Loading...
BCC Minutes 01/20/1998 R REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 20, 1998 OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS 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 9:03 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: Barbara B. Berry Timothy J. Constantine Pamela S. Hac'Kie Timothy L. Hancock John C. Norris ALSO PRESENT: Robert Fernandez, County Administrator David C. Weigel, County Attorney Item #3 AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'd like to -- good morning. I'd like to call to order the January 20th meeting of the Collier County Board of Commissioners. This morning we have the Reverend Jay Abernathy of the Unitarian Universalist Congregation with us for an invocation. If you would, please rise and remain standing for the pledge. REVEREND ABERNATHY: Will you join me in the spirit of prayer. Divine spirit available to all peoples of all lands and all times and all places, we lift our voices in thanksgiving this morning. We are grateful beyond all words. Our gifts are many, and though occasionally we want to take credit ourselves, we know in our hearts that they are more than the results of our own efforts, strive with all our strength and our will though we do. Of all thy blessings, we in America, are most aware of freedom. Oh, I know some people claim our wealth and prosperity are the cornerstones of America and its people, yet most religions have never held this so, nor have most of our people. We are a free people. We are grateful for our democracy and its elected representatives. While they cannot reflect our many individual opinions, we trust in their deliberations and in their actions. This morning, we give thanks on behalf of all the people of our county, of all the religious people, the historical religions of our indigenous people, the ancient religions of Hinduism and Buddhism found increasingly in our county, the monotheisms of Judaism and Islam and Christianity, the ancient, and now modern again, nature religions. Hay we never be so arrogant or insensitive as to consider our fellow citizens, though they follow a religion different from our own, to be less than free, less than equal citizens in our land. For our blessings of freedom, first and foremost, we give thanks and pray. Amen. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez, do we have any changes to our agenda this morning? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chairman. We have two changes. The first is to add item 10(C), which is a discussion regarding a board workshop to consider Collier County's role in the provision of fire services. This is a request by the chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Correct. MR. FERNANDEZ: The next is one that doesn't appear on your change list. I just received it this morning, and that's to continue item 8(A)(2) for two weeks. We'll be ready to present that in two weeks. Staff request. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. Do I have a motion for the approval of the agenda and -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Actually, I have one item to add. I just wanted to add a request that we readvertise for the H.S.T.U. advisory board for the Bayshore area. We did get five applicants, but we had a meeting this last week with about 150 people crammed into Mary Horgan's conference room over there and a great deal of interest of people who didn't get the opportunity to apply for that advisory board and I told them that I would ask you and hope that you will support the decision to readvertise. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Where would we place this on our agenda? MR. FERNANDEZ: I would suggest that under Board of County Commissioners, item number three -- I'm sorry, C. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That would be 10(D) then? MR. FERNANDEZ: 10(D). Oh, okay. Yes, 10(D). CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris, do you have any changes? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No further changes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: None from me, ma'am. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just realized I have a question. If we're gonna -- we're gonna postpone for two weeks the hearing that most of these people are here for is what it looks like to me. Is that -- do I understand -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, if it's 8(A)(2), I think most of these people are here for 8(A)(3). COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm so sorry. I looked at the wrong one. Thank you. Sorry to scare you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If there are no other changes, I'll make a motion we approve the agenda and the consent agenda as amended. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. All in favor? Motion carries four, zero. (Commissioner Constantine out) Item #5B EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED All right. This morning, moving on then to service awards, it's my pleasure to present two service awards this morning for 20 years of service. Where is Miss Jodi? She's not here? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: She's out taking care of domestic animals. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: She's out picking up dogs. Anyway, Jodi Morelock, and we will certainly make sure -- perhaps we can get her back here at another time or if she happens to arrive for 20 years of service. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: She's one of our -- I just want to say, I did a workday out there one time and I've dealt with her quite a bit on several issues and she's, again, a subject for the cloning machine if we ever come up with one. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Amen. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Super job, and last but not least today in our presentation, someone that we certainly value, Harjorie Student for ten years of dealing with county commissioners. (Applause.) (At this time, Commissioner Constantine entered the board room.) Item #3 AGENDAAND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AS AMENDED MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes? MR. FERNANDEZ: I understand there's another item that's been requested to be added that I neglected to mention that we're prepared to discuss, and that's the permit for the Immokalee circus. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: 8 (A) (4) ? MR. FERNANDEZ: 8(A)(4) would be the appropriate place for that if you'd like to add -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, I'll make a motion that we amend the agenda -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before you do, I might have a couple of things I just want to add on as well. I apologize for being tardy, but -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Then I will withhold any motion. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. But we will add the item 8(A)(4) regarding the circus permitting over in Immokalee. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it will require a motion to add it to the agenda, but if Commissioner Constantine has additional items to add, maybe we'll want to hear those all at once; is that correct, Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: That is correct. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just one item under item 10, board discussion and direction regarding our jail, Immokalee jail facility design. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. That would be 10(E). COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Is that it? COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And then I'll have one item under board communications. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let me go back here. For C, we have -- there's an item I brought up regarding a possible workshop considering Collier County's role in fire services. Commissioner Hac'Kie added item 10(D), and then the jail would be 10(E). COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I realize that it's my fault for not being here, but what's the nature of 10(D)? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The Bayshore -- readvertising for the H.S.T.U. advisory board. There's a great deal more interest than applications received. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And this just came up when they recently had a meeting, correct? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, if appropriate, I'll make a motion that we amend the agenda previously approved to include items 8(A)(4) and item 10(E) as indicated. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? (Unanimous vote of ayes.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. Item #SA1 RESOLUTION 98-18, AMENDING RESOLUTION 97-431, ESTABLISHING GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES FOR AMENDING THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH HANAGHENT PLAN - ADOPTED All right. Then let's move on into the item 8(A)(1). COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. We have a motion and a second. Do we have any speakers on this issue? MR. FERNANDEZ: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No speakers. All right. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Motion carries unanimously, five, zero. Item 8(A)(2) is continued. Item #8A3 DETERMINATION OF WHETHER OWNERS OF SEVEN IMPROVED PARCELS LOCATED IN SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 495, RANGE 34E, A/K/A/ BIG CYPRESS SANCTUARY MUST ACQUIRE BUILDING PERMITS, ACSC/ST SITE ALTERATION/DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVALS, AND PAY APPLICABLE FEES COHMENSURATE WITH THESE PERMITS INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, IMPACT FEES - CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD TO HOLD HEARINGS TO SETTLE THE ISSUE BASED ON CERTAIN CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS AND BRING BACK RECOHMENDATIONS TO THE BCC ON THE CONSENT AGENDA Item 8(A)(3), Big Cypress Sanctuary. MS. POLEN: Good morning. Kimberly Polen with the Code Enforcement Department. Okay. Determination of whether owners of seven improved parcels located in Section 16, Township 49 South, Range 34 East, known as the Big Cypress Sanctuary, must acquire building permits, area of critical state concern sensitive treatment site alteration/development plan approvals, and pay applicable fees commensurate with these permits, including, but not limited to, impact fees. The objective is to have the Board of County Commissioners determine whether the owners of seven improved parcels located in Section 16, Township 49, Range 34 must acquire building permits, area of critical state concern/ST site alteration/development plan approvals and pay applicable fees commensurate with these permits, including, but not limited to, impact fees. On November 19th, the Board of County Commissioners reviewed -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry to interrupt, but just going back through, this is the item we heard last -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: November. MS. POLEN: Right. I just wanted to -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: General direction of where we were headed then, we were able to -- we had kind of given a direction. Were we able to follow that and, Mr. Weigel, did we leap all the legal hurdles as part of that? MR. WEIGEL: Did we leap or delete? I'm sorry, I couldn't quite hear you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Leap, yeah. MR. WEIGEL: I believe that we have, yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did we successfully bridge all -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It seems -- when I was preparing for today, what I recalled as our direction and what it looks like from the transcript of the November meeting is that -- that we said anybody who had a use in place prior to a relevant impact fee ordinance was irrelevant for discussion of impact fees because they were -- they preceded the ordinance, and that as to building permits, we were gonna refer that to Code Enforcement for, you know, appropriate action if necessary, so I was confused about why we were doing this again unless there was something wrong with that direction the first time. MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero, for the record, Madam Chairman. My recollection, Commissioner, is slightly different from that. My recollection is that you wanted to hear these cases on an individual basis. The ordinance before amended last year stated that appeals of Code Enforcement Board matters could be brought to the board. That was changed administratively because we started to have several appeals that were becoming very lengthy for the county manager staff to handle. However, I made an administrative decision, because several of these property owners, through their representative, indicated to me that they wished to come before you anyway and we put together an executive summary telling you there were some 30 plus cases like this. The issues, basically, are straightforward in that some permits were obtained. More permits that were necessary at that time were not, due to certain pieces of information related to these property owners by staff members. The legal staff has opined that impact fees should be reviewed in this instance, in that even if impact fees weren't applicable at the time the structures were built, that they were not built in accordance with the applicable laws. Therefore, in order to obtain the permits, they would have to pay the impact fees at the time the permit was pulled. What we're trying to do, and what Kim is -- has information on is what the impact fee would have been if a permit was pulled at that point in time. