fernandez. My questions about Mr. Cook have nothing to do with his morality or anything else. I'm sure he's a moral, upstanding citizen. I just -- his management style reported from John Q. Citizen in Loudoun County, reported from people in the fire service and from county administrator are not what I see as a man of his style we need here. I understand where you're coming from, I just want to clarify. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. I just -- I guess -- and our differences is that I look at the value of the county administrator, that I look at him as the person that's in charge and responsible. And he's the one that I hire and fire. I don't really hire and fire the rest of the individuals. But he's the one that I have to hold accountable. And no matter whether I know anything about this individual -- it may not be the person that I would have selected, but it was a person that he saw obviously certain qualities in. And unless there had been something reported to me that was extremely objectionable about the individual, then I feel like, you know, we've always told that you better -- if you don't confirm an appointment, you better be able to substantiate whatever your reason for denial in court. And I have -- I know nothing. Even the things that you say, I don't know that you can substantiate it in court to be compelling enough to not have a judgment come against you in that confirmation. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I want to be real careful what we say there, because I don't think we are obligated to give this person a job because Mr. Fernandez brought him forward. There's a confirmation process from the board, and the board -- you may decide that in your opinion that's due to moral issues, I may decide that I have the responsibility as a commissioner that if I think the management style is poor, the track record is poor, and it's not in the best interest of the public, that may be my reasoning. But we don't have any obligation to give him a job because Mr. Fernandez has put his name forward in nomination. And so when we talk about legal issues, I want to be careful that we don't set ourselves up for something there. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Just a thought. Mr. Agoston? MR. AGOSTON: Morning, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Ty Agoston. I'm from that disadvantaged Golden Gate Estates. And I'm also a co-president of TAG, Taxpayers Action Group, and I'm speaking for them. Just a short while ago, at the initiation of our county administrator, you have reduced, in my opinion, public access. But in bottom line of fact, you have reduced the hour load, the workload, on your executive staff by two days a month. They now are free to do on every other Monday (sic) whatever they want to do or have to do, instead of sitting here staring at you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: As pleasant as that might be. Sorry. MR. AGOSTON: Now we get another proposal. Well, the proposal came before you quite some time ago, but the proposal is to increase the administrator's ranks by what's that, 25 percent? You're adding one on four. And I don't understand, with the loss of Marco Island as a workload, it seems to me that we are going against the current. Now, I seem to remember well that all of you have ran as republicans. And as republicans, one of the basic tenant is less government, less intrusion into public's lives, less expense. Are we going down that track? And I am not trying to sound partisan. I am just essentially talking as a taxpayer, want to save as much money as possible. And I really don't believe that you have any justification for this type of an expansion in the bureaucracy of the county, where the actual need doesn't seem to be there. Aside from the technical aspect of who is -- are running the actual emergency services sector. Thank you very much. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Mary Dunavan. MS. DUNAVAN: Good morning, commissioners, Chairman Berry. Welcome to our new Commissioner, Jim Carter. I don't want to talk you out of your motion, and -- but I would like to see you rescind the division -- fifth division ordinance itself. It is not needed. And I'm going to go back to Commissioner Berry's nod to local policy that we hire in-house people. I mean, we're sending them a message. This is the third time this year that we've decided we're going to hire somebody out of the county when we have somebody that's in that position to take over right here. They're here, their family's here, we don't have to pay to move any of them in. And so I feel that we have good employees that we can give this -- these positions to and stop the cost more to our taxpayers and the county. Also, I want to make another point. I was a little late this morning. We had a bad wreck on Immokalee Road at the TwinEagles entrance to their construction area. And they are still cleaning up. They were -- the wreck was around 6:30 this morning. They were still cleaning up around 8:30. And I came across another wreck on 951. But Immokalee Road really needs something done to it. Thank you very much. MR. FERNANDEZ: No other speakers, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second for denial of this position. All in favor? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Opposed? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Aye. Motion carries three-two. Item #8E3 - Continued to 12/15/98 Item #8E4 AMENDED AGREEHENT FOR REFERENDUH INFORMATION SERVICES WITH FLORIDIRKS FOR FAIRNESS IN COURT FUNDING The next item, item 8(E)(3), has been continued to next week. And then item 8(E)(4), this has to do with the fairness in court funding, which was revision seven that was passed in the latest election. MR. TINDALL: Good morning, Madam Chairman, commissioners, Phil Tindall from the county administrator's office. On July 28th of this year the board entered into an agreement with the group Floridians for Fairness in Court Funding, which entailed a contribution of $52,120 for the campaign for revision seven to Article V of the state constitution, which promises to require the state to pay more of its fair share in terms of circuit court funding. What we're asking you to do today is to amend that agreement in order to allow the Florida Association of Counties to use the residual funds to continue the final phase of this initiative, the follow-up in which they would continue to lobby the legislature, and do the information dissemination efforts necessary to ensure that this success is not undermined during the state budget appropriation process. What we're worried about is the possibility of funding that might otherwise be earmarked for things that would benefit counties to be reduced in order to pay for the state's additional cost in this area. The residual funds, according to the Florida Association of Counties, is approximately $1,116. That's the county's pro rata share of a total of about $75,000. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, so you're asking for a motion to -- MR. TINDALL: To amend the agreement to allow the Florida Association of Counties to use the residual funds for that purpose. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's a positive. MR. TINDALL: As the agreement exists right now, this group would have to refund that amount back to the county after -- within 30 days after the end of the campaign. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Why, would we not want them again to refund that? MR. TINDALL: Because what we're concerned about is the possibility of the legislature undermining that effort through its appropriation process, in other words, perhaps -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: How is our $1,000 going to help that? MR. TINDALL: Well, what the FAC intends to do is extend the contract of its political consultant to work with the governor elect's transaction committee to continue to lobby the legislature to keep the county commissions informed on what's going on and provide information in general out to the public to continue to keep the pressure up to ensure that the $51,000 that we already spent has not been spent in vain, and that the success here is not undermined through the budget process of the state. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: As we heard in Tallahassee a couple of weeks ago, there is considerable concern that the battle is really not over with the initiative passing, but rather, there was -- there were indications that there may be attempts to remove funding that would otherwise be coming to counties in order for the state to come up with the funds to meet this obligation. And the association voted as a group to continue to pursue the legislature, to maintain the relationships and the contacts and so forth, and to continue the consultant as Phil referred to. The funds are necessary to continue to do that. The vote was taken in Tallahassee to continue to have the funds roll over into next year. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. And I will also add, this is to be implemented over a five-year period. In other words, by -- or is it implemented in five years, or have they got five years to plan for it? I believe that -- isn't it 2004? MR. FERNANDEZ: I think the effective date of it is -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is 2004. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we can't count on spending the money next year, it's -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. COMMISSIONER CARTER: No. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- going to come more slowly than that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's -- exactly right. And they're very fearful, because the legislature, the leadership up there has not been real happy with the fact that the counties were supportive of this particular revision, and they were very outspoken, some of them, not all of them. Some of them were very outspoken about this. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The democrats are. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, some of the legislators want to punish the -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's exactly right. COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- counties for taking this action. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do we have any idea about the position of our delegation? Do we need to communicate with them? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, we have -- as you well know, we have a new representative. And I have spoken to him in this regard, kind of telling him that when he goes to Tallahassee he's going to have -- probably be bombarded by some outside influence out there that's going to try and move him in a different direction. I think this -- what's happened is, it's almost like, as you know, we've gotten many unfunded mandates in the past where they've come down to us, and they basically say work it out, figure out what you're going to do. The shoe is now on the other foot, but it's not just coming from a group of people, it's coming from the citizens of the State of Florida. Because they passed this in a state-wide referendum. And so now there's even more pressure that has been placed on the legislature to go ahead and figure out how they're going to do it. But at the same time, they are angry with us because there was a sizeable and obviously a very compelling campaign in the regard of this particular amendment. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And any legislator that tries to punish the counties for what the citizens of Florida told the legislators to do will find themselves in another campaign in the future, and I'm sure they will be quick to report to the citizens exactly how their legislators have performed. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, we have three representatives we can work on: We have Representative Goodlette and Rojas and Green that I'm sure would side with the direction that we want to take. But it behooves all of us to communicate with our legislators to let them know that this is what we want. I think most citizens think because it was approved that it's a done deal -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right, and it's -- COMHISSIONER CARTER: -- and it's not. It's now a how do you pay for it, and that's what everyone needs to participate in in this process. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Do we have any speakers on this? MR. FERNANDEZ: No 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. MR. TINDALL: Thank you, commissioners. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I just use this, since it's a constitutional revision question, to ask, Mr. Weigel, when I asked you once to come back to us with a list of all the potential ordinances that might result -- or might be available to us as a result of the constitutional revisions, it's occurred to me later that it might be helpful to have a citizens committee or something to look at all of that. Is this something that you think you've got a handle on, or would you like us to think about doing something to assist you? I thought about all the retired lawyers in this town who might be able to help. MR. WEIGEL: Well, I'll tell you what, I appreciate your idea. And I think I can reach out in a grassroots request in an informal way and see if I can get some outside assistance to kind of review what we're doing and coming forward. And it will help with a timely return of that, too. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll talk to you about that. MR. WEIGEL: I appreciate that. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks. Item #10A RECONSIDERATION OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH LELY BAREFOOT BEACH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION REGARDING THE LELY GUARDHOUSE - AGREEMENT NOT TO BE APPROVED AND LEGAL REMEDIES TO BE PURSUED IN COURT SYSTEM CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, moving on then to item 10(A). Will this ever go away? The reconsideration of the settlement agreement with the Lely Barefoot Beach homeowners' association regarding the Lely guardhouse. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So do we first vote, Mr. Weigel, on the motion to -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We already did vote to reconsider. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's the procedure for this? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We voted on that. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Today we are -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Today we are -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- reconsidering. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- reconsidering. MR. WEIGEL: Yes, the item in chief today is a reconsideration. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. WEIGEL: I'll just mention -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll be glad to short-circuit it and make a motion. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Go. MR. WEIGEL: I'll just mention right here that I do have the agenda packets from before. I know they've been distributed to you. If you don't have them handy or would like to have them handy, I can provide you copies. We have additional copies for the public or anyone else. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Do we have to rehear the item? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't think so. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Do we have to take public speakers? Do we have to do any of that? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I don't know what the pleasure of the Chair is, but I'd be happy to make a motion that we do not approve the agreement -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and that we move forward in court as directed by the board I think November of a year ago. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, it's pretty obviously -- obvious, I think to all, what was going to happen today. This is a matter of formality, as far as I'm concerned. Unless there are some people out there that want to talk us out of doing this. Do we have any speakers on this item, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chairman, we do. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many? MR. FERNANDEZ: We have about six. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think we should hear from the public. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Maybe some of them will waive. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, that's up to them, but we'll give them the opportunity to speak. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay, the first two speakers are Honica Reimer and Emily Haggio. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Emily -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Haggio waives. MS. REIHER: Madam Chairman, commissioners, good morning. I will be very brief today. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Welcome back again this week, by the way. I saw you here last week. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sorry about that. MS. REIHER: That's okay. My name is Honica Reimer, I'm an assistant attorney general with the Attorney General's Office in Tallahassee. I'm here representing the Attorney General's Office and the board of trustees of the internal improvement trust fund. I would simply like to incorporate by reference into this hearing the comments that I made at the hearing on November 10th, 1998, where I spoke on this issue. I would also like to incorporate by reference the November 6th, 1998 letter from the Attorney General to Madam Chairman Berry in which we recommended that the settlement agreement not be approved by the County Commission, and stating forth the reasons why, and our specific concerns with this particular settlement agreement. The position of the Attorney General continues to be that this agreement should not be approved, and that the only acceptable settlement agreement should be one that incorporates moving the guardhouse off of the side of the road. There was one -- I received one question from Madam Chairman concerning the uniqueness of this situation. I would like to just briefly revisit that issue. At that time, what I stated was that I did not know of another situation in which there was a public easement which provided access to a county park. That sort of got turned into that I didn't know of another situation in which there was a residential development that coexisted with a county park or a state park. Obviously that is not true. They exist all over the State of Florida, and they exist very comfortably. I think that the uniqueness of this situation is that you have a homeowners' association that does not want to recognize the existence of a legally recorded easement, even in the face of the fact that that easement was there, recorded in the public records of Collier County long before any of these homeowners purchased their property in Lely Beach. We urge the county to go forward with the code enforcement action. We urge to you continue with the circuit court litigation. We would like to be supporting you in that litigation, and we fully intend to. And once again suggest that you not approve the settlement agreement that's before you today. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez, or Mr. Weigel, if we -- that's fine, Hike. I just have a question for him. If we go forward and this goes into litigation, do we still have -- is there still a suit with the Attorney General? MR. WEIGEL: Yes, it's not that it goes into litigation. We have two cases right now. One is the appeal of the Code Enforcement Board determination, and the other one is a declarative judgment lawsuit initiated by homeowners association against Collier County, of which the State of Florida, through the Attorney General, is a party also. If your question is, is there going to be additional litigation based upon a vote that the board may take today, that remains to be seen. I've advised the board previously in regard to, I think, the legal elements of reconsideration ordinance, and we'll stand ready to defend my opinion in court, if need be. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. Next speaker? MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Janet Wall and then Vera Fitz-Gerald. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Janet Wall is waiving, it looks like. MS. FITZ-GERALD: My name is Vera Fitz-Gerald. I want to commend Commissioner Constantine for his little action here. And of course Commissioner Hac'Kie, and Commissioner Carter on this, that they're finally going to do something and get this thing resolved. We don't want any more erosion of our accesses to beaches, and this seems to be just an ongoing thing. For 10 whole miserable years we've been coming down here and screaming about this thing. It just keeps getting worse. Now we have great big bumps in the road right at the gate. I hope you can incorporate that. And that obstruction has to go, too. I mean, we've got enough. Gatehouse, bumps all up and down the road. I want to thank you for your action. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Victor Rosenberger, and then Harjorie Ward. MR. ROSENBERGER: I'm Victor Rosenberger. I'm a resident of Barefoot Beach. We homeowners feel like we are the victim here. Obviously the state has been involved in this since 1970. The county has been involved in this in the Seventies. And of course we moved in later on. First of all, the county -- I'd like to point out, the county received the free public beach up front from Lely Development as part of the PUD. I'd also like to point out that the gate -- there has been a gatehouse there since 1979 in the center of the road. I have -- the county appraiser's office shows a 36 square foot gate on their evaluation in 1980. So the gate -- a small gatehouse was in the center of the road. At that time there was two lanes, one coming in and one going out. The county later on in the PUD required that an extra lane of traffic be put in so that the public could go through and not interfere with the gate where people would receive information. This was done, as I think you all know. There was an agreement with the state August 1st, 1978. It says the corporation hereby -- the corporation, which is Lely -- hereby grants the DNR the right to construct a sign on the easement near Bonita Beach Road to identify the state prop -- route to the state property. A gate may be installed to limit the use of the road necess -- to necessary state business. Once the property is opened, the gate may be kept closed to the general public only after the state visiting hours, pursuant to a schedule developed by DNR. Now, the state -- this was when the state was going to go ahead with their part of the property. This is signed by State of Florida, Department of Natural Resources, Carmen Shields. Now, in -- when the application for the building permit was filed, 3-3-88, it included the plot plan that -- where the guardhouse is going to be, submitted March 3rd. This was attached to the building permit. It shows where the guardhouse is supposed to be, 20 foot from the road that goes to the parking area on the side. Down below, it shows existing gatehouse. So there was a continual gatehouse in the center of the road from 1979 up to the time this was submitted. And then the county -- the new guardhouse, they call it, and it was in the center of the road from that date on. All of the zoning -- everything was approved by the county. It -- Mr. Joy was at the -- Joseph Joy was at the hearing and he said that the county told him to move this three separate times. And the engineer, HacHanelli (phonetic), had to revise the drawings. So the county fully participated in this. I notice I only have a few seconds. The land management agreement with the state for the preserve directed us to change the gate and put up a sign. Sign's been there ever since -- ever since we were ordered to put it up. All visitors shall go directly to the preserve without stopping. I mean, if you can't read, you can't read. I see I'm just -- I just want to say one more thing about the gate here on my time. The code board says Mr. Allen, golly, you've had 374,000 people that went through that guardhouse in 1994, and we all -- I don't call that very much of an impediment, okay? When a quarter of a million people go to the park freely, I don't think the guardhouse is that big of an impediment or impedes the access. And I believe that. And just one other statement. Mrs. Deifik says, and what with all the publicity from the Naples Daily News and everything, I don't think there's a soul in this county over the age of five that doesn't know that you can go to the beach at Lely Barefoot. I just fail to understand why you're insisting on taking the guardhouse down when an extra lane of traffic was built to go -- have the public go around and it was constructed, signs are there, everything was done, as far as we're concerned, that we were ordered to do. And at this point now you want to go ahead and move the guardhouse over to the curb or something, which is totally impractical. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Mr. Rosenberg. Next speaker? MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Marjorie Ward and then Donald Dawson. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Emily, you already waived. And in fairness, we don't allow reactions to other speakers. I know you want to rebut him. MS. WARD: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, I'm Harjorie Ward, representing CABB, who has been concerned with the Barefoot Beach Preserves for more years than any of you have been usurped on the board. We've always maintained that the guardhouse which sits in the state right-of-way of Barefoot Beach Boulevard, formally called Lely Boulevard, is not properly permitted, is in the wrong PUD, and should, therefore, not be allowed any more than any of the public could erect a lemonade stand in the middle of Bonita Beach Road or any other public roadway. We concur with the findings of the Attorney General of Florida that the guardhouse must be removed completely from the 60-foot state easement, and must not be visible in any manner, shape or form to intimidate or discourage prospective beach-goers. Additional signage, as was suggested by the state many years ago, just be provided going both directions on Bonita Beach Road and Hickory Boulevard. The sign should be the standard size and type for the county and state parks. Not only do we agree with the October 29th proposal settlement agreement concerns from the Attorney General's Office, but we'd like to make the suggestion of the addition of another item, a restriction against ever bringing up a subject of gate houses, gates or any whatever in the middle of the state right-of-way so that when future commissioners sit in your chairs or others are in charge of a part of this long, enduring headache, that it cannot be brought up again, changed or amended to subject the public and the commission to a reoccurrence. Because we have a fear that that could very well happen. There are -- there's a very nice letter to the -- or rather an editorial in the News Press today regarding the speed bumps, regarding the subject, which I would suggest that you have a chance to read, if you can. Meanwhile, thank you very much, on behalf of present and future beach-goers, and there's been some information that has been submitted to you. It's been a little bit one-sided, and we concur with what vote that you have already taken, and we thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Donald Dawson, and the final speaker, Jason Korn. MR. DAWSON: Good morning. I'm Don Dawson. I live at 46 Ninth Street, in Bonita Shores. I don't feel very well today. I've been coming down here for over 10 years. And I wasn't going to speak long, but after something that was said, I have to say something. Ten years ago, or nine years ago, I came before this commission and I brought advertisements of Lely Barefoot Beach, and presented that. And I think it was very misleading. And I asked the people that had purchased in Lely Barefoot Beach that their gripe is with the development and not with this county commission. They advertised here three-and-a-half miles of your own beach are just the beginning. And it's private. That is very misleading to the public. And I told them at that meeting that they should do something with the developer. A couple of items. This is amusing. I don't know how long this gentleman from Lely has lived there. I found, going through some papers, I thought this was interesting and a fun thing that I might interject here. The harassment of these gates and having the extra gate there, they said we're going to keep that down for the homeowners in Lely Barefoot Beach. And I remember Tim Constantine said don't buy remote to operate that gate. Do you remember that, Tim? You said don't waste your money doing that. And this was in the paper. This was back in 1994. It's the -- this is a homeowner in Lely Barefoot Beach now, this is not just the public, this is a homeowner. Sansmark (phonetic) said he drove through the residents' gate after a guard would not open it for him. I honked, I waited, but he wouldn't open it for me. He said Sansmark and other villa residents have become fed up with Lely's insistance on controlling the entrances. Their refusal to open both gates, despite a state order to do so, and the latest revelation that the guardhouse actually rests on villas property, they are strange -- they are a strange breed of people. I just don't understand people like this, said another villas property owner, who asked not to be named. They want to keep their heads in the sand over this. The only person they should be fighting is Lely Development. And I concur with that. And I kind of visualized this, you know, this guy at the gate that they got down, he wouldn't buy a remote, he's a property owner, and then bang, he goes through this gate, he gets so frustrated. So -- and this was back in 1994. And I know some of you commissioners weren't around then. And there's one other item that I had brought up a long time ago, and that is about the bumps. And this is a concern that I have today. You go down there today, there's a bump and it's not a small bump, it's a big bump. And it's right at the gatehouse, so you have to stop at the gatehouse. And it's only within two or 300 feet of Bonita Beach Road. Why you need a bump there, I'll never understand that. But we had -- and this is back in October of '94, and we had the North Naples Fire Chief, Jim Jones at that time, said his department responded to 17 medical calls and 16 fire calls between January 1 and September 30th of this year. Jones said eight of those calls came after park hours, when Lely Boulevard is closed to the public. "The biggest hindrance to us getting down that road is the over-sized speed bumps," Jones said. "I understand they were put there to control construction vehicles and delivery trucks coming in and out of there, but they should be removed." And that was in 1994. We have not been -- I don't want to go into a lot of things, but I could. Over these years, these meetings, some of them have been very comical, and some of them have been very serious. But I think that the public has been harassed enough, and I think it's time that you put this to rest and ask that that gatehouse be removed and let that private -- public -- I shouldn't say private, but this public easement be uninhindered (sic) in any way. And when you stop and think of nine bumps within a mile, I think that's excessive. And I think that something should be done about that. I don't know if there's a legal height for the bumps, but something should be done about those bumps. And it's just another thing that they have done right up recently to hinder the public use of that preserve. They have taken the sign down that they had in the median that it was a public preserve, they put up a larger Lely Barefoot Beach entrance there that is very confusing to the public. And it's like a private club down there, and it's not. So please, have the gatehouse removed, and thank you very much for your time. And congratulations, Mr. Carter, on your success of becoming a county commissioner. And if I had my way, I'm not like the rest of the world, I would say you're in this job for eternity, because then we could hold each one of you accountable. I could go through the different commissioners CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Hr. Dawson, thanks for the politics. MR. DAWSON: Yeah, thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's enough. Your time's up. Thank you. MR. DAWSON: Thank you very much. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker and final speaker is Jason Korn. MR. KORN: Good morning, commissioners. Jason Korn, on behalf of Lely Barefoot Beach property owners association and Lely Barefoot Beach master association. I'll refer to them collectively as the homeowners association. I'll be brief. I'm here to inform you of our objection -- the homeowners' association's objections to these proceedings as being out of order and improper. I incorporate by reference my correspondence of November 13th, '98 and November 16th, 1998, which was put into the record before this board, I believe, on November 17th at the hearing. I also want to incorporate by reference the notices of settlement provided to the board on that same date, as well as incorporate by reference my arguments and comments at the November 10th, 1998 hearing, as well as the November 17th, 1998 hearing. Specifically, and generally, we object because of the board's failure to follow its own code, administrative county code, in terms of requirements that are necessary for this reconsideration, as well as the requirements of the code relating to Robert's Rules of Order, which I went on at length about on the 17th, and I'll incorporate by reference those again. Generally, that the settlement agreement is a binding contract and that it's barred because of the nature of a contract and cannot be reconsidered. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does that go both ways? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's my question. MR. KORN: I don't understand your question, Commissioner. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, in 1995, we had a settlement agreement that was agreed to in this room from that podium from Mr. Hazzard representing your client that then your client backed out of. So, I mean, if the argument is that settlement agreement is binding, God bless, let's go back to 1995 and we'll all be happy. MR. KORN: If we had a settlement agreement, that would be fine. Unfortunately, I spoke to Mr. Hazzard in response to your comments that day -- I think it was the 17th -- and he informed me that that was not the case. The settlement agreement was not reached. It was an agreement to work on a settlement agreement, but it wasn't specific like all the terms that we have that were in the agenda. And the settlement agreement, as you know, must be specific and speak directly to all the contract terms, which we have. Lastly -- or actually, a few more points. I request that Commissioner Norris or Commissioner -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My recollection, by the way, different. MR. KORN: All right, so we differ on opinion respectively. I respectfully request that Commissioner Norris or Commissioner Berry at least make a motion that this is out of order. It is my opinion most likely the vote will go three to two against, but at least it will preserve the issue on the record that the motion for reconsideration is out of order. I just wanted to inform the board that the homeowners have relied upon this agreement, the guardhouse arms have been taken off every day. As to the speed bump issue, I'm not going to dignify that too much, but give you my legal opinion that basically that issue is a bunch of baloney. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's a legal opinion? MR. KORN: Correct, Commissioner. The speed bumps are there for safety -- COHMISSIONER CARTER: Would you like to quote some cases on that? MR. KORN: The speed bumps are there for safety. There are children in the area. The speed bumps have been there for years, the ones in the back. And as you know, those have been reduced in height. Lastly, in the executive summary, it's indicated that this particular litigation to continue will cost approximately $250,000, a quarter of a million dollars, which in the homeowners' opinion, and respectfully submitted for your consideration, should be spent on law enforcement or other public services, when this issue is really about information and notices, as Commissioner Norris indicated on November 10th. He addressed those notices in the settlement agreement, and we request that he refrain from voting on the reconsideration, as it is out of order. If you have any questions. Thank you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just one. When I was at Cummings and Lockwood, it was a firm policy that the -- that a legal opinion was rarely phrased in the terms you gave today. MR. KORN: Obviously I said that with a little bit of humor, but you might not have found it as funny as I did. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I didn't. MR. KORN: Thank you, commissioners. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, the county attorney has already opined that it is not out of order, so I don't know that we need to go -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm aware of that. Okay, we have a motion and I believe we have a second -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- regarding this agreement. I'll call the question. All in favor? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Aye. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye. COHMISSIONER CARTER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Opposed? Aye. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries three-two. MR. WEIGEL: Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: For the record, to be clear in this, this is a reconsideration of the vote that was taken before. And could you restate what the motion is? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The motion was not to enter into the agreement, and to pursue the legal remedies in the court system. MR. WEIGEL: Okay, fine, I appreciate that. I wanted to make sure it was as clear at the end as it was in the beginning. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And frankly, whether we voted this agreement up or down today, we were going to go there anyway. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Now that we've wasted all that time, let's move on. Item #10B GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY WATER AND SEWER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT - EMERGENCY DECLARED; STAFF TO INITIATE AND ADVERTISE FOR AN HSBU CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, next item on the agenda, 10(B), Golden Gate Parkway and sewer assessment district. Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I put this on, and what I intend to do is ask the board next week to declare an emergency and move forward and create a special taxing district, deja vous, because fairly simple reasoning, all of you got a packet on this, but I'll give it to you in a nutshell and that is as you enter Golden Gate headed east, cross Santa Barbara, and on either side -- on one side there is a shopping center right now, but on either side most of the way for about a mile there is open land. There are a couple of duplexes and there's one child care facility on the north side of the property, but -- north side of the parkway. This property used to all be zoned multi-family, and we changed that, as part of our Growth Management Plan with the Golden Gate Master Plan, to be various PUDs, or a number of PUDs along there. There are 11 property owners on one stretch of that that would like to go ahead and create their special taxing district to fund sewer service. Our master plan doesn't allow them to build unless they have water and sewer. It's kind of a unique animal, because they're all only about 125 feet deep, so you're limited in what you could do otherwise. Anyway, that's why we had the requirement in there. There's not a whole lot of room. But it is Florida Cities' water. It's not -- the county utility does not service that. And the private utility has said all the way along, whoever the first guy in has to pay the bill. And so it's kind of tough for us all, personally, with a 125-foot lot to pay that whole stretch. Florida Cities, after some discussions this year, has agreed to spread that out over a number of years, if there is a guaranteed payment mechanism from all those homeowners. And that's what they're looking to do. They have had -- I don't know if they got the llth by now or not, but they had 10 out of 11. One lived in Germany and they were having trouble locating him. But they had -- 10 out of 11 of the property owners had all agreed to a taxing unit and just wanted to create this. The reason we want to declare the emergency and put it on formally for next week is if we wait 'til January, they end up waiting a full year. The taxes, if we did this now, can start being collected in October of this coming year. Otherwise, they wait 'til October of 2000. That's a year they'd just as soon not lose. I think there is clearly a public purpose there. Just because the development of that area is hindered in the meantime, we cannot have any commercial development in an area that requires -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think we get the point. Rather than discuss the issue twice, I'll go ahead and make a motion that we declare an emergency and hear this item next Tuesday. Can we do that? MR. WEIGEL: You can. In fact, I think I can shorten the process for you, if I may. And that is we're talking here about the creation of a benefit unit. And under Florida Statutes, and specifically 197.3632, it does require a resolution to be adopted by the board typically prior to the end of the calendar year. That resolution, however, does require four weeks' advertisement ahead of time in four separate weeks. Notwithstanding that we're talking about just a few parcels here. The statute does provide that if the county should not advertise and adopt a resolution prior to December 31st of the calendar year preceding the year in which heavy lifting is going to occur for that benefit unit, that with the approval of the tax collector and the property appraiser, such resolution may be advertised and brought to the board and approved up until the end of March. And so if the board wishes today to give the direction, I'll initiate the discussions with the appraiser and the tax collector, and would look to put together the proper advertisement and bring it back in either January or February at the new agenda -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As long as you're sure we can achieve it that way. I know in the -- one of the past years, we declared the emergency and filled it in the last week in December for -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what you did in Bayshore. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- one of Commissioner Mac'Kie's projects. MR. WEIGEL: That was an MSTU and not an MSBU. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll amend my motion to include the advertising discussion that was brought forth by our county attorney. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just to clarify, you're saying that we can still meet the October of '99 hurdle -- MR. WEIGEL: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- with the approval of our friends in building C; this will come back in January, early February. MR. WEIGEL: That's exactly right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because it's an MSBU benefit unit instead of taxing unit? MR. WEIGEL: That is correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let me -- I don't mean to throw water on this, and I'm sure it's probably good, but on the second sheet of this packet we received, there were about five items of concern regarding doing this. Are we disregarding those concerns, or how have they been addressed in the future? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd love to go through them with you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Just tell me how they were addressed. Pam, apparently you had been involved in something like this? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have. And I'll tell you one that is absolutely a real con, and that is a very small project, number three. This is a very small project, hence, it is inefficient and costly from the property owner's standpoint for the county to administer it. I would so much like to have this board look at what the policy is in this county for passing through administrative costs to these MSTU's. I was flabbergasted with the level of charge-through, with the amount of cost of just general county employees that is passed through to these special taxing districts. And frankly, I was just going to be sure that Commissioner Constantine would watch that on a district this small. It's what, 20 percent of the budget on Bayshore? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, probably the fact -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Shocking. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- that it is smaller, probably. And in this case, I would think it would be even more cumbersome. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, you'd lose some economy in scaling. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You do lose some economy here. I mean, I'm not disagreeing with trying to improve the area. That -- I mean, that isn't what I'm even getting into. There's no question that I'm sure this is going to be a big benefit to the area. But when it gets over into some of these other areas, how much credence and how much weight do we give to these particular concerns? And this is what my concern is. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me try to address each of these. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because the cons, the first one says through the process the private utility provider is gaining additional utilities, system assets and customer base, while contributing nothing to the process. That's not exactly true, because what they're doing is contributing time. They're agreeing to a process with which they really don't do normally, and that is spreading these out over a period of time to make them a reality. Normally what they do is require whoever that first guy to put the shovel in the ground is, is responsible for all his accounts up front. So unless you can get all 11 to coordinate when they're going to build at exactly the same time, it's a problem. So they are contributing there. They're contributing the time factor. May create a precedent problem. I don't think we're creating -- it's certainly not setting any legal precedent. And it costs no one but them. This is something they're choosing to do themselves. And I think the important thing is, this is a unique animal, because it's a private utility. And I don't think you could duplicate a situation in the county that is like this one. So when we talk about precedent, there isn't a similar situation. And you're right about the question of losing some of the economy of scale, but they are willing to accept that in order to make it a reality. For them, they have land that is sitting there that's costing them money every year to not be able to use now, because they can't afford -- none of them individually can afford to put that money up. So by spending a little more for the administration, that saves them a lot in the long run, rather than just sitting on land and not developing it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And Tim, if this property is sold through the event of getting this additional service and whatever, that is passed along, isn't it? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And Tim, my only question was, just because of my shock at the amount of administrative cost from county staff -- and I'm going to say it again, I wish we'd look at our policy in that regard -- but is this not something that they could do privately, more simply? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think that for Florida Cities, there's a great deal of comfort if it's created -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and then they know -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That they're going to be paid. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- that they're going to get the money on the other end. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I gotcha. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because of the very reason Commissioner Berry just mentioned, and that is even if someone has some trouble -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Whoever the new guy -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- the back's up -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right, whoever the new guy is on the block, they're still going to be -- they're going to be paying. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Always a responsibility. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, how do the rest of these areas service? It's troublesome to me that we ended up isolating 11 pieces of property here that have to go to a special taxing unit to get accomplished. What took place here on 53rd and Santa Barbara and 29th Place? Are all of those in -- already being serviced? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Those have residential units on them. And even Santa Barbara has multi-family residential. So you've just got a different situation. You've got one -- there's two or three out here that combine into one big apartment complex and so on. So it's just a little different animal. This is -- these are actually commercial, although we didn't do a PUD. And it's -- this stretch from here up the Parkway, there's one, two, three up here and two on the north side. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, is there any way that we could have ever prevented this? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, we're kind of playing catchup on what was probably a poor design 30 some odd years ago by GAC. COMMISSIONER CARTER: So we're living with -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We're living with it. COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- that history. Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You took care of it. You don't have to go through any further. Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Do we have any public speakers on this item? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, you do, Madam Chairman. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'd like to reserve my comments. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right, we have a motion and a second obviously in favor of this, I guess. Okay. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Commissioner Constantine, I was confused at the beginning of the meeting when you added on the next item. This was the Golden Gate memo that I had seen and not anything to do with the traffic light. And I apologize for that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not the other memo that has since been distributed? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Before we lose your comment, Commissioner Mac'Kie, about revisiting our policy, is there something you wish us to do here that we're not doing? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just I mentioned it to the county administrator in a couple of our private sessions and asked him in the budget process this next year -- and maybe it's as a part of the budget policy adoption, but it's amazing to me how much of just general county overhead is passed through in these MSTU's. So I'm just going to trust that he's going to have that addressed as we go through the next year's budget process. But I'm glad that we got a chance to get that brought up publicly. Item #10C TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT RECREATION LANE AND SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD - STAFF TO MOVE FORWARD WITH PROJECT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Next item is the intersection of Santa Barbara and Recreation Lane. Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We have a rather dangerous intersection that for some reason seems to have been slowed down in the process. I think a big part of my frustration is that the story has changed two or three times, as I've been told verbally and in writing. Each year we go through our prioritization of what intersections warrant traffic signals and so on. One of the ones that has come up the last couple of years and finally was last year put in the budget to put in the signalization for the current fiscal year was the intersection of Recreation Lane and Santa Barbara Boulevard, which continues, as of last Friday, to assemble an impressive action in history. The -- while we looked at this in previous years, there was some concern because of the unique nature of the intersection. If you're not familiar with it, it's the entrance to Golden Gate Community Park, where you come up over the interstate and then down the hill and the entrance is right there. So the uniqueness of this is, if you are headed northbound on Santa Barbara and traffic is backed up at 5:00, theoretically you may not see traffic backed up as you go up over the overpass. We expressed that concern probably 18 months ago when we knew this was moving up the ladder, as far as its warrant. At that time I was told by -- this was in the pre Ed Kant era, but told that the engineering work was being done in advance with our friends at Florida DOT and so on, because we had to combine a number of different governments and processes because of the unique nature going over the interstate, but that the engineering would be done in advance, and that when it came time, when this did make the list, we could move ahead posthaste. As we got to October of this year, October 1 of this year, this was ranked, I believe, top priority on our signalization list. MR. ILSCHNER: That is correct, Mr. Commissioner. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And -- thank you. And I inquired toward the end of October, because I had been told verbally that it would be up certainly by the holiday season, which is traditionally what we've done each year. We've had them on Radio Road, we've had them in a couple of different locations year by year; one by Foxfire, one last year by Countryside. And it usually takes a couple months time from the beginning of the fiscal year to order the poles, to get them up, to install them, to do whatever, and by holiday we'd have them so that in season they are in place. I inquired with Mr. Fernandez around October 15, 18, 20, somewhere in there, as to the status of this, and making sure it was still on track, and I got a written response that indicated it had gone off October 1 and was operational October 7th or 8th. I travel this road literally daily and was quite sure that it had not been installed, and went back and checked and sure enough, it had not. We're now told that it may be April or March at the earliest that it can go up. And I wanted to share my frustration with the board that poor information has been forthcoming, but I also wanted to see if we couldn't give some direction. We have had, I made light of it before, but a very, very poor accident history out there, including this past week yet another -- literally the day after I asked to put this item on the agenda, yet another accident out there at the intersection. We are opening the new physical center -- what's it called, Tom -- fitness center, thank you, in the park, which will encourage even more use and more traffic from the public. Obviously our recreation services are primarily used by families, and so encouraging more family traffic, while delaying what we're told may be through another season -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Do you have a suggestion? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I have a suggestion that board give some direction to staff to find a creative way to move forward with this. I realize there are -- the engineering, though, we were told will be done in advance apparently has not been. Wilson-Miller is now working on that. But that we make this enough of a priority to move it up, get them to move forward so that we can have it sooner than Easter when everyone goes north again. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Commissioner, you're saying that in the past as we adopted those priorities in October, we typically -- I mean, you cited some examples -- would see those lights installed in December? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Every year I'm sure all of you have your pet signals that someone has asked for, you've kept your eye out for in your district that -- when they go up. And yeah, my experience has been the example being Foxfire/Briarwood entrance off Radio Road went up the holiday week of two or three years ago. Last year was Countryside over by the Berkshires on Radio Road. Went up again by December. And the rationale or the reason I'm told for that is after October 1, they have to order the poles, they have to do the installation, so on. It takes several weeks' time, but they have it up for a full-fledged season, like by 1 January. I had some indication verbally earlier this year that this one would not be any different. However, now it is. MR. ILSCHNER: Madam Chairman, Ed Ilschner, public works administrator, Collier County. First of all, let me state that the misinformation that Commissioner Constantine received earlier was the result of my not correctly interpreting a request with respect to start-up a signalization. And in my memorandum that you've been provided, I indicate and take full responsibility for that misinformation. I thought Mr. Tindall in Mr. Fernandez's office was requesting information about a start-up of a signal, and gave him the procedure we go through, not understanding he was asking about a specific location. So I stand before you today taking full responsibility for that information, misinformation, and pledge to you to provide clear, more precise information in the future on matters of that nature. With respect to the Santa Barbara/Recreation Lane signal, I share your concerns that we accelerate that project as much as possible. I have not been able to ascertain who verbally committed, but I certainly was not part of that process. And I have to stand before you and apologize again for any misinformation that may have been conveyed to you. I share your concern that we move ahead as quickly and as diligently as possible. I can tell you that our transportation staff is already moving in that direction. Wilson-Miller is asked to provide us the preliminary engineering design next week. Based on that preliminary engineering design, I feel like based on my 29 years of experience in this field, that we can probably go out and locate all the detector systems, locate the strain pole locations and start that process. I also feel like we're in position to start the process of the turn lane that will be necessary there to accommodate the signal. So our Transportation Services Department will begin that work next week COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But why -- MR. ILSCHNER: -- the construction of the turn lane. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Why is this one going to take six months when in the past they've taken two or three months? MR. ILSCHNER: I don't -- I haven't been here to experience the six-month period, but I know that we've had some commitments in the past and we did commit to have a signal in by December the 31st last year, if I recall. And we met that commitment. But it was tough to meet, I'll have to admit for you. This particular signal, we committed, from my records, and going back and looking at all the records of the budget process, this board approved the funding of this signal October 1, and we immediately began the process for the engineering process. This is a complex signal, as Commissioner Constantine has mentioned to you. We're going to have to have some advanced signing on the far side of that bridge that works in conjunction with the traffic signal so when it turns red, it flashes and warns people to stop ahead. That's more complex than what we've experienced in the past and does require some additional engineering. We still think that we will do everything we can to get it as soon as possible. I just simply cannot stand before you and the rest of this board and guarantee it will be before March. We'll do everything we can to accomplish it prior to March. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you know -- you just mentioned turn lanes. Which turn lanes need to be -- MR. ILSCHNER: It would be a left turn lane coming southbound to construct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There is an existing left turn lane there. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I thought there is one -- MR. ILSCHNER: Right turn-left turn out of Recreation Lane. A right turn. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Coming out of the park. MR. ILSCHNER: We have already the turn lane going into the facility on Santa Barbara. It's the right turn out. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are there not two lanes coming out of -- as you come to the intersection of -- MR. ILSCHNER: Ed Kant, address that. MR. KANT: Edward Kant, transportation services director. There are one lane in and one lane out on Recreation Lane. There is an area where motorists have been voting with their tires with respect to whether or not there should be a turn lane there in order to fully accommodate the signal, because you'll have to have a dedicated left turn. We have to add the turn lane. And I've talked with our field people and they're confident that we can get started on that next week. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I guess I hear mixed signals there. Because I hear gee, we're going to have our engineering stuff back, our preliminary engineering back from Wilson-Miller and we're going to go out and -- I can't repeat the terminology -- but do something next week and -- MR. ILSCHNER: We're going to locate all of the detector locations, start construction of those, the strain pole locations, we can start construction of those. Of course we have to get the controller on order. Is the controller on order at this point? MR. KANT: That's correct. MR. ILSCHNER: And that's going to be the unknown at this point that I can't guarantee. And we're going to try to speed the delivery of that controller up. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is the controller subject to the design? One would think that doesn't matter. MR. ILSCHNER: Yes, it is. Yes, those are specifically -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I saw Mr. Kant shaking his head no as you said yes. MR. KANT: No, I was not disagreeing. The issue with the controller is a little bit more complex. As you remember several weeks ago, the board gave us an approval to go out and get about a dozen replacement controllers so we don't hit that Y2K problem. Unfortunately, we are one of probably several thousand jurisdictions in the county that are trying to get controllers from only one of probably three or four different manufacturers. And so that's why -- we have got our controllers on order, we don't anticipate a problem, but one never knows. As far as the construction of this signal under these conditions, we're basically going to try to piecemeal it in to get it in as early as we can. And ordinarily we would not do this if it's not a recommended practice, but in order to try to alleviate some of these concerns, we're going to go in and do the turn lane, we'll go ahead and spot some of these locations and be ready so that when we get all the final bits and pieces, we can package together. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I can't stress enough -- I know we all get requests for traffic signals and all. This is not simply a neighborhood wanting a traffic signal. This is -- we have had accident after accident after accident out there. And it is an honest to God danger, and that's my concern here. COHMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I can understand that. We have a similar one in front of Pelican Bay, and it's just a disaster waiting to happen. So I'm hoping that we're moving ahead on that one also. MR. ILSCHNER: Yeah, that's the one where we have the delay on the delivery of the mast arm poles. And those are problematic always in getting those in. Ed says he has some good news on that one. MR. KANT: Yes. I spoke with our contractor, Hid-Con Electric, and they've agreed to go in and put a temporary strain pole arrangement up while we're waiting for the mast arms. Unfortunately, the mast arm supplier -- and again, there are only three in this country that are supplying mast arms. The one they bought from went out of business, so we had to replace the order. But because of that, they've agreed to put up the temporaries and once we get FDOT approval, you should see that happening within the next few weeks. COHMISSIONER CARTER: Okay, thank you. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, as long as we're talking about traffic lights, Mr. Ilschner, what can you tell us about the St. Andrews and 41 light? Mr. Kant has some information on that. MR. KANT: Thank you. Both St. Andrews and Broward have been assigned for design. We expect those to be in. I believe that they had 60 days, I can't give you the date. But once the designs are in, it's a matter of getting the equipment. FDOT, we have an agreement with FDOT to supply the equipment on a temporary basis, and then they'll go in. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. So that means -- MR. KANT: We're trying to move as -- absolutely as quickly as we Can. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Somewhere in January, February time frame? MR. KANT: The design should be back at that point in time. And having, frankly, learned from past lessons, I'm reluctant to make any commitments beyond that point. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, and while we're at it -- MR. ILSCHNER: And I can assure the board that the Santa Barbara/Recreation Lane signal is our highest priority, and will take priority over the -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right, we prioritized it as number one. MR. ILSCHNER: Yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I have a signal, too, but I think you're already working on it -- MR. ILSCHNER: Yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- and that's the one going into Pelican Strand. MR. ILSCHNER: Yes, Madam Chairman, we are certainly aware of that and we're working on that one, yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I know that. I got some information regarding that at this point in time so -- anyway, do we have public speakers on this item? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chairman, we have two. Peggy Silva Marino and Vincent Lambert. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do you all want to talk us out of doing something good on this? MS. MARINO: I want to see how fast I can crack the whip. Good morning, commissioners and ladies and gentlemen. I'm Peggy Silva Marino and I'd like to talk about traffic lights in Golden Gate Park area. This is like the song, the same old story. We need traffic lights now, not later. Travel in our area, Recreation Lane and St. Andrew Boulevard on Santa Barbara is suicidal and despicable. The road rage is getting worse, and our lives in the area are in constant danger. A three-car accident on Friday, December 4th, proved that right. There are a lot of scared people in this area that should not be. This all could be corrected by having these traffic lights. Just imagine school buses, special needs bus involved in a major accident. Wouldn't this be a great scandal? And I'm sure there would be a lot of sleepless nights for all. As it is, the buses have to go all around. They can't cut across. They've been given warnings by, I guess, the bus company not to endanger the students. Wouldn't this be -- where are we? Golden Gate Community Park has a Snow Fest each year that costs hundreds of dollars and it's a burden on our police department. A light would alleviate that. This is a wonderful park, and as the Commissioner said, has constant improvements going on at all times, but no safety going in and out of here. What if there is a serious fatality at that entrance? Very contradictory, right? Commissioner, I want to thank you for your support. You've been right there along with us. I just hope the transportation department can see fit to do so. Commissioner, we need lights sooner, not later, today, not tomorrow. Thank you, sincerely, and happy holidays to all. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Vincent Lambert. MR. LAMBERT: Good morning. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Morning. MR. LAMBERT: My name is Vince Lambert and I live in Berkshire Village, which is right across the street from the park. And Friday morning at 7:30 in the morning I came out of Berkshire Village and I went to the -- in between the median on Santa Barbara going north, and my car is a big car and it stuck out a little bit, and a car came over and hit me in the front. And I had over $4,000 worth of damage. And one of the things I wanted to express, too, is that when I was coming out, the sun was -- 7:30 in the morning, it was so bright that you couldn't see to the right where the cars were coming from. And if a light was there, it would alleviate that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Interesting point. I talked to the Sheriff's Department following this accident, and the state trooper actually took charge of the accident, but the sheriff's deputy who responded indicated that if a traffic signal was there, it would not have -- you wouldn't have had the accident. MR. LAMBERT: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I can understand that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask a question. Considering it is the entrance to a public facility, and considering the overwhelming accident history, would there be any interest in exploring the possibility, since we're apparently 90 days or more away, of during the 90 minutes in the morning rush hour, 90 minutes in the morning -- I'm sorry, 90 minutes in the afternoon rush hour, having traffic assistance out there from a uniformed deputy? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Tim, how does it help, though, with the people coming over the bridge northbound? Is the bridge -- is it too close to that entrance? How are they going to know? I mean, I understand what you're saying, and I -- it's a problem out there. Because I've traveled down there, and I understand the problem. But I also see the problem on the northbound lane of people coming over and not suspecting that there's going to be a deputy there. And I can start seeing rear end accidents happening, kind of a domino effect. And then maybe you throw some fog in, like we usually experience, and I can see some real difficulties there. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think in the morning we could certainly make a difference, because most of your traffic is southbound. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Southbound? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And we'd want to I think defer to whatever the deputy thought was a safe situation for the afternoon. But at least try to address what we can, because it's just -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I would like -- I would prefer to let it work its way through the system, rather than to start a -- which would inevitably become a program of supplying deputies to suspect locations. I think I'd rather just let it -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The only reason I thought about it on this, because it does lead to one of our own facilities, rather than just developments. It's -- and it's -- it does have a very bad accident history. But the public access to a public facility is why I thought of it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I'll -- we don't need a motion. I think the -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Are you -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- staff knows what -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- what were you looking for on this, Tim? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- we're talking about. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm looking for some commitment to get it in sooner than March, or the end of season. MR. ILSCHNER: Mr. Constantine? Commissioner Constantine, you have my commitment to work diligently to get that in as soon as possible. And that means doing whatever we have to do that's within our power to acquire the equipment and get it in as early as possible. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there some -- MR. ILSCHNER: Our goal is not -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- temporary solution -- MR. ILSCHNER: We're going to look at -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- similar to Pelican Bay? MR. ILSCHNER: -- that as well, see if there's some temporary equipment that we might be able to install if the controller is going to be delayed. We can go in and do some rewiring and some things of that nature that might help us do that. But we'll do everything we can to try to accelerate that. My concern about placing an officer there is of course the dilemma zone problem that we're trying to address. Now, there might be a way for us to temporarily put a trailer operated warning sign on the other side of the bridge that the office activated or something that would let them know he's up there and be prepared to stop, but -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The other thing to do is just put flashing lights at the top of the bridge so that as you come up, that's your indicator. But again, I would defer to your deputy saying what was appropriate and what was not. But I'd like to ask the board to entertain that idea, too, because -- and I understand you want to be careful not to create a precedent here, Commissioner Norris, but I don't think we get to demand where there is a public facility and where there is this accident history. I can't think of another situation like this. I think it's very, very unique. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't think a lot of residents will think it's unique once you start doing that. They're going to all want to do it. I just don't think we should do that. It will be in soon. I think we should just wait and let the staff do it. They've committed to us that they're going to do it as fast as they can. We may have an opportunity to get a controller from the RP light -- I don't know if that controller is of the same type -- when we remove that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I might be interested -- that may be a wise opt, but I'd be interested in asking staff to investigate alternatives in the interim, between now and March, because of high season. If there is something like a trailer sign you could put up, if there's some temporary solution for this season. MR. ILSCHNER: We recognize your concern and the concern of the public, and it's our job to try to ensure that's as safe an operation as possible. And we'll look at every opportunity to do those things, yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris has indicated he's not up for it, but is the remainder of the board not in favor of looking at deputies as one of those options? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to look at all the options. COHMISSIONER CARTER: I would -- Commissioner Constantine, I would like to look at all the options, and I also would like a 30-day kind of review back on this so this just doesn't get lost, so that we really know what's happening. What are the options, what works, what are we going to do, how fast can we do it. MR. ILSCHNER: Ed Ilschner. We commit to bring that report to you and let you know where we are. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And can you do me one other favor, and that is as you get each step, no matter how tiny in this, as we get our preliminary report back next week and so on -- MR. ILSCHNER: Certainly. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- just share that with me, and share the progress with me so that I can share it with the residents. MR. ILSCHNER: Most assuredly that will happen. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's good. We don't need a motion I don't believe, on this. Okay, moving on then to the public comments. Do we have any registered speakers, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: No, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No public speakers. Nobody wants to talk to us. Okay. Item #12B1 PETITION PUD-98-7, MICHAEL R. FERNANDEZ, AICP, OF PLANNING DEVELOPHENT INCORPORATED, REPRESENTING MASTERCRAFT HOMES, LTD., REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "A" AGRICULTURE TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS WYNDHAM PARK PUD FOR SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LAND USES, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF C.R. 951, APPROXIMATELY 0.6 OF A MILE SOUTH OF IHMOKALEE ROAD, CONSISTING OF +/- 120 ACRES - DENIED All right, then we'll go into the public hearing -- well, we are at lunchtime. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is the photographer waiting? That's the only question. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is the photographer waiting? Yes, we have to do this. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can't he continue to wait while we do these three petitions? It's going to be quick. Is it a staff person, the photographer? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I think it's a real photographer. COHMISSIONER CARTER: It's a real photographer. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think the photographer is here. Why don't we just go ahead -- let's go ahead and try and do these three items, and then we can do the photographer thing and then we'll be finished to do whatever it is we want to do. Let's go on in then to the next section. This is a zoning amendment, PUD-98-7. Has to do with Mastercraft Homes requesting fezone from agriculture to PUD. This is located off of 951, just south of Oak Ridge Middle School. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask a related question of the administrator? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This morning there was a -- this morning there was a move to put this on summary agenda. I'm wondering, A, where that request came from, but B, if that's probably not a good practice if we have advertised something as a regular public hearing, then the morning of to move it. Because theoretically, if someone has seen that advertised as a public hearing, they may not show up, if you know how the process works. Public hearings aren't at 9:00 a.m., they may not come 'til 10:30 or 11:00 and lo and behold be told well, it's already been approved on summary. It just seems like poor practice to move it at the last minute to summary agenda. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chair? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: That request came to me this morning at the request of Mr. Hulhere. He indicated that at the time the agenda was prepared, we didn't have the information as to whether this would qualify as a summary item, because I believe Planning Commission had not met yet. MS. HURRAY: Hay I, Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. MS. HURRAY: Susan Murray, for the record. I just want to clarify that. The Planning Commission had met, and at the Planning Commission, the petitioner had committed to making some amendments to the PUD on the record. As part of their unanimous approval, that included those stipulations. When it came time to submit the document to you all for your review, I still did not have those corrections. I was very uncomfortable bringing it back before you on a summary agenda because the corrections had not been made, so technically it did not qualify. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MS. HURRAY: However, I received the corrections yesterday, and thought perhaps it might be -- to expedite the petition, now that it qualified, it could go on the summary agenda. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Good point, though, for Commissioner Constantine about it's probably not a good idea in the future. Because it could look like we're pulling a fast one. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. What we need to do here before we go any further is all persons wishing to speak to this item need to be stand and be sworn in, please. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. This is a fezone, so it requires four votes. MS. HURRAY: The subject site is located six-tenths of a mile south of the intersection of Immokalee Road and County Road 951. And it's immediately abutting the Oak Ridge Middle School, which is to the north. The petitioner is proposing to develop the property for a maximum of 442 single-family and multi-family dwelling units at a density of 3.66 dwelling units per acre, and access to the property will be provided from a single entrance from County Road 951. The projected density of 3.66 dwelling units per acre is consistent with the density rating system, in that 47 acres of this property is located within an activity center density band, thus making it eligible for a maximum of seven dwelling units per acre. And approximately 74 acres are located outside of the activity center density band, thus making it eligible for four dwelling units per acre, for a total eligibility of 624 units. The petitioner is requesting a maximum 442 dwelling units, which constitutes 70 percent of the maximum allowable 624. As I said before, the Planning Commission did meet and recommended unanimous approval, with the stipulations, the first one being that sidewalks would be constructed on both sides of the street consistent with the requirements of the Land Development Code, and that a pedestrian and bicycle access would be provided from the subject site to the adjacent school, provided that an agreement could be reached between the petitioner and the school board. The PUD document I handed out to you this afternoon or morning reflects those changes as the petitioner agreed to make on the record at the Planning Commission meeting. Other than that, I did not receive any letters of objection or comment from the public. COHMISSIONER CARTER: Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, Mr. Carter. COHMISSIONER CARTER: What troubles me about this project is not the project itself. But as I read through this, it keeps implying that we have a lot of other areas that soon may be coming in front of us asking the same question, can we be rezoned, can we be a PUD, and what is the impact upon the road system? I see that we have some projections here that says if we do such and such, this will all work out. And that troubled me, because I don't know, if we miss something in here, then I suspect that we're looking for gridlock of some type, or a lot of congestion in this area. Secondly, we are looking for a density reduction plan that will be coming to us sometime in the near future, and what impact is that going to have upon the decision we make here today for the future? I'm concerned that we don't have a total area planned in here that tells me or begins to answer some of these questions. How have you been addressing this in your department? MS. MURRAY: Commissioner, every petition that comes before us is reviewed for traffic impacts related to the level of service standards which are established in that the level at which the road is functioning at the time. If there are necessary changes that need to be made to that road, or if the road is planned to be expanded in the future, that is taken into account and to staff's analysis, and then necessary improvements related to those roadways would be made a requirement of this PUD document, and the developer would be required to provide those at the time. COMMISSIONER CARTER: If we have these other properties that will be coming at us, I'm sure, in the near future, the same kinds of questions, that's all going into this formulation? MS. MURRAY: They're evaluated as they're received, and related to the comprehensive -- or the Growth Management Plan, of course. There are projections for future growth and development and projections for the need for future road improvements that are also evaluated at the same time. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: So to answer your question, yes, we are looking long range in the future. However, when we do receive these PUD's, we look at them as individuals, related to their individual impacts and how they relate to the Growth Management Plan and what's been adopted and planned for in the future. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Because in some of your findings in here, for example, under -- when you talk about will this create a drainage problem, you are saying that potentially it can in the future. Is that -- any intensification. And what troubles me about these intensifications is do we know that it is or isn't. Do we have a plan that assures us that we are on top of this, or do we create the situation and later have to come back and try to deal with it? MS. MURRAY: No, we plan for it as they come up. And in this case, this property is actually part of the Harvey Basin Canal District, which is an overall master plan for the drainage of properties within that entire area north of the subject property. This PUD master plan makes accommodations to provide the necessary drainage easements to take care of that stormwater runoff as it occurs through development of properties to the north, as well as the subject property. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any other questions, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER CARTER: No, I'm okay at this point, thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Susan, I didn't -- I was talking with our county administrator. Was there an agreement reached between the school system and the developer? MS. MURRAY: Not to my knowledge. The developer is here and they might want to clarify. MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: Michael Fernandez, representing the petitioner. My understanding right now is that an agreement has not been worked out. We proposed an access directly across from the recreational area that's shown on our master plan that's next door to our environmental areas, and we're hoping that that's going to be acceptable to the school board. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. My concern is you've got an entrance into the school. How far from this entrance into this property? MS. MURRAY: It's approximately 700 feet to the north of this subject property. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And you're not going to have -- you have a light currently going into the school, correct? MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: That's correct, Commissioner. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So there's going to be another median cut, or is -- MR. KANT: No. This -- Edward Kant, transportation services. This particular property is located along the section that is still two-laned. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Oh, that's right. But what's going to happen when it is four-laned? I mean, isn't that scheduled to be -- MR. KANT: Then we'll have to work out an access management program that is consistent with our policies and with what is necessary to serve both the public facilities, like the schools. Right now, without looking at that overall corridor, I can't tell you exactly where the median openings would be, but typically they're on quarter to half mile spacings. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: This is my concern, that if -- I understand, I know it's -- I momentarily had a little lapse here, but I do understand it is a two-laned road there right now. But I know also that it is going to be four-laned. But my concern is that you've got two openings into this side of the road. And also, the second thing is the impact of -- I'm looking at the types, or what you mentioned here in homes that probably is going to generate children being there, and there needs to be an access from this property into and availability made to not only this school, depending on the rezoning, but somehow in sidewalks or whatever to perhaps link up in some way with Laurel Oak Elementary School. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Look at -- MR. KANT: Yes, Commissioner. The -- typically what we do in our reviews is when we have a two-lane condition that we know is going to go to a four or six lane is we add language to the PUD that requires -- or that specifies that under the two-lane condition, they may enjoy relatively unconstrained access. But under a four-lane or a six-lane condition in the future, that they may be constrained, either to a right in/right out, or to a directional median opening, or to no median opening. And that any approval would not vest in them any right to any median opening. And that language typically you'll find in PUD documents all up and down arterials. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is it in this one? MS. HURRAY: Yes, it is. MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: Also, Commissioner Berry, we don't have any problems, and there's numerous different places we can provide the access. We just wanted to make sure that we weren't prohibited from doing development because the school board may not want it. But I'm sure we're going to be able to find someplace that is mutually acceptable to both parties. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Have you looked at the sidewalks, that the possibility of connecting by sidewalks that Commissioner -- MR. MICHAEL FERNANDEZ: Well, the sidewalks go out the street and then you can go across the front. What we were looking for, and actually it's as you said, we may very well have a family oriented community here. We're looking to have more of a direct access so that the children of our community don't have to go all the way out to the street. It's a very positive for us. It's a selling point, quite frankly. We're just trying to find the place. We had heard one instance where the school board was not able to reach an agreement with someone and it didn't work out. And we just didn't want to be stopped from doing it. We have no problem providing one. And we will find one. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's a concern. Understanding, too, that the property -- from the school board point of view is to secure the property. If you somehow cut a gate, somebody's going to have to man that gate. MR. FERNANDEZ: Right. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You're going to have to have somebody that's able to make sure the gate's unlocked in the morning to let the kids in and make sure that then they leave in the evening, or whatever. And of course there are evening activities that they may well be involved in. Are you going to allow them to come through that gate, who's going to take care of that gate and who's going to be the person in charge? These are things -- but I think they're critical. I think they're things that we need to think about. And particularly, as much as I'm concerned about that, I'm also concerned about these two roadways being so close together, which I think that's fairly close. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Frankly, unless they've pretty clearly answered, I can't support this. I need to have those answers, not just maybe we'll try, somehow. That doesn't work for me. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sounds like we need to factor in the school board or the school system somehow into our process a little more completely than we have. MS. HURRAY: Typically they are sent documentation for review, and in this case they were and did not respond. I have met with one of their engineers, and he has indicated to me that he has intention of responding in the future, but in this case they didn't. And I don't know that he was on board at the time but -- COHMISSIONER CARTER: Again, that wouldn't be acceptable to me. I want to know what they're going to do. I also have another question: Will we have internal sidewalks throughout this project? MS. HURRAY: Yes, sir, on both sides of the street. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It seems like when there's something that's this relevant to school issues, that that receipt of response from the school engineers should be a condition precedent to it coming to the County Commission. MS. HURRAY: Yes, ma'am. I think the concern again that Mr. Fernandez explained was that the school board I think takes these on a case-by-case basis, and concern over safety, concern over -- I know there's been a lot of vandalism at schools and access between properties, and that's why the stipulation formulated as it did in that they agreed to provide the -- provided they could work out something with the school board. And I think that was the best we could do at the time. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What did you say the distance was between the school? MS. HURRAY: Approximately 700 feet from the southern entrance. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Seven hundred. MS. HURRAY: Uh-huh. COHMISSIONER CARTER: Last question I have is, you are familiar with the proposed densities that are coming down. How does this project stack with what is going to be presented to us? Otherwise, if the new densities were in, how would this project be affected? MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero for the record. Commissioner, we really do not have any idea at this point, nor would we want to relay that information before you've had a chance to receive another briefing from our consultants on that. I know that's not necessarily the answer you want to hear, but it's the best answer I can give you now. The piece of the puzzle that you're talking about, unfortunately that density study is one that takes into account the entire unincorporated area of Collier County. It is not something that can fit nice and neat into one portion of the county. I will tell you, though, the density reduction study would, if we have delivered the product that you want, would lessen the impact on various road systems in the county, as well as other infrastructure. That's my prediction. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Do we have any public speakers on this item? MR. FERNANDEZ: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No public speakers? If we have no public speakers at this time, I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to deny. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Question. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Question. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: For the attorney. Is the effect of a motion to deny that this can't come back for six months? Because I'm more interested in a continuance subject to the school board's action on it than to just shut this down altogether, personally. MR. WEIGEL: I believe the answer to your question is correct, that would put it out of the box for six months. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Forever? MR. WEIGEL: No, six months. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Six months. But perhaps in that length of time we could get some questions answered, too. MR. WEIGEL: You know, you could continue this indefinitely, and then it'd be readvertised to come back. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd be more interested in an indefinite continuance, but that's just my personal position. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think that's the more fair way to do it. I think the concerns were raised, several different aspects, different questions. Those could be answered certainly in less than six months, I would think. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think there's some responsibility upon Mr. Fernandez to bring something to us complete. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm not really pleased with this whole thing. Anyway, we've got a motion, we've got a second. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have another question for Mr. Weigel. Just playing defense here. Do we need to make any particular record if we're going to deny this petition? Maybe Ms. Student wants to '- MS. STUDENT: For the record, Harjorie Student, assistant county attorney. You do need to state a reason on the record. This is a fezone, it's quasi-judicial, and under the Snyder case, if a petition is consistent with the comp. plan, the burden is on the petitioner to show that, then it shifts to the government to find some public health, safety, welfare aspect of it that would justify the denial in the face of the consistency with the comp. plan. MR. WEIGEL: May the record reflect the answer was yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The denial is based on a number of different things: One, we don't have complete information. And probably the most glaring of that is the school issue and also the transportation and access issues. And I think Commissioner Carter mentioned some questions regarding density. So we've got a number of areas that just appear to be incomplete there. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. And from my perspective, I think the ingress and egress of this property in such close proximity to the school is a big concern. Not only at this point in time but in the future when we get into the four-laning of the roadway. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Is a safety concern? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It is a safety concern, yes, sir. Okay, I'll call for the question, then. What was your motion? What was the motion? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: To deny. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: To deny, okay. All in favor? Opposed? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries four-one. Item #12B2 RESOLUTION 98-487, RE PETITION CU-98-18, AMERICAN FUNDING AND SERVICE CORPORATION REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE "6" OF THE RHF-6(3) ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR AN ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD AND THE EAST SIDE OF 12TH STREET NORTH - ADOPTED The next item on the agenda was placed on here by Commissioner Carter. This was having to do with an assisted living facility. Which facility is this, Mr. Carter? COMMISSIONER CARTER: First one is on -- off Goodlette-Frank. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I need to swear in -- or have the people wishing to speak to this item stand and be sworn in by our court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is there any -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: I just have -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Just a minute, Commissioner Carter. Any disclosure here? Have you had contact by the petitioner -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- or anyone else? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I believe I have. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm certain that I have. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I have. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've spoken with Mr. Conrecode briefly. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. All right, go ahead, Mr. Carter. COHMISSIONER CARTER: I only had two questions, and that's why I pulled it from the summary agenda, is were there meetings held with the neighborhood groups, and what were their reactions to the project? The other one is a very easy question, what is the height on this building? MR. BELLOWS: I cannot answer the questions relating to meetings with the neighborhood residents. I think the applicant can better address that question. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Your name? MR. BELLOWS: The maximum height in the RHF zoning district is three -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Your name? MR. BELLOWS: Oh, for the record, Ray Bellows. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. COHMISSIONER CARTER: And how many feet is that? MR. BELLOWS: Code only says three inhabitable stories. Approximate height would be about 40 feet. COHMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My only question is did Mr. Ilschner and Mr. Bellows make a phone call to arrange those neckties today? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Conrecode, I think you need to answer the other question with regard to the homeowners that were contacted. Identify yourself, please. MR. CONRECODE: For the record, Tom Conrecode, representing the petitioner. There was a meeting held by the petitioner with the homeowners in the neighborhood around there to address their questions, to present the project in terms of setbacks and landscape buffers and all those sort of things. It was well received by the community. There was only one comment at the public hearing before the Planning Commission, and that was in favor of the project. We have since had further discussions with a couple of the neighbors regarding road right-of-way and easements, and those have been addressed as well. Oh, and in regard to building height, it is going to be approximately 35 feet total height. COHMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Do we have any public speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: No, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? I'll take a second. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I wanted to be sure Commissioner Carter's issues were addressed. COHMISSIONER CARTER: Yes, yes. I would move to approve. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. But we have a motion. Do you want to second the motion? COHMISSIONER CARTER: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: much. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Motion carries five-zero. Thank you very Item #1283 ORDINANCE 98-112, RE PETITION PUD-86-12(3), JOHN B. GOODMAN LIHITED PARTNERSHIP REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE BRETONNE PARK PUD FOR THE PURPOSE OF ELIMINATING COHMERCIAL LAND USES ON COHMERCIALLY DESIGNED TRACT AND REPLACING THOSE USES WITH AN ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF DAVIS BLVD. AND EMBASSY WOODS BOULEVARD - ADOPTED The next item is the next ALF. All persons wishing to speak to this item, please stand and be sworn in by our court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Disclosure, commissioners? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes -- COHMISSIONER CARTER: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- I've met with the applicants. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have, too. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I also. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As have I. COHMISSIONER CARTER: As have I. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The assistant county attorney has questioned that I hand out the last page of the ordinance that was missing from her executive summary, and I'll just pass that out. This is an amendment to the Bretonne Park DRI and PUD document to eliminate the commercial uses on tract B and replace it with an assisted living facility use. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Who pulled this one off? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Jim did. Commissioner Carter. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a question on it, too. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have a question on it, too. MR. BELLOWS: I'll be happy to answer any questions. It was approved unanimously at the Planning Commission. COHMISSIONER CARTER: My question, and I raised this at the time it was presented to me, was about being a four-story building or requesting a change in height from -- to 50 feet, of which I disclosed my displeasure with that at the point in time. And I'm still at that position, looking for a facility that does not have to be up four stories. MR. BELLOWS: Well, staff looked at the issue of height and worked with the applicant. The applicant has provided increased setbacks. It was their opinion and staff's opinion that the greater the setback provided more open space and green space, more compatible with adjacent residential and golf community. Since it fronts on a major arterial road, it was deemed to be acceptable. We've approved other buildings at similar heights or higher. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. Commissioner Carter, I have been talking with the applicant for -- since late last week. I think we have reached a little proposal that might satisfy your concerns. I had the same concern as you did, as having 50 feet right along Davis Boulevard would not be the most appropriate thing that I could think of. But they have agreed to me in private that they would take several steps that might alleviate some of those concerns. I think it's much better, from my perspective. So perhaps maybe we could hear from them and let them tell us what they'll commit to doing, because that was the same concern I have. COHMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you. Because this is not the only one coming down the line. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've got a different concern and that is -- first let me preface it by saying I met with some of the residential property owners nearby who are very excited at the prospect of an ALF instead of some strip shopping center or something in there. However, the manner in which these units are being set up with complete kitchen facilities in every one of them, and so on, I was not satisfied in my discussion last Friday -- and Mr. Arnold has been asked to address this today -- but that there are sufficient restrictions to assure that they will not become something different than what's intended. And the only restrictions I was told on Friday was well, it's an over 55 community, which doesn't mean anything, because I live in an over 55 community -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We know why. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and I generate a lot of traffic. The -- and it's part of a package where you can -- they'll do your laundry and they'll feed you meals. And I said, jeez, you know, I'm 34 and if somebody would do that for Janet and me, that would be great. I wish they had a place where they'd do that now where we came home at night and the meals were there, and so -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: There is. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's called a nanny. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's called the Ritz-Carlton. You can go up and do that every day. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I made light of it, but I think the point is none of those things guarantee that we will have people that are in somehow restricted -- one of the reasons we allow higher densities in that situation is because they are less likely to use their cars and have an impact on transportation system and so on. And Davis, just recently been widened, still a congested roadway, and last thing we want to do is have that recongested because of high usage, so I need that issue addressed as well. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner, how would this differ from, say, a situation like Moorings Park who also has -- you know, they have some very nice facilities in terms of their accommodations and so forth. But isn't this -- how was this addressed by the county? Do you have any idea? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, isn't the full kitchens the question? Because we addressed something similar to this on Marco Island that I think we turned down, because we thought that it was kind of a -- might have been trying to -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Stealth -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- confuse the -- stealth, there you go, a stealth condo. That I thought that ALF's could not have full kitchens. I thought that was how we had addressed the issue so that it couldn't be a stealth condominium. MR. BELLOWS: Yes, the petitioners required to submit documentation that they meet the state requirements for assisted living facility at the time of site development plan approval. At this stage there's no concep -- or specific plans of development, no floor plans, but they will be required to meet the requirements of assisted living facility at the time of site development plan. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Again, we have no commitment at this point. I mean, no -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Are there specific requirements that you're aware of, Mr. Bellows, in terms of the ALF and anything about this, quote, kitchen situation? MR. NINO: For the record, Ron Nino. There are no restrictions or prohibitions in the Land Development Code with respect to assisted living facilities that determine whether or not they can or cannot have kitchens. As a matter of fact, the law specifically provides for -- Florida regulations specifically provide for independent housing units versus partially dependent housing units. And the final end of the spectrum, of course, being the nursing care facilities. What your provisions call for is that the applicant evidence in their application a characteristic that the opportunity for aging in place is being achieved, i.e., that there are independent units and that there are semi-dependent units, and there is an element of nursing care units as well. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Ron, can I ask you a question? The density permitted for an ALF is significantly higher than the density for a condo, true? MR. NINO: Well, we don't -- true, but we really don't talk in terms of density any longer when we talk about assisted living facilities. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because you do it by square feet, floor to air (sic) ratio? MR. NINO: We've changed that system to a floor area ratio system which talks about the intensity of the land use versus the density land use. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But the net effect is -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But if mathematically we do this, it comes out to -- and Wayne, help me here -- I think it was 20.66; is that right? Something like -- somewhere in that neighborhood. It comes out to a lot. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, so -- MR. NINO: A lot, but a lot less than the regulation that was in place prior to introducing the floor area concept, floor area ratio. The -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not a lot more than a multi-family. MR. NINO: -- density was -- the density was 26 units per acre under the old -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And Ron, distinguish this from -- MR. NINO: -- system. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- the Marco case that you're familiar with. MR. NINO: The Marco case obviously, as I recall that, did not evidence varying characteristics of units. They were -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what I thought. MR. NINO: -- all obviously independent living units. The minimum floor areas were in the neighborhood of 14, 1,500 square feet. It became very obvious that they were coming in through the back door to achieve a density that would not otherwise be allowed for conventional housing. Our law -- our requirements state that all of the licensure requirements are in place for the independent units, as well as the semi-independent units and the care units. There are requirements under state law for continuing retirement centers, and they need to present that licensure approval prior to achieving their site development plan, so that we make every effort to assure that indeed this is a care environment, as opposed to conventional housing. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask a question, and I think it will help me clarify one of our safeguards. I think the concern, as I understand it from you, Commissioner Constantine, is that you don't want to see these in the future become residential units. But isn't that a zoning matter? MR. NINO: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It would be a zoning matter. This PUD would not allow residential units. MR. NINO: Correct. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So in the future, if this were to be converted to a condominium building, they would have to come back to the board for a fezone approval to do that; is that not correct? MR. NINO: That is correct. That would be -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's our safeguard. MR. NINO: -- contrary to their development approval, and they would be in contravention, and it would be a code violation issue, which would need to come back to you for rectification. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If they didn't go about coming back to us, how would we ever know the difference? If there were just a lot of people over 55 living there? MR. NINO: Well, I think those things tend to come to our attention either by someone else complaining, or -- MR. BELLOWS: Marketing. MR. NINO: -- marketing or whatever. Those things -- MS. STUDENT: PUD monitoring. MR. NINO: Well, this -- I think this is a conditional use, Marjorie. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My concern being what -- you know, yes, I love the concept of having the whole transition of years when you can do more in your own place, great, and you don't have to move as you get older and more infirm. But I want stronger assurance -- and Wayne may be able to provide that, I don't know. But I want a stronger assurance, because that what comes out to roughly I think, and he'll correct me if I'm wrong, but close to 21 units per acre, I need to have that assurance, or we've got a problem. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Fine. MR. NINO: You may recall, commissioners, that when we converted the system to a floor area ratio versus the 26 units per acres, we submitted to you a -- the development characteristics of a number of existing developments in the county, and we pointed out to you that the Carlisle, for example, was the only building that exactly equaled the floor area ratio factor that we were suggesting you adopt, which you did, which is .45 times the area of the lot. The Carlisle actually achieved 23 units per acre, or will be able to achieve 23 units per acre when that project is completed. Chadsford Park, which -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do we need -- I'm sorry, but as much as I love this whole thing, I'm getting hungry. Maybe we could just hear on this particular one. MR. NINO: What I'm attempting to say is that there are projects out there that are just as large as this project. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They're not bordering on a residential property in my district, though. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, never mind if they're in somebody else's district. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I took that phrase from -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I know, I'm just kidding. Okay. COHMISSIONER CARTER: But they have some comments to us. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we need -- I think we need to hear from the petitioner. MS. HEALY: Good afternoon. My name is Harilyn Healy. I'm with Ruden-HcClosky, and I have Wayne Arnold and Jeff Perry from Wilson-Miller, and Peter Worthington, from the Goodman Group, our director of development. What I'd like to do is briefly try to respond again to your comment, Commissioner, and then Mr. Arnold will deal with the height issue. And then if you have any other questions about us, we can answer them at that time. Basically the Goodman Group has been in the senior health care development industry for over 25 years. We own and operate our own developments. We are regulated by Chapter 400. We have to have the appropriate licensure requirements. We have to meet those. We also have to meet your county requirements in the Department of Health, requirements in line with that. We have no problem stipulating that we will do that. In the event of a transfer to another company, we would have to go through the DRI process and your county processes to basically amend the PUD document to allow for multi-family dwellings, as well as depending on the number of residential units that we would be increasing or a subsequent purchaser be increasing go through the state DRI process as well. So we are an ALF. We have specifically stated assisted living, not necessarily independent living or senior living in your PUD zoning, and we've worked with staff to make sure that that language was pretty specific. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Any other questions for the petitioner? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The height discussion. COHMISSIONER CARTER: The height. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The height? MS. HEALY: I'm going to let Mr. Arnold handle that and show you our site vision chart that we had prepared after discussing these issues with you collectively. We'd like to show you that and try to come to an acceptable compromise. Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. Wayne Arnold, with Wilson-Miller. I'd like to go ahead and tack up a line of sight drawing that we have. And I'd also like to distribute a copy of a color rendering that we've done that I think will try to explain to you what we're trying to do here in transitioning a building that albeit is one that we hope to achieve in part a 50-foot height that equals a four-story building, we're looking for an ability to transition this from three-story that faces Davis Boulevard to a four-story building as you increase that distance from Davis Boulevard. I think this rendering indicates to you how we would hope to do that. I also have some language here that I'd like to present to you that I think mirrors what we've been trying to demonstrate in our rendering. If I could -- I don't know how best to distribute these copies. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I wish you'd put it on the visualizer. Don't you feel like Star Trek? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Activate the visualizer. MR. ARNOLD: In essence, again, what we're trying to do is eliminate the provision that currently allows for the 130,000 square foot shopping center on the tract. We're hoping to build an assisted living facility and skilled nursing components. We've asked for a four-story building in 50 feet for several reasons. One, it allows the developer to develop as they have in other communities, and that is to provide a lot of open space areas for their residents. It allows for gardens, walking paths, et cetera. The environment, as we talked about, is very much an aging in place philosophy where people may, you know, as husband and wife or individually come and hopefully age in place without having to migrate between other care facilities. One of the things we tried to show you is that there are several factors here along Davis Boulevard that come in to play. One of which is the fact that there's an 80-foot drainage easement and canal that separates our property from Davis Boulevard. Taking into consideration that 80-foot setback, what we're looking at is a building that in all likelihood would be 120 foot at a minimum from our property line; 120 feet as a minimum. What we're willing to do is step this building down from the four-story to show a three-story facade on Davis Boulevard. If I could point to the drawing. If you look to the right side of the drawing that you've been presented, that is the facade that is designed to face Davis Boulevard. And you can see that the first level is really a covered loggia or walkway that progresses up to a three-story building that you have. And in the background you see the four-story roof top. And what we're providing is that no four-story component of the building, or any four-story building would be within 175 feet of Davis Boulevard. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did you say loggia? MR. ARNOLD: Loggia, yes. Or covered walkway. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Very impressive. MR. ARNOLD: Put it in layman terms, thank you. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Robert Loggia. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: See what happens when you get in the private sector, you get uppity. Use big words. MR. ARNOLD: But one of the other drawings I would -- I would point you to the exhibit I placed over here on the backboard, and what I'm showing there is the line of sight, an issue progressed back to the four-story component that's at about 175 feet, which is at this point; this being Davis Boulevard. Between the several layers of landscaping that you have at our drainage canal along the parking line in the front of the building, you essentially end up with a line of sight that takes you beyond the three-story building. Then, in fact, the four-story sight line is very much minimized. And as you can see, as the trees grow and continue to grow, that line of sight becomes entirely blocked at that legal. And, of course, if you're in your automobile looking horizontally through there, you're looking through several layers of landscaping anyway. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Arnold, how far did you say from the northern side of the canal to the edge of the building? MR. ARNOLD: From the northern side of the canal to the edge of the building will be approximately 80 to 90 feet. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: How far is that? MR. ARNOLD: Again, we think in this treatment of altering the building, by presenting at least a one-story step-down and putting a three-story component there, we think that that is something that can work for us. We think it also presents a good face to Davis Boulevard. This issue was not necessarily one that was at issue with the residents. We did meet with them on two different occasions and talk to them about the project and what we're doing. I did notice that a representative of Trans-Eastern is here as well, registered to speak. Again, we think that this building and the footprint we're looking at can be very compatible and look very good from Davis Boulevard. I think that some of the examples we've shown previously of the varying building styles that they've designed, this is one that very much looks in the character of the adjoining development. Features stucco and, you know, roof treatments very similar to what you see in the balance of now Glen Eagle's development. And I think you're going to hear that they're in support of what we're going to try to do. If you have some other specific questions about how we're treating the height, I'd be happy to answer those. But again, just to reiterate, we're looking at no component of a four-story building to be within 175 feet of our property line from Davis Boulevard. And, in fact, the only thing that we would build would be anything up to three stories within first 175 feet from Davis Boulevard. COHMISSIONER CARTER: What percentage of the property then becomes a four-story complex in the totality of this? MR. ARNOLD: Well, we're looking at a potential for two phases, and only a portion of the first building that we would design that houses the primary number of ALF units would have a four-story component. Any future buildings, we're willing to agree that we wouldn't exceed three stories in height for that building. But we are looking for at least the ability for this portion of our site that's beyond the 175 feet to have the four-story or 50-foot height maximum. COHMISSIONER CARTER: Is that part of the agreement, you would be willing not to go any higher than three? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. I do have some language drafted, if you'd care to see that specifically. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Does that answer your question, Commissioner? COHMISSIONER CARTER: I think so. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Public speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: You have one public speaker, Madam Chairman. His name is Ron Yuter, I believe. MR. YUTER: Good morning -- or afternoon. My name is Ron Yuter from Trans-Eastern. I'm also president of Glen Eagle's Golf and Country Club. And we had the opportunity to have a presentation by the proposed developer of this facility. The consensus of both the developer and the residents that were there had no real objection about -- as a matter of fact, they had only positive statements, having this congregate care facility in lieu of the shopping center. The overall community and the association had two major concerns -- actually three major concerns. One, the architectural that would compatible with the surrounding area, the monumentation that would be adapted to the monumentation that we currently just put up in that area, and then to kind of put it on the record, their financial contribution to the master association to maintain the integrity of the landscaping and the preservation of a front entrance. Those are the items that we were interested in voicing at the meeting that we had, and there was no objection from the proposed developer of this community. And that's basically it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. YUTER: Any questions? Now I can have lunch. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. If there's no other public speakers, I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'd like to move approval based on the -- on several commitments that the proposer has made here. The first most important one dealing with the height of the buildings. Nothing that fronts Davis Boulevard would be over three stories. And then the additional language that they have. I don't know, Mr. Arnold, you may want to pass that out to the other commissioners so they can see that. I think that's new language since yesterday. But nothing on the south side of the -- or measured from the south side of the property line within 175 feet, without it having a four-story component. Additionally, the petitioner has committed that only the building in Phase I would have a four-story commitment, that the Phase II building would not have any four-story -- would be limited to three. And also, I would like to have the petitioner commit to a style of architecture that would be similar in nature to the existing Glen Eagle's subdivision; that being the typical stucco and tile roof type buildings. And would you please state that, or commit -- MS. HEALY: Yes, Marilyn Healy for the petitioner. We have no problem. We would be happy to commit to either equalling or exceeding and harmonizing our architecture with the surrounding Glen Eagle's development. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. Then that's my motion. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, 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. Thank you. Item #14 STAFF'S COMMUNICATIONS Okay, we're down to the -- toward the end of our agenda. Mr. Weigel, do you have anything to share with us, please? MR. WEIGEL: One last note. In regard to 10(B), which was the Golden Gate Parkway water and sewer assessment district discussion. Again, I really do believe that there is nothing further for next week's agenda at all, but if there were to be, I'll just reserve the right that I will place something on an agenda if it were needed. I don't think that's going to be the case, but I want to go back and check the books one last time. I've already talked with outside counsel, but I want to check the books. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's fair. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: I have nothing, Madam Chairman. Item #15 BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS' COHMUNICATIONS CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Lunch. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Pictures first. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Pictures first. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We have one more meeting? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have one more meeting. COHMISSIONER CARTER: We have one more meeting. I would just like to publicly thank our human resources department. I went through the orientation program yesterday for new employees. They do an excellent job. And we really are ahead of the curve in the benefit packages that we do for our employees. So I'd like to go on the record saying great job. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. I have -- I wouldn't think of doing anything further. Heeting's adjourned. ***** Commissioner Norris moved, seconded by Commissioner Hac'Kie and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted with changes ***** Item #16A1 RESOLUTION 98-481 RE PETITON CU-97-23E, HR. ROY A. SHUCK, PASTOR, REPRESENTING FAITH COHMUNITY CHURCH REQUESTING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF A CONDITIONAL USE FOR A CHURCH IN THE "E" ESTATES ZONING DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON 22ND AVENUE NW AND OAKS BOULEVARD APPROXIMATELY ~ OF A MILE SOUTH OF IHMOKALEE ROAD Item #16A2 FINAL PLAT OF COCO LAKES - SUBJECT TO THE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS Ttem #16A3 ROAD IHPACT FEE REFUND IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,738.00 TO THE CLUB ESTATES Item #16A4 SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE RESOLUTION 91-396 Item #16B1 - Moved to Item #882 Item #1682 BID #98-2850 FOR EHULSION POLYHER FOR THE NORTH AND SOUTH COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITIES - AWARDED TO CIBA SPECIALTY CHEMICALS WATER TREATMENTS, INC. Item #1683 RESOLUTION 98-482 RE RATIFYING SPECIFIC EXPENDITURES FOR WASTE WATER DEPARTMENT TEAMBUILDING SESSIONS AS SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE Item #1684 ANNUAL LEASE AGREEHENT IN THE A_MOUNT OF $872.00 BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND RAYMOND CRAWFORD FOR USE OF A PARCEL OF LAND IN SECTION 8 AND 9, TOWNSHIP 48, RANGE 27 FOR CATTLE GRAZING Item #1685 - CONTINUED TO JANUARY 15, 1999 Item #1686 AUTHORIZE PAYHENT IN THE A_MOUNT OF $7,653.11 FOR AN URBAN FORESTRY GRANT (NO. 95-69) TO THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN A LETTER TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE GIVING THEM AUTHORIZATION TO MAKE THE GRANT PAYABLE TO THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND Item #1687 ADJUSTHENTS TO BE MADE TO THE STORMWATER NLA/~AGEHENT CAPITAL FUND 325 TO REFLECT REVISIONS IN CERTAIN CAPITAL PROGRAMS Item #1688 BID 98-2889 IN THE A_MOUNT OF $44,529.00 FOR SITE WORK AT WATER DEPARTHENT'S MAINTENANCE BUILDING - AWARDED TO SUNSHINE EXCAVATORS, INC. Item #1689 A_MDENDHENT SIX (6) TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEHENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATED TO IMPROVEMENTS AT THE SOUTH COUNTY WATER RECLAivLATION FACILITY, UNDER RFP 93-2121, PROJECT 73053 - AWARDED TO HOLE, HONTES & ASSOCIATES, INC. Item #16B10 RESOLUTION 98-483\CWS-98-5 IDENTIFYING THE PLEDGED REVENUES AND AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE ANY STATE REVOLVING FUND LOAN AMENDMENTS Item #16D1 SERVICE AGREEHENT BETWEEN THE GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS FOR FIRE AND RESCUE PROTECTION SERVICES WITHIN THE COLLIER COUNTY FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT Item #16D2 RESOLUTION 98-484 RE THE GRANT OF UTILITY EASEHENT, EASEHENT AGREEHENT AND A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT FOR PROPERTY BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND SPRINT-FLORIDA, INC LOCATED ON THE GOVERNMENT CENTER COMPLEX AT 3301 EAST TA_MIA_MI TRAIL Item #16D3 APPRAISAL SERVICES AGREEHENT WITH THE APPRAISAL SHOPPE, INC. FOR THE APPRAISAL OF GAC LAND TRUST PROPERTIES RE BID NO. 98-2884 Item #16El BUDGET AMENDHENT NO. 99-048 AND NO. 99-068 Item #16G1 HISCELLANEOUS 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 CERTIFICATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF SUBGRANT AWARD ENTITLED DEVELOPHENT AND AUTOMATION OF CRIMINAL COURT CASE RECORDS REPORTING SYSTEM Item #1611 AGREEHENT AND BUDGET FOR PARTIAL FUNDING OF LEGAL AID SOCIETY Item #17A - Moved to Item #1282 Item #17B RESOLUTION 98-485 RE PETITION SNR-98-5, ROB WRIGHT, REPRESENTING GLEN EAGLE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB, REQUESTING THE FOLLOWING STREET NAME CHANGES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN EMBASSY WOODS GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB AT BRETONNE PARK: EMBASSY WOODS BOULEVARD IS TO BE CHANGED TO GLEN EAGLE BOULEVARD SOUTH; EMBASSY WOODS BOULEVARD EAST AND EMBASSY WOODS BOULEVARD WEST ARE TO BE CHANGED TO GLEN EAGLE BOULEVARD; AMBASSADOR BOULEVARD IS TO BE CHANGED TO GLEN EAGLE BOULEVARD NORTH Item #17C RESOLUTION 98-486 RE PETITION SNR-98-11, COLLIER COUNTY COHMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION, REQUESTING A STREET NAME CHANGE FROM ATHOL COURT TO ATHOL WAY, LOCATED IN BRITTANY PLACE Item #17D - Moved to Item #1283 Item #17E - Continued to December 15, 1998 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:50 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS 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