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wait. I'm sorry, if a permit had been pulled at the time that the original construction -- MR. CAUTERO: We're prepared to give you that information, if you should make a policy decision that that -- has been contrary to legal opinion in the past. The legal opinion that we received is that impact fees would be paid at the time the permit is pulled. However, we have the information for you and can provide it, if we're provided new information from property owners, that if the structure was pulled -- excuse me, if a permit was pulled at a certain period of time, what the impact fee would have been to potentially offer some relief. If I'm incorrect, Miss Ashton will correct me on the record. What we're trying to do is find relief, if we possibly can, for the property owners. Every case is unique in the ones that are coming before you. There are several today. There are a little over 30 that fall into this category that we know of. All these cases can be brought forward to the Code Enforcement Board. However, I believe your direction last year was to bring these -- these issues forward because I made an administrative decision that it would be proper for the people to come before you because they were gonna do that anyway for relief if we brought it to the Code Enforcement Board. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there some sort of a matrix? I mean, it's -- unless the whole board wants to hear this story again, you know, as we heard it in November, and I doubt that, just judging from faces, is there a matrix somewhere that you could give us of case by case, if they had pulled a permit, here's how much their impact fee would have been? MR. CAUTERO: Yes, there's a sheet on your -- in your executive summary. Unfortunately, I don't have a stamped executive summary packet in front of me on the page. I can attempt to find that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I see this page 47's a -- fiscal impacts. Landowner, parcel, acres. It's page 47 of our packet, if that's -- does it look like this, Mr. Cautero? MR. CAUTERO: Yes, also page 13. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Page 13, I think it starts on there. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because what would seem to me to be a more useful exercise for the policymakers, that being us, is to say what the policy ought to be, and then have staff apply it on a case by case basis. It seems to me that the policy ought to be, if there was an impact fee in place at the time that you should have pulled a building permit, then you're subject to that impact fee, whatever the amount was at the time, but with regard to whether or not people have to go back and pull building permits, for my vote, this is very similar to the traditional Seminole case and -- and I think that we should do what we did there, which is have a health and safety inspection for -- to enforce our obligation to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens and start fresh from that point. MR. CAUTERO: Well, Madam Chairman, if I may, to address Commissioner Mac'Kie's point, we have done that, I believe, and that's the reason they're here today, is that policy decision has not been accepted by the property owners that impact fees are paid at a certain amount when the permit is -- is due. The impact fees would vary based on the type of construction, and it has come to light from a representative of the transportation department that impact fees in at least one particular section are not applicable. That's something that we would add as an addendum to the executive summary. However, we -- we believe we've done that. We've stated, this is what the building permit would cost if you have this structure. This is what the impact fee would be. That is -- I don't mean to speak for anyone, but I believe what you would hear from public testimony is that that is wholly unacceptable and that they were coming to you for relief of the ordinances. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask you, Mr. Cautero, analogizing again to the Seminole tribe case, we didn't make them pull permits. We didn't tell them, you have to pay impact fees. We said, you're exempt from those because they're grandfathered in, I guess, and then said, however, we're going to enforce the health and safety codes to be sure that your electric lines are right and that you're not discharging sewage into the environment and all of those things. Why is this different? MR. CAUTERO: It's different because you have -- you have structures that are built years ago and the only way we would be able to determine health, safety and welfare is for as-built drawings and a walk-through of the structures. It's different from the chickee hut in that we were able to make an assessment of whether the building codes or the minimum building codes were complied with. Here, you can't do that because you don't have the opportunity to do your rough or your preliminary inspections. You can only do a final, but you have completed structures that have been lived in -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Bottom line is, their electric lines are behind the drywall, and at the chickee huts, they were laying out on the ground? MR. CAUTERO: In essence, that's -- that's mostly correct. The other issue with -- with the Seminole is that you had a conditional use application that was applied as a blanket for the entire project. Here you have individual properties that have been improved over the years. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Complicated. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I know when I read over this, there's some impact fees in here that -- that I really question whether it is applicable because of where the people live and the location to the services that, quote, the impact fee supposedly is to cover, and I looked at the education impact fee as -- as one of them and that's a pretty healthy chunk of change in most cases. The children that are out there don't attend the Collier County Public Schools, so there is no impact to the Collier County Public School system. You know, my feeling is, should they pay this, and I really -- I don't know how many of you have been out to this particular area, if any of you have. I have, Mr. Fernandez has. I -- this is, in my opinion, a very unique situation. I could say a lot more, but I -- I really struggled with this one after I went out there and visited and saw what I saw and then saw the impact of what government has done out there to certain other structures, you know. We're here to help and then you see properties that have been purchased and are left to decay and that's supposed to be so good for the environment out there and everything else. I really question what we're doing here, but getting back to this particular topic, I think we almost have to look at each one of those on an individual basis because I think you've got circumstances here that are different in many of the cases and I -- I really question, you know -- I've had discussions with Mr. Cautero on this trying to figure out and look at what we can do here, what can be done. I don't know that there's any quick fix to it. Mr. Hancock -- Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Until such time as we draw a line out there that says, beyond this line you're not in Collier County anymore, the rules are different here, we do have a responsibility to be fairly even keeled in how we approach each of these. The reason that I thought it was appropriate to bring them back individually is, there were some individuals that could show some documentation that they made efforts to contact building inspectors. Those efforts were not responded to effectively. I know of one case in particular. The time was different when this individual built his particular home out there. Ten years later, that's not the case. For someone not to pick up a phone and call our building department simply because they don't think it's necessary is not something I think we, as a board, should in any way support, so those individual circumstances should come to bear on each property owner in an appropriate fashion. As far as impact fees, you know, it's the old discussion of, if I don't have a heart attack and get in an EHS ambulance, should I pay the impact fee. I mean, whether you do or don't use it, if you are a resident of Collier County, you accept the whole of the county, in essence, by living here, and part of that whole these days is impact fees. So I think we need to be careful there looking at use as a litmus test for whether impact fees should or shouldn't apply except in the areas of water and sewer, which are pretty direct services. So the area you're talking about, and you're right, Commissioner Berry, there has been a lot of government action out there that has been adverse to the area, but it wasn't necessarily Collier County. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, I understand. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I think we should take these individually, but I think we should work from a level of consistency, and Commissioner Hac'Kie, you brought up the Seminoles. To compare that to a standard housing structure, I think, is apples and oranges. I think you're also ignoring a lot of the cultural arguments and discussions that occurred at that time and the cultural designation that occurred through the conditional use, which does not apply here. So I would like to see us go ahead individually with these, but until such time as we designate a rural portion of the county as a different set of regulations, then the rules have to apply similarly throughout the county. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I guess in most cases I'd probably agree with you, but when you talk about some of the services they couldn't get there if they wanted to -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But they chose that and -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, I understand that, but -- but my point is that I think when -- when you move into most portions of this county, you assume that if you are paying certain impact fees, et cetera, even though you may not need them -- I mean, I'll pay EHS, obviously. I hope I never, ever have to use it, but where I live, obviously, it's accessible to me. In this particular situation, I'm not even sure that it would be readily accessible. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: By helicopter, it certainly would be, and that's exactly how we'd access this area. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If they can get the word, you know. That's -- that's another problem too, but it is all individual and it's a very difficult situation. Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree with Commissioner Hancock. I think we need to be careful in saying that they don't use the educational system, so they're not responsible for that impact fee. I don't have any children and my dad lives here and, you know, we're all grown and if you start using that rationale, there's an awful lot of people that don't use the school system, so I think -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I know that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- there may be a unique nature to this area, but I don't think that's a valid argument. I think it's one we need to be very careful of. I also agree as far as -- I think the difference between this and the Seminole tribe was the cultural designation. That was really the crux of the difference there. I wondered if we could -- if I could just throw out three areas, see if we generally agree on, at least get us off square middle, and that is, one, seems like the property ought to have the appropriate zoning. You can't build something -- we can't allow people to build things that aren't zoned for that. I don't think we have any problem in this case with those there. We can take care of that. The homes should meet basic minimum codes, and that's -- we designed those codes for health, safety and welfare. If we're saying these folks don't need those codes, then we ought to eliminate those codes, because if they can live safely without them, why would we require them of everyone else, and I don't think that's going to be a problem either, but we should meet the minimum codes, and then finally, I think we should go back and collect the appropriate building fees and penalties just the way we do when anyone else doesn't pull a permit when they do their work. I really don't have a big problem if it was built prior to when impact fees were collected if it's not done. That just seems like another penalty at this point, but I do think if it's double or three times or whatever the various permits are when you go back and do it after the fact that we need to institute that here. It's four times. So we need to institute that here. This is no different than anyone else in the county. If you're going to build something, you need to adhere to local ordinance. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: One more question. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Similar, again, question to how -- to my question about how did we come to be involved with the Seminoles. How did -- how did we come to be involved in this situation? MR. CAUTERO: The Seminole -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, this one. MR. CAUTERO: This particular situation? COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, sir. MR. CAUTERO: Existing Code Enforcement case from the mid 80's or late 80's, if I'm not mistaken. The Department of Community Affairs representative for the Area of Critical State Concern had contacted Code Enforcement staff. I may be off on my date. It may not be that long ago, but I know that the representative from D.C.A. had been in contact with Code Enforcement and informed them that there were structures -- they -- they routinely fly that area and they take photographs of structures and they bring it to the attention of staff. This pre-dates a lot of our newer regulations, if you will. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My problem with this and -- and I hope that this will appeal to the, even more than I, conservative members of this board, is what exactly is the role of the government here and why are we trying to help these people, you know? If we have some health and safety issues to enforce, then we should, but for heaven's sake, they live way out in the woods, could we leave them alone if at all possible. That's how I feel. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Where do you draw that line? If I build on Everglades Boulevard and nobody's around -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, this is clearly the woods. I think the point is, we don't have to be drawing that line. I don't think -- I think if the state has some environmental issues out here, then the state should go work on them and that we need to do health and safety, but for heaven's sake, this is a perfect example of too much government. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask if there's general agreement with the three points that I raised? COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't have any problem with the three points you raised. I'm sorry, except for the last one. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Building fees? COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They shouldn't have to pay for permits like anybody else? COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm not sure if they should have to. I think that's gonna be on a case by case basis based on the facts of each case. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine, I'm gonna agree with the three points you cited. I don't think geography exempts you. I don't think by building far enough out, you can exempt yourself from those things you choose to exempt yourself from, so I'm going to disagree with Commissioner Hac'Kie's point entirely. I'd like to see us move ahead on the points that you've stated. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. Well, actually, geography does not exclude anyone. As a matter of fact, it includes everyone. It's called the border of Collier County. All the codes and ordinances apply fully to everyone within that -- that boundary and -- and to try to start exempting people, I think, is -- is -- that's not something that you want to do, because as soon as you do that, then who do you exempt next and why don't you exempt him and -- and then it becomes right across the street from each other, why is one being exempt and the other is not, but the principle should be that the laws apply equally to everyone. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Having said that, where do we go from here? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Speakers, I suppose. MR. CAUTERO: If I may with your indulgence, Madam Chairman. Based on what I've heard from the majority of the commission, a large portion of this agenda item, if not the whole agenda item goes away with those statements, and if they're adopted by a majority of the board, I would just ask for one clarification in a few moments on the fees, but the reason I say that the issue goes away is, if that is the stance of the board, then it seems to me that the individual information that is presented would be more appropriate in another forum and not in front of you, in front of the Code Enforcement Board where those intricacies could be debated as to whether or not a permit was applied for and so forth, and a lot of that information we've been discussing with some of the property owners. We can certainly work with the property owners along the lines of appropriate zoning and land use. Kimberly has done that with the planning staff. Minimum codes being met, I can assure you and I've assured the property owners and Miss Lee, that I would send staff members out there at their convenience to determine if the minimum has been met. There are ways that we can achieve that without requiring as-built drawings, which I think would be very cumbersome and costly on the property owners and I wouldn't want to do that, but the question on the fees is one that I would just ask for clarification on because I think that's significant, and what's significant is when you want to invoke and what impact fee you would want us to invoke, today or at the time if they applied for that permit. That's significant because it could change the fee dramatically. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: What was the date when impact fees started in Collier County? I know it was in the 80's, I believe. MR. FERNANDEZ: Eighty-five. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Eighty-five? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not early enough. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So anything prior to '85 is not subject to an impact fee? MR. CAUTERO: If a permit was applied for at that time, that's correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it makes sense that the impact fees due at the time they actually constructed -- it's kind of twofold. What it does is, someone is probably going to be a little more direct about when they constructed if there's a financial benefit to doing so and it will allow us to actually prove the date of construction a little bit better, so I know that's, quote, unquote, I guess, not penalizing, per se, but that's not really what I'm looking at doing. It's at the time they built makes the most sense to me, and if we can give that much, I would agree with that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would agree with that. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I agree with that. The other thing about building permits, the last time we had this discussion, there were several of the -- the people that had given testimony that they tried to obtain building permits and were never successful. For those people who have documentation, a letter back and forth or something to that effect that can prove that they tried to get a building permit, I don't have a problem with that, but if they can't substantiate somehow that they at least tried to get a building permit and were not successful, then I don't know that we can do anything with that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: What about in regard to inspections when they -- if they supposedly tried to get an inspection and at that time, we had people who would not go out into the area, for whatever reason, they mostly, I guess, they felt it was inaccessible, what do we do in that situation? MR. CAUTERO: If it was a request for an actual inspection, there should be a building permit or some document on file. However, sometimes the terms are interchangeably used. People might call -- and we still have this in certain areas, people say, I need an inspection, and they really mean, I need to know how I can apply for a building permit. If a permit's on file, that gives us a lot to go with. If a building permit's not on file and people called and asked general questions about permits and/or inspections, we're in the same predicament that we would -- that Mr. Norris just described that we'd have to deal with. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a question. I think it's page 47 of our agenda packet that tells us what the fiscal impacts would be for each parcel, and I just want to try to understand the exhibit itself, I guess, Kim. The estimated permit fees versus -- estimated permit fees. That -- that column -- this is attachment nine if you don't have a stamped -- attachment nine, section 16, fiscal impacts. Fiscal impacts for each parcel, and then that column says, estimated permit fees, paten, after the fact versus prior to development and impact fees. Can you just take the first one for me, Brainard, Parcel 27, five acres, it is permittable. There is one single family dwelling. It was built in 1985. I don't know if they got a permit from this. I understand that's a different exhibit, but you're telling me that they would either have to pay -- if we do after the fact, they would have to pay twenty-three ten -- I don't know. Explain that to me. MS. POLEN: Correct. If they were to come into the county building today, they would have to pay $689 if the structure was built COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's for the application, the permit itself? MS. POLEN: Correct, and if after the fact fees were applied, it would be 2,310.60. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see. So inside that paten, it tells us whether it was -- the big number is the penalty for late permit application, the smaller number is the actual permit cost? MS. POLEN: Correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And then outside the patens, you've got the 3,530.80, that's impact fees? MS. POLEN: That would be impact fees. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would that be impact fees at the date that -- in 1985 or present? MS. POLEN: Present, today, and one correction to that is that, checking with transportation, they are located in zone eight and they would be exempt from our impact fees, so we'd subtract 40 percent off of that. MR. CAUTERO: Madam Chairman -- I'm sorry, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I'm just wondering if there's an exhibit that tells me instead of the 3,530 less 40 percent now that we know about the traffic zone, is there a chart that tells me what the impact fees would have been if they were paid in 19857 MS. POLEN: Yes. If I could mention to you, we have four individuals representing seven properties, and if you were to go down one more line to Gillis -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. MS. POLEN: -- in your Exhibit 3-A -- MR. CAUTERO: What page, Kim? MS. POLEN: That would be page 14. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MS. POLEN: Under the fiscal and growth impact -- fiscal and growth management impacts, which is approximately two-thirds of the way down on the piece of paper -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yep. MS. POLEN: -- we come up with an estimate. If the building permit was issued in 1980 for the construction of the single family home on parcel 1.14 prior to any site alteration or improvements, the estimated permit fees would be approximately $240. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And no impact fees? MS. POLEN: Correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hopefully a majority of the board's gonna -- I mean, that seems to me to be a reasonable compromise. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think it's fair. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That if -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just make sure I understand what you're suggesting. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, what I'm suggesting is that if they paid what they would have paid had they pulled the permit at the time of construction without penalty and without, you know, adding on impact fees after the fact. In other words, for this one, which is Gillis, they would have to pay $240 to be, quote, legal. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask why we wouldn't have after the fact -- why a penalty for the after the fact permits because it's no different than, what's the gentleman's name, Arthur something, Quinnell (phonetic) who came before us for something he had put together that the project made perfect sense and his other choice was to take it apart, to take the building apart that he'd had, but he hadn't pulled his permit and we made him pay the four times fee. How is Arthur Quinnell any different than these people? COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't remember where his property was located, but was it a very remote site? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, it was within Collier County. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, sir, I'm clear that it was. Thank you for that. That's extremely informative. I was more interested in where within Collier County it was because these are such remote sites and as we go forward and hear the public testimony, and maybe I should give up and just let that start, you'll hear as you did in November, that there are circumstances here, unusual circumstances. It's not where somebody just said, I don't feel like being bothered. I'll show that Collier County Commission, I'm not going to pay their permit fees. They called, they tried, you know. There's such a thing as being out in the country where it's hard to have access to government services. This seems to me to be the kind of circumstances where, at the most we should do to them is make them pay what they would have paid if they'd done it right the first time. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't understand the -- I mean, I don't recall where Arthur Quinnell's property was. I guess -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What did he build, Tim? Was it like a pool or something? I mean, it was not -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: He's had a couple, actually. One was like a pool or some recreational structure. The other was a commercial structure that was a storage -- covered storage. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, yeah, I remember that. It was in an industrial park. Different from this because of the remoteness of the location. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess you, being an attorney, you realize, and I'm not trying to be flip, but you realize, unfortunately, that the letter of the law has to be applied. You can't selectively choose that, and I tend to agree with Commissioner Norris that we can't select -- I understand where you're headed and what you're trying to say, but nonetheless, if you choose to live in a remote part of the county, that does not exempt you from following the requirements to permit and to do what you need to do, and I understand there are a couple people who may be able to document that they made that effort. That's fine, but -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm clear my position is bad lawyering, you know, I'm not being a good lawyer by saying this and I'm not being a good technician, but I think that it's one of those cases where if we would just step back and have some perspective, if we were not sitting up here and have some perspective about what government's role in the community should be, we could have some practical common sense about what's necessary, and we do have to maybe make some corrections to bring these into technical compliance and we need to do that to the extent it keeps people safe, but let's not get overexcited about our roles as government enforcers and try to just do something practical. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Cautero, let me just make -- one other question to clarify something for me. If we're going to inspect a home that was built in 1980 or 1974 for code compliance, it will have to be as the code existed at that time; is that correct? MR. CAUTERO: That's correct. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Not modern day codes? MR. CAUTERO: That's correct, unless improvements were made. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Unless what was the -- MR. CAUTERO: Unless improvements were made subsequent to that code change. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- the direction I would like to see this head is that we adopt policy guidelines that we feel are appropriate for the -- the area in question, that we direct those to the Code Enforcement Board to hear the testimony on those, not to say that people can't speak here today, of course, but that the Code Enforcement Board be the body to make the final decision in accordance with those policy guidelines established by this board. That seems to make the most sense to me, and if a majority of the board agrees with that direction, I think it would be helpful, before going to speakers, if Commissioner Constantine would enunciate the points that he made and any additional points at least so everyone knows what it is we're talking about and where we're referring them to, if we can do that, again, if the majority of the board agrees with that, I would like to take that as a direction today. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What was the third point again, Commissioner -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me repeat all three. One is, must meet appropriate zoning, and obviously, you know, you can't have, a batch plant was my example last week, if it's not industrial zoning. It must meet the zoning. It must meet county code, and I think Commissioner Norris just pointed out, it has to meet the code for whenever it was constructed, and must pay the after the fact building permit fees and the penalty that goes along with that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can't go with the third point, obviously. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What about impact fees? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Whatever they were at time of construction, yeah. I really don't have a problem trying to go back and make that applicable to today's impact fees. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Right, so -- but when you say -- you said permit fees and penalties, but you're actually including -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a footnote that includes impact fees that would be applicable at the time of construction. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Just wanted to clarify what you said. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hay I ask a question about that third point? Mr. Cautero, the after the fact permit fees means you take your regular building permit if -- this $240, multiply it by four? Okay, and the then current impact fees -- MR. CAUTERO: We would determine when the structure was built. Kimberly's research has done that. If that information is incorrect, it would come to light before the final paperwork is processed and we would look at the ordinances, determine if they were in effect or not. If they weren't, there wouldn't be an impact fee, and if there were impact fees in effect at the time, it would vary based on what ordinances were adopted at the time of construction. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Kim, do you have a feel for -- I know that you didn't put it on a matrix chart, but you have it on this sheet by sheet basis, but this -- on the matrix, this page 47, attachment nine, the 3,530 that's on most of these people, that's gonna be impact fees that were post 1985, right? MS. POLEN: Correct. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I mean, we didn't have any before 19857 MS. POLEN: Correct. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So there are one, two, three -- I mean, there aren't a lot -- well, no, four, five, yeah, because some people did some improvements, maybe a third or even half of these would be subject to impact fees if we enforce that policy, so they would have -- so everybody would have to pay four times their permit fee and about half of them would have to pay about $3,500 worth of -- MR. CAUTERO: Minus transportation. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Not everybody will have to pay four times their permit fee because if they can prove, once again, document that they tried to get a permit and were unsuccessful, then I have no objection to letting that stand. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that would be in the discretion of the Code Enforcement Board so, you know, that judgment call would fall to them on that matter. I'm comfortable with that course of direction and all points contained in it. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm not with the four times the after the fact permit fees. Do you want to poll the board so that people have some idea or do they already know that there's support for that? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we can count Commissioner Constantine in. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I can count three votes. That's all I can count. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. I just wanted to be sure. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I've got some concern about this, but I think we'll call for public speakers at this time. MR. FERNANDEZ: First speaker is Bobbie Jean Gillis and then Debi K. Lee. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think if we could maybe let Ms. Lee speak first and then she will bring some of these others up. MS. LEE: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, my name is Debi Lee and I'm glad you waited a moment so I can respond to some of the things you're just saying. One of the things that is in Exhibit 1 in our response that I do -- in regards to referring any of these cases to the Code Enforcement Board, I mean, the very first page, I don't know how it's listed as -- Exhibit 1 of my response would be page one where I have looked up some Florida Statutes and it looks like the code enforcement process and the way that they're applying it to this area would not even really apply. That it shouldn't be a code enforcement issue, but that would be something that would have to legally be worked out, and another thing, as far as penalties, we -- when we originally -- it was the park's involvement. It took them two years to convince Code Enforcement to come out here and look at these properties, and only when D.C.A. got involved in early '94 did they come out here and take a look at them. They were aware that these properties existed and -- I'm sorry. As far as the penalties, when we first responded, Mr. Clark was the acting administrator and the code enforcement. They were waived. It's in writing twice within this report, one in attachment five to the executive summary, and then in another attachment, page 33 of Exhibit 1 where Mr. Kirby wrote to Bettye Matthews that these have been waived by Mr. Clark. We seem to be having a problem with -- the present stance is that development services -- that the homes are illegal and there's no acceptance of any responsibility for any past decisions or determinations made by any Collier County officials and -- including the ones made by Richard Clark and Mike Kirby in our recent responses and -- even as a verbal contract is binding in a court of law, public officials acting in a position of authority should be able to be relied upon, and so we are asking at least that you honor the waiver of penalties as described in writing and that you reaffirm the position about the impact fees stated originally that -- back to the time when the structures were built. Also, one more thing about impact fees is that replacements, generally, like if I go right now and I permit a replacement home, it does not incur impact fees to date, so, you know, to -- to say that because so and so replaced their mobile home in '89, that wouldn't incur impact fees, and now I'm going to go ahead and proceed into my little thing I had written up to introduce the people. We have prepared for three of the owners to speak today because you had been concerned in their individual experiences with permitting, and we do, once again, want to prove that this was an overall area, that this was the situation from the mid 70's clear through as late as the late 80's where the remoteness -- the county officials did not want to come out and we can prove it up to '87. I intend to stand beside each to clarify anything, and I have five different points with their issues that they list in the recommendation, and I thank Kimberly for going back and changing the summary to reflect the fees that were in effect at the time and for including on the recommendation the rewording to ask you for either an exemption or a forward to the code enforcement, but of the five issues, the legal access issue, it's an issue that I don't really know how can be resolved. We do have -- when Mr. Looney subdivided in '79, we do have easements reserved, but our actual physical access -- the roads were constructed along existing roads, existing logging roads, which I have on an aerial dated 1973, and they usually run only 12 to 15 feet, so with this 20 foot width, I don't know what we can -- you know, we don't want to impact the wetland area to -- to make our access roads better. The issue two, use and compliance with present zoning of conservation area of critical state concern enacted in 1991. The majority use out there is in compliance with this zoning, single family residences, but this community was established under agricultural zoning which existed clear up until 1991, although the special treatment overlay was in 1989, and if you look at the '73 zoning, which is Exhibit 1, page 42, that was at the time that the three mobile home permits that we were able to get were issued, and it seems to be sort of unclear on what the stance of the mobile homes was at that time. The '82 zoning lists both single families and mobile homes as accessory uses in an agricultural area, which is another thing we're having with this temporary use of mobile homes which would concern many of the people out there. The latest installation date -- original installation date of any home out there was 1985, late 1985, and I believe that that gentleman has already sold to the park. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Miss Lee, can I ask you a question? MS. LEE: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You referenced attachment five and said that that -- Mr. Clark or someone -- Mr. Kirby through Mr. Clark had waived all -- all fees, and as I read it, that's not how it reads. It does point out that -- when you started to get on the idea of impact fees, and it does, I think, point out those dates and that perhaps impact fees won't be applicable, but item seven in that note says exactly the opposite of what you said. It says, they must be in compliance with the local building and zoning codes. The residents need to repair any leaking septic and drain field problems -- MS. LEE: Which we've done. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- obtain after the fact building and special treatment permits for the buildings and structures that they intend to keep. That's one of the issues we're talking about right now, and remove any structures, litter or junk that would constitute a county violation, so I think this is -- MS. LEE: I apologize -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- from February of 1995 is the same thing that we're saying today. MS. LEE: I apologize. I am talking about the penalties which were waived by -- on 1/12 by Mr. Clark and I apologize for referring to the wrong page. It was in item -- let's see what page it is. It's Exhibit 1, page 33, a report by Mike Kirby and it states that all -- at that time, they were double -- the penalties were two times and now they're four times, and at that time, Mr. Clark acknowledged that this was a problem. He had compared it over to Six L Farms as the closest that they knew of that they had to resolve, and he acknowledged that -- he realized that it was the case, that because of the remoteness, we probably didn't get the permits, even though we attempted them and he waived the double fees and gave extension, and then, of course, we had all the problems with him disappearing and -- and, you know, confusion within the county staff, so it wasn't brought up again until late '96, but, you know, I'm asking for that to be honored the same way that -- whether or not a county employee had -- had the right to tell people, I'm sorry, we don't want to come out there and inspect, we don't have the vehicles, you're too far away, just build to code, that's all we have to go to. When I go to the county right now, I have no one else to go to but the county officials, and if they tell me to do a certain thing, I have to do that and I think that should be honored, you know. County employees are -- they're working for us. They should honor -- you know, it should be honored. The position and what they say should be honored, especially if that's all you have to go to. In regards to the next issue, number three, which was structures built in compliance with present building codes, I know that that's a concern and I can state that on Exhibit 1, page three, item four, I had responded to that under what's called building safety. From the beginning of these violations, we have offered a release of liability to be attached to our deeds in whatever necessary way. The homes have been proven safe over time and Collier County cannot be held liable. It would be impossible to integrally inspect finished structures. I have spoken with the inspectors and that was their suggestion. They said, we cannot integrally inspect inside walls. The only type of inspection could be for a general life and safety inspection that you could do, and there is a state chapter which will, I mean, should it come to that, which would protect owner occupied family residences from a forced inspection, but we have been agreeable to, you know, a minimal inspection the whole time for life and safety and we have also been willing to release you from any liability. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just see Mr. Cautero shaking his head. I don't think there's any state statute that tells the county they can't inspect things for -- MS. LEE: It's statute nine -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Cautero, maybe you can come up and help with that. MS. LEE: Gee, all the times I shook my head while I was sitting back there, you guys didn't call me up. MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero, for the record. I don't know what chapter Miss Lee is alluding to, but I'm not aware of any provision in state law that says that if you're an owner-builder, that you are not compelled to have an inspection by the entity. MS. LEE: No, that wasn't -- now, that's within your county laws, but the state chapter, 933.21 protects owner occupied family residences from forced inspections. You could not literally force them, according to the state statute. MR. CAUTERO: All right. I think Mr. Weigel would have to opine on that, but that's not my understanding, Commissioner. MS. LEE: But you know, that's not -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I've listened carefully to your comments and there's one thing that you continue consistently to leave out. MS. LEE: What? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that is that you, as a property owner, wherever you live in the United States, have responsibilities. MS. LEE: Correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Those responsibilities rest squarely on your shoulders to comply with the building codes and the laws in the area in which you live. MS. LEE: Correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was not completed. You talked about no one being told that they needed to get permits, yet we do have permits for some septic systems. We do have some people in the area that did get permits for work that was done out there, so there's not a blanket case of people not even being unaware, but being unable to get permits, and that's why I think we have individual cases here, but the one thing as you continue to quote what state law you choose, is that that state law also indicates you bear the responsibility to apply for the necessary permits to construct, and if you do not do that, then you are in violation. So for each element over here, you say this person's word should be good, let's remind ourselves that the responsibility to obtain a permit rests squarely with you. We are not a police state. We do not have the tax money, nor do we have the desire to go out and send police squads out to look at every parcel going up, every building going up county-wide to make sure they did what they were supposed to do. That's why we put the burden on you, the property owner, because that's not what government's for. So I just ask that we remind ourselves that that responsibility started with the property owner, not with the county. MS. LEE: Correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not for us to ensure that you follow the law, but that you have to follow the law out of the chute, so I think that's important enough that we need to keep that in mind as we go through this process. MS. LEE: I agree with you wholeheartedly, and let me point out that the few people that were able to obtain permits, it was done simply because one of the neighbors, one of the property owners, knew the gentleman personally in Immokalee at the building department, Mr. Tillis. He convinced them -- his -- this one gentleman went up one day and obtained all the permits for the first three mobile homes and just guesstimated what the mobile home sizes were, and Hiss Henry for one, she, you know, specifically spoke to the man, you know we're building a house, and he says, I know, but I'm not going to come out there. So the very people who went to all the effort to obtain the very permits that have been issued were the same people who were refused inspections, who then later, when trying to get another permit for an addition -- like Hiss Henry bought property for her son, Ms. HcCulloch bought an extra property for their children, so the very people that had -- and that's the only successful permit, the only one that was inspected was Ms. HcCulloch's, yet, you know, several years later, 80 -- from '76 to '80, she could not get the building department to come down, and you cannot, as a citizen, your responsibility -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ha'am, we have already said that those individual circumstances should come to bear in the individual decisions. MS. LEE: That's correct. Oh, I agree with that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So that's already been said. Mr. Weigel, do we have the authority to direct this matter to Code Enforcement and Code Enforcement to hear it? MR. WEIGEL: Yes, you do. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Madam Chair, I mean, we can listen to the individual cases to make the point of what should and shouldn't be applied here today, but if we're going to direct it to Code Enforcement, it seems to me to be a waste of time to do it in both venues, both this one and Code Enforcement. I would rather the individuals who are going to make the decision, which should be Code Enforcement in this case, hear them in their entirety and make a decision there. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let me ask a question. If Code Enforcement hears these, do the subjects that we're talking about here have -- I mean, could they come back to us? In other words, what I'm trying to get at -- I don't want to go through this hearing today, refer it to Code Enforcement and then ultimately hear it again, so what -- what's the proper order here that we're doing this? MR. WEIGEL: Vince can respond. MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero, for the record. If the matters are referred to the Code Enforcement Board then those decisions would be binding and then people would have the ability to appeal through the court system. It would not come back to you unless there's an administrative policy that you would control -- that the Code Enforcement Board would not, for example, four times the fee as a penalty. From what I have been told, that issue is not one that the Code Enforcement Board can deal with. They're dealing with whether a violation of the code exists or whether it doesn't exist. Your administrative policies contain the fees for penalties and so forth, so if someone wanted relief from that, they would seek that from you, but that's the only issue I can -- and the impact fees, those are the only issues I can think of that would come back to you potentially. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I think this -- this makes it a whole lot clearer as to the delineation. Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask one more question of Mr. Weigel. Concerning the Code Enforcement Board, it appears that this board is going to set some policy here on this matter this morning. Is that policy then to be completely binding to the Code Enforcement Board or will they have latitude to make their own decisions? MR. WEIGEL: Well, the Code Enforcement Board does have its own counsel. The county attorney is not counsel to the Code Enforcement Board. However, if the board, this board makes a policy determination which inserts itself well into the application of the codes, ordinances that are before the Code Enforcement Board, I would expect that they would respect that. We have learned in some of the more arduous hearings in the past that they have tempered the direct application of law with the facts and other ancillary issues around it, so I would expect that would continue. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Then I don't -- at this point in time, I would like to offer that perhaps these matters should be referred to the Code Enforcement Board and if there's anything that we do, that it ought to be in regard to the impact fees and the penalties that are involved with -- with these. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: As to setting a policy? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: As to setting a policy. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I believe Commissioner Constantine has already stated four points that we either are going to agree to, not agree to or modify, so again, not to preempt anyone from speaking, but if we're going to send this to the Code Enforcement Board, which means we're not going to -- there's no point in hearing the particulars of each individual case today -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's my point. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and whatever comments we have, I think should be pertinent to the four points that have been outlined and at least three commissioners supported, last time I checked. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Miss Mac'Kie, comment? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Nothing new. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The rest of the speakers. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I think at this time, Ms. Lee, we have other speakers, I'm sure, and I think at this time we should hear from the other speakers regarding the points that Commissioner Constantine made. MS. LEE: Their particular items have been to -- and we had felt that you wanted to -- to understand the validity of the truth of what they were saying, so their preparations have been that, but I'm sure that -- did you want to come up and take the stand? I had just been mostly concerned with the points that are outlined, the five points, being dated -- at least dated back to the times of original construction was the number one concern. That was COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I believe that was stated, wasn't it, Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The only thing that I -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let me mention one other thing too, if there are -- this doesn't really probably pertain to you because you're here for this particular issue, but if there are other people here that are wishing to speak to any items, they should be registered before the item is heard. In other words, not during the time. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, we're going to limit the comments here to those four items, we're not going to get into the specifics of any one -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, no. What we need to talk to -- or speak to in regard today are to the impact fees, the after the fact building fees and so forth and county code and zoning. Would you state your name, please? MS. GILLIS: My name is Bobbie Jean Gillis and my husband David and I live in the Big Cypress Sanctuary, which is Section 16, Township 49 South, Range 34 East, Parcel Number 1.14. My father, Roy J. Looney, had owned Section 16 since the early 1950's. He used this land to hunt and cattle ranch. In 1978, he decided to build a permanent home and sell off some of his property. He had it surveyed and contracted with a real estate lawyer who guided him through the process. After trying to get permits by going to the building department in Immokalee, he was told to build what he wanted. He needed no permits except what Glades Electric would supply. Mr. Tillis told him his new home would still be considered a camp and was exempt, as all camps were in that area. My husband, David, at that time, was superintendent for DeAngelo (phonetic) Plastering and contracted to build my dad's home. He built the home according to the code of that time. Then in November of 1979, we went through the same process for a home of our own. I also went to Immokalee and spoke to Mr. Tillis and made sure that he was aware that we would be building a traditional home and not a hunting camp. He said we still would not need permits way out there except for septic and an electric pole, which Glades Electric would take care of. Glades did come out, as Mr. Tillis requested. The engineer inspected our septic and pole and told us that was all that was required in that area. We would have gladly paid for permits and had inspections. We wanted them if we could have gotten them. We built to code and then some. All our electric is in conduit. We used hurricane clips and oversized beams. We have a beautiful, safe home, a true labor of love with lots of sweat equity. We pay taxes, but get no county services. We, as a community, keep up our own roads and our children do not attend our school district. We would not complain now, except for what has been levied against us. We all tried to get these permits before the fact and should not be penalized now, 18 years later. Thank you for your time and consideration. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker's Alison HcCulloch and then Barbara Henry. MS. HCCULLOCH: I have a long story here, but I'm not going to tell it. I have it written out and I believe you've seen copies of it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Could we have your name, please? MS. HCCOLLOCH: I'm sorry, Alison HcColloch, and I'm referring to Parcels 15 and 19. My husband and I, Leonard, and I moved out to Big Cypress in 1974. We owned a sawmill and ran a sawmill for many years. We originally lived without electricity and it was a wilderness land at the time. It had been improved for cattle, but it was very rough. You had to go through a deep swamp to get to where we live. In 1977, we got electricity through our neighbor, Joe Brown, and he helped us get these electric permits, which we -- we did pay for and he helped us get -- and he knew the inspector in Immokalee, and in 1979, we signed a contract for deed with Mr. Looney, and in 1980, we wanted to begin building our home out of, you know, lumber that we had logged and cut in our sawmill and we -- my husband went to Immokalee and he tried to get the -- the permit and the man would not give the permit to him, and he was very nice. I believe it was Mr. Tillis that he talked to. I'm sorry, it's very emotional to me. Mr. Tillis was very helpful to my husband and he had a positive feeling about it. He did not come home feeling that we were in jeopardy over our home. I was personally upset that they would not give us the proper paperwork. I come from the suburbs of Cleveland, Ohio and I could not see building a home without the proper permit, but we discussed it and we did not have money at the time. We could not see trying to fight this. Anyway, we did -- we went ahead, we built our home. We lived there. Okay. I'm -- we were not aware of zoning changes. We lived out there. We mainly did our shopping in Fort Lauderdale and when our daughters started school, they went to Clewiston. I home schooled them. I'm a certified Florida teacher. I home schooled them 'till they went to seventh grade, and when they went to school, we mainly did our business in Clewiston for a while, and now we mainly do everything in Fort Lauderdale. We did not see any notices about changes of zoning. We were never notified that we had, in fact, lost quite a bit of our property value at that time or we would have at least attended the meeting where they voted. I just wanted to say that I agree in the letter of the law being applied to all people. We are law abiding citizens, but I just would like to focus on the fact that the letter of the law was not applied to us. When we went and we wanted to comply with the law, we were told, no, you are in like another sub-culture. It is similar to the Seminole tribe in the fact that it was accepted, and we can get scores of people who can come forward and tell you that the accepted way of life out there was that the zoning -- that the inspectors did not want to come out. Now, they did come out and measure our house and we've been paying property taxes since '84 and they -- the property tax appraiser has been out numerous times checking on us and remeasuring and, you know, seeing that. Another point is that they did -- oh, the inspectors did come out once that I know of. I believe this was in '91. Our neighbor had been renting to some people working on Alligator Alley and he had had a few trailers temporarily on his property and one neighbor was not happy, and so the code enforcement did come out and we were told that they only wanted one dwelling per five acres and that this was their only concern. They told us that we should not have more than one dwelling per five acres. This was before the violations. When we received the notice of violations, and the year was '94, this was a terrible jolt to all of us. As you know, the -- the enforcement people are very heavy-handed. Basically they told us that we might have to tear down our entire life's work, you know. I -- I'm also fighting a cold as well as emotion. I don't have thousands of dollars. My husband died one year ago and he -- he left me and my daughters a very nice home that he built. I cannot pay this sort of money. I'm happy to buy the basic permits from the time that we tried to get permits. I have no objection -- I would prefer to be grandfathered in, but I have no objection in doing what we wanted to do legally back at the time when we approached the county. I think this is only fair at this point. I do believe in the law. I believe in fair treatment, but I believe that the -- the problem with fair treatment began when the inspectors told us, no, we do not go into your area, it's not cost-effective for us. I guess that's all I have to say. Excuse me for the emotion and my voice is gone, but -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good. Thank you, Hiss HcColloch. Appreciate you being here. Mr. Fernandez, next speaker, please? MR. FERNANDEZ: Our next speaker is Barbara Henry. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, I certainly don't mean to be rude, but it seems we're hearing the individual cases anyway. I understand the particulars to each are important, but if we're not going to make a decision to apply those particulars today then it just seems to be a waste of everyone's time. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You might not -- I would think that it's relevant though on the point of whether or not you guys are going to impose the four times, because it seems to me that the issue of how these people were treated bears on should they have to pay a penalty for a building permit or just the permit that was the fee at the time they could have applied. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Again, I think as Commissioner Norris said, as long as anybody can document that, I don't think they should be penalized at all. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Residents that cannot show substantive efforts to obtain buildings permits should be subject to the increased fee, period. They need to be able to show substantive effort to try and get a permit. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But the point is, that particular item will be heard by the Code Enforcement Board and that's where the determination will be made, not here today. We're setting a general policy that individual cases need to be heard individually. MR. FERNANDEZ: Miss Henry is the last speaker. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: This is the last speaker? Miss Henry? MS. HENRY: Good morning, Madam Chairman, commissioners, ladies and gentlemen. For the record, my name is Renata Barbara Henry. My husband, Charlie, and I live in Big Cypress Sanctuary, which is in Section 16, Township 49 South, Range 34 East, Parcel 1.17. Our two sons, Michael and Ron, and their families live in the same section on parcels 1.11 and 16 respectively. Even before we moved to the Big Cypress in May of 1980, we obtained a permit for our trailer, septic system and electric. After a sweltering summer without electricity, we finally completed the electrical work and the septic system with a mounded drain field according to code. In September of 1980, we were ready for inspection and certificate of occupancy in order to be connected to electric service, but when I called Mr. Tillis in the Immokalee building department, he told me he would not be able to come out because he did not have a four-wheel drive vehicle, which back then was a necessity when previously dry rutted logging roads became a treacherous morass of bottomless muck. I was, nevertheless, devastated when Mr. Tillis told me that he would not come out to inspect. However, his next words were reassuring when he told me to call Glades Electric and he said that they would send someone to inspect the pole and septic and then hook us up to electricity. I told him that we wanted to start building our house and asked what we needed to do. He said that we did not need permits in the woods and told me to tell my husband to build to code. Our neighbors also had the same experience and this practice was further confirmed by some of the old-timers. Mr. Joe Brown told us that Mr. Tillis had said to him that it was not cost-effective to come way out here for a $40 permit. Besides, we didn't get any service from Collier County. Since this was true, it made sense to us, and this protocol was further confirmed and validated again and again over the years as other people attempted to get permits, both in Naples and Immokalee and were discouraged from following through to the point of having their money refunded and being told to come back after the roads were named. Over the years, we, the property owners, built up, improved and maintained approximately two and a half miles of roads with an estimated value of $83,000 as part of our basic infrastructure. This did not cost the taxpayers of Collier County anything since we paid for it ourselves in addition to a lot of back-breaking labor. The children out here do not go to school in Collier County because we were denied school bus pick up in 1980 by the Collier County School System, so the children either attended school in Clewiston or in Big Cypress Reservation or are home schooled. Our house was built to code as Mr. Tillis specified. It was completed in 1981 and has withstood a hurricane, several twisters and severe winds in the past 16 and a half years. Later, in 1981, we built a garage and carport, and in 1984, a barn for our animals. That year, in 1984, not in 1991 as stated in the executive summary, we also moved the trailer after a mounded septic system was completed because our son, Michael, wanted to be self-sufficient and live on his own. In 1991, the trailer was replaced and the driveway was made to the road. Two Collier County tax assessors, Mr. Jack Redding (phonetic) and Mr. Jeff Davidson came to assess our house on March the 7th, 1984. We told them that we had been unable to get permits, which they already knew, and they said that this assessment would serve to grandfather us in. We have had homestead exemption since 1985. In October 1984, we obtained a Collier County occupational permit for our tree farm which we have renewed to this date. The lady who looked up the property records and maps never mentioned that this area was overlaid with special treatment and we were never made aware of the ACSC designation either. Needless to say, we don't get delivery of the Naples Daily News out here -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, that's one good thing. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Give her an extra five minutes, if you would. MS. HENRY: We're not privy to the legal notices. To sum up, it would not have been a big deal for any of us to obtain a $300 building permit 18 years ago, just one more step in the construction of our homes, but we were denied this option by a pact of convenience between the Collier County Building Department and Glades Electric. We were the -- we were the only settlement where a c.o. was not requisite for electrical connection and an inspection by the engineer for Glades Electric was deemed sufficient. After our initial attempts, we did not argue the point, but how many people would? We assumed that this was just one more example of services we could not have out here. For over three years now, we have lived under duress and the threat of dispossession. It has made us sick of mind and body. Big Cypress Sanctuary, which is as much a state of mind as it is a place, has been robbed of peace and tranquility by the various contradictory decisions by Community Development Services which have escalated to such a degree of difficulty as to make it impossible to be in compliance. Our property rights have been abrogated by regulations and restrictions imposed by various government entities to the point where one needs an ST permit to put in a little garden. We are asking you for relief. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. (Applause.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Debi. You can sit down. MS. LEE: I just have one more thing I'd like to say before you make any decisions. I mean, we're talking here about time after time where government officials weren't responsible for theirs as you state we should be -- it's on our shoulders and there is just nothing that can be done. You can't fight if they're not willing to -- to live up to their responsibilities, so please keep that in mind with any decisions you make. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Miss Lee. Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like to, first of all, for those of you that are going to be going through, if this board decides, the code enforcement process, what you've done in getting your dates together, your actions together, getting them in a chronological fashion, that's very important. Anything you have in writing is particularly important. What you don't have in writing, what you have at least by way of statement, by way of pictures and whatnot is very helpful. I'm sure the Code Enforcement Board is going to want to hear all of that. The reason that's going to be important is, it seems the difference we're really talking about here is whether or not a building permit fee is quadruple. The issue of impact fees for those that constructed prior to 1985, based on Commissioner Constantine's comments, if I understood them correctly, is a moot point. If you built before '85 and there were no impact fees, then we're not talking about that. What it seems to be we're talking about is a building permit fee and a potential quadrupling. That's going to be a judgment call by the Code Enforcement Board, but in the way of giving them guidance, Commissioner Constantine, if you would add to your points, I just wrote down roughly that residents that cannot show substantive effort to obtain building permits shall be subject to the current penalties. All it's asking them is to show a significant or substantive effort to obtain a permit. If you're unsuccessful in doing that, then I find it very difficult to quadruple the building permit fees, but I think we should, at least on an individual basis, request that that effort be shown to the Code Enforcement Board and allow them to make that decision if we can, in essence, give that responsibility to them, and beyond that, I agree with the four points that you've outlined. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I see Mr. Cautero -- MR. CAUTERO: Thank you, Madam Chairman, Vince Cautero. To clarify one thing, in that my understanding is, the Code Enforcement Board would rule as to whether or not a violation of the ordinance existed based on that, and a lot of the testimony, or some of it, you've just heard as to whether or not the people need to apply for a permit or not. If the Code Enforcement Board states that an ordinance has been violated and a permit is the source of correcting that violation, I then have to go to the ordinance and apply the four times unless you waive it. So just as a clarification, the Code Enforcement Board, my understanding is, unless I'm told otherwise by legal staff, they cannot do that. They can just state as to whether a violation exists. Then I go to your administrative ordinance that states four times the fee. You have the ability to waive that if you desire. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Cautero, you, of course, will be at the Code Enforcement Board hearing, I take it? MR. CAUTERO: I'll make it a point to be there. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If, based on the Code Enforcement Board hearing, if you would then bring back to this board a request for a waiving of that four times the fee on those that you, and by guidance and assistance from the Code Enforcement Board, deem appropriate, that may be the simplest solution of all. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me make a different suggestion on the same vein. Rather than bring it back to this board, why don't we add a fifth point delegating the administrative authority to Mr. Cautero to -- to waive the penalty portion of the building permit fees depending upon the testimony and the Code Enforcement hearing rather than bring it back to this board? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can we perform that in a site specific area, Mr. Weigel, is my only concern? I like the idea because we're going to base probably our decision on your recommendation anyway. Do we need to go through the steps to bring it back to the board? MR. WEIGEL: Well, I would prefer that it come back to the board. I expect that in terms of a defensible issue, maybe that no one would challenge it, but I would prefer that it maybe come back to the board as a consent agenda item. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, what if we try yet another option, and that is as part of our direction to our Code Enforcement Board to define those -- break that down for us, rather than just whether there's a violation or not, let them look at the specifics of that. They can make a recommendation. If we need to ratify that, if we need to put that on consent, that's fine -- MR. WEIGEL: That would be fine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But that way, that will be a public forum in which they can make their case and you'll have a number of people making that decision instead of putting it on Mr. Cautero's shoulders. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That makes sense, and then for ratification, it would come back as a consent agenda item unless it's pulled off the agenda by someone. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me try to put that in a motion. I'll include five points. That would be the first point. The second would be, must meet permitted zoning, county codes and impact fees at the time of building. Obviously, it appears all these were pre '85, so impact fees, if that's the case, are null and void, but if something was after the fact, then impact fees would apply, and the fifth and final -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Except replacement, which is consistent with the ordinance. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Replacement? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. That doesn't come under impact fees. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. And the fifth and final one would be, must pay the applicable building fees subject to how I started the motion out. We'll give that direction to the Code Enforcement Board to decipher each one of those individually as far as if there is appropriate documentation that some effort was made, great, we don't need to order -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So the Code Enforcement Board cannot physically waive them, but can make a recommendation to waive that requirement in the ordinance. If so, that will come back on a consent agenda item to this board. Does that meet all the legal litmus tests, because if so, I'll second the motion? MR. WEIGEL: Let's give it a shot. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. It's in that middle zone, isn't it? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. So it's -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second the motion. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That would be the second second, but what the heck. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You've already seconded it? COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, Mr. Hancock did. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. So we're going to take a look at permitted zoning, in other words, make sure that what's out there is what's allowed to be out there and -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Got to be consistent with zoning. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. And then we're going to review the after the fact building fees, which would come back to us if there was a question about penalties, et cetera, and particularly for the cases we heard this morning, the impact fee doesn't appear like it applies to that at all, and for replacement dwellings, it wouldn't anyway. At this point in time, I -- I think it sounds pretty fair that we look at those types of issues. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry, I may want to offer one more thing. Should there be a structure in which impact fees do apply, the issue of being told by the Collier County School System that they will not be served, I think we need, for impact fee purposes, to request a map from the Collier County School Board as to who do you serve and who don't you serve. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, let me tell you how that works, just briefly. It depends, at times, where parents decide to move with their children and it will come in on a case by case situation, and sometimes they are referred to other districts. There are agreements that are struck with other districts, and this certainly would have been the case perhaps in this particular situation that there may have been an agreement struck with the county. I don't know. I don't know in this specific situation. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, if no impact fees are assessed, it's a moot point, but I just wanted to mention that as a -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right, but I'm not sure that there -- if you're looking for a map, I'm not sure that there is a map, but normally, knowing where this is located and the distance out there, if you're not familiar with this area, you're in very close proximity -- an area that you might can relate this to, as you're going over Alligator Alley, before you get to the rest area, the Miccosukee rest area, just on this side of it is basically where you turn off and -- and head north to get to this particular area, so even from where they lived, to get to Clewiston, you were looking at over a 100 mile trip, and it would be very similar if they were to come back into Collier County to our nearest public school would be a pretty close situation. I'm not sure what -- Everglades City might have been the closest area that they could have gone to, or maybe Immokalee, I'm not sure. I would have to look at the mileage, but that's the kind of close proximity that you're looking to in terms of the school system. So you're looking at an area that is hardly in Collier County, but it is, but most definitely it is, and it is a unique situation and I know that, you know, you've got to be consistent and I agree with consistency, but I also think that there are case by case situations that we have to take a look at. I do think what's been proposed here now, it appears to be a relatively fair situation as a way to go about trying to look at each of these different items, so I believe I can support the current motion as it stands. Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just one last try on the point of the -- the penalty issue for building permit application fees, of the five points that have been articulated, I think that what I heard from the homeowners is that they agree with all of them except for a penalty for a building permit application, and based on what we've heard, because we've heard this so many times, I wonder if it's worth going through all these Code Enforcement Board individual hearings and all the staff time associated with that to determine on a case by case basis whether or not these people should pay four times the building permit fee. It seems to me that, in all likelihood, we're going to hear, I hope that we're going to hear that the four times the fee is not necessary in most of these cases. From a cost-effectiveness point of view, I think this could go away because they would agree and -- and would pay their actual building permit fee, application fee if we would just say that it's just the fee that was in place at the time instead of the retroactive four times. From a cost-effectiveness point of view of government, is there any support for our making the finding that the four times is not necessary, but that everybody pays -- in other words, this -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: In other words, pay your permit fee? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Pay your permit fee and then we don't have to spend all the staff and Code Enforcement Board time. I think we're going to lose money on the issue is the net effect of this. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, code enforcement issues aren't financial. They're consistency, and if the majority of the property owners have the same circumstances, the Code Enforcement Board will pick up on that. The staff time is minimal, if any, but what I don't want to do is send a message that we're not going to review those circumstances if you live out far enough. I think that's an improper message. I don't think there's much staff time involved at all, so I'm not supportive of doing that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's call for the question. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I guess that probably is -- is the only hangup in terms of the -- of the penalty situation. The only comfort is that it will be coming back -- I'm looking at it coming back to us. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It will come back to us as a consent agenda item and we'll get to go through this again. That's the bad news. This is just an ineffective use of government resources to fight over that penalty. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I refer to it as consistency. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But we've heard this story so many times COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we call for the question? You're not persuading anybody. I appreciate you making the comments, but -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It looked like Commissioner Berry might be being persuaded, so I was hoping maybe it would be a three to two instead of a four to one. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think the important thing is, that it's a Code Enforcement process, everybody will get a fair shake and if they have some documented ability to show they made that effort, they're not going to be penalized and that's what it's all about, make sure everyone's treated the same and everybody gets a fair shake and that's how the motion was designed. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. The penalty area is an area that I am concerned about because I don't think in most of these cases that that should be applied. I just don't think that it's fair, so anyway, I'll call for the question. All in favor of the motion as stated? Those opposed? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Aye. So motion carries three, two, and it is 10:35 and we will take about a ten minute break. (A recess was had.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We'll reconvene the Collier County Commission meeting. Item #8A4 CARNIVAL PERMIT 98-1, CINCO DE MAYO CARNIVAL TO BE HELD ON JANUARY 24 AND 25, 1998 - ADOPTED Item 8(A)(4), having to do with the circus permit. Mr. Hulhere? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Very nice presentation. MR. HULHERE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? (Unanimous vote of ayes.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Unless there were speakers who wanted to talk us out of it, but I doubt it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't think so. Item #SD1 RESOLUTION 98-19, OPPOSING FLORIDA CONSITUTIONAL REVISION COMMISSION COMMITTEE PROPOSALS 59 AND 77 WHICH WILL ABOLISH OR INCREASE THE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY CAPS SET FORTH IN SECTION 768.28, FLORIDA STATUTES - ADOPTED Okay. Moving on then to item 8(D)(1), a resolution in opposition to proposed changes to the Florida Negligence Statute. Mr. Walker, good morning. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Unless somebody is -- because otherwise, I don't think we need an extended conversation on this one either. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I need to hear something about it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is there something you need to get on the record, Mr. Walker? MR. WALKER: I think I've laid it out fairly clearly in the executive summary, but I certainly would be glad to answer any questions that you might have. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Maybe I should ask you again for your name so our '- MR. WALKER: I'm sorry. Jeff Walker, risk management director. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie, you have a question? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, just the -- the basic issue here is that we want Collier County to continue to have sovereign immunity? MR. WALKER: Yes, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that it? MR. WALKER: Essentially the -- the Florida Commission on Constitutional Revision has been meeting and they have two proposals which are going to go to the full commission. Both of those would erode the current sovereign immunity limitations severely and we feel that it would have a negative consequence to taxpayers and we feel now is the time for the board to go on record in opposition of those. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So do I, and I'll make a motion that we adopt this resolution. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. Any further questions or comments? All those in favor? (Unanimous vote of ayes.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries unanimously, five, zero. Item #10A RESOLUTION 98-20, APPOINTING ERNIE BRETZHANN AND REAPPOINTING NANCY MCLEAN TO THE GOLDEN GATE COHMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY COHMITTEE - ADOPTED Moving on then, Item 10(A) -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, there are two openings and two applicants -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- so I'll make a motion we approve those two, Nancy McLean and Ernie Bretzmann. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second, I believe Commissioner Hac'Kie beat you to it, Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just usually wait until the motion's made to second it. Technicality. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. I'll call for the question. All in favor? (Unanimous vote of ayes.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries unanimously, five, zero. Item #10B RESOLUTION 98-21 APPOINTING KENNETH H. DUNNE TO THE CITY/COUNTY BEACH RENOURISHHENT MAINTENANCE COHMITTEE - ADOPTED COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: On item 10(B), Madam Chairman, we have Mr. Kenneth Dunne as the applicant -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- I'll make the motion that we appoint him. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a very loose group up here today. Motion and a second on appointment to the City/County Beach Renourishment Maintenance Committee. All those in favor? (Unanimous vote of ayes.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries unanimously. Item #10C DISCUSSION REGARDING A BOARD WORKSHOP TO CONSIDER COLLIER COUNTY'S ROLE IN THE PROVISION OF FIRE SERVICES - TO BE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA Item C, discussion regarding board workshop -- possibility of a board workshop to consider Collier County's role in fire service. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Can you -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I did that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You did this one? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I did this one. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Can you tell us why in the world you did this one? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do you really want to know? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, I do, because we've studied this issue to death since I've been on the board. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, have you? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, several times. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Fire consolidation? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, no, no, this has nothing to do with that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Fire commission. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, no, no, it is whether the -- whether we, as a county, should continue to be in the fire business, all right? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We need a workshop for that? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, no, not necessarily. I didn't know if you would like to have this put on an agenda, and my idea was to have some discussion and some facts brought back regarding those advantages to us continuing in or disadvantages for us continuing to stay in the fire business. We have two independent fire districts, inherent problems -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Dependent. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm sorry, not independent, dependent. Change the record, please, and -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All that will be in there. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, I know. Some concerns over those particular districts. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'd suggest if you -- I think it's an important issue, if it has some information that warrants us looking at the possibility of getting out, then let's put it on a regular agenda and see whatever new information there is. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm kind of of the school that when the residents of those districts feel they're not being served appropriately by that fire service and wish to either form a single district or merge into another district, then it becomes appropriate, but to date, with the exception of the current discussion with Isle of Capri, and we're not sure where that's going entirely, something like Ochopee -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: There may be some other discussions as well. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If there's new information. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But as far as just scheduling it to have a workshop on the issue in general, I -- I don't sense that it's necessary. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. Well, this wasn't just an in general discussion. Perhaps we just need to put it on an agenda in the future and present some information regarding this particular situation. Does that meet the approval rather than a scheduled workshop? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Sure, it does. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's fine. The more information earlier, the better. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And let's -- since we mentioned the Isle of Capri, let's also mention on the record that what is currently being discussed is simply a contract for services. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. All right. That's important. Okay. Then perhaps at a future -- an agenda item -- or an agenda where maybe it's relatively light we could add -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We could burden it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, but not -- I don't want to belabor this, but we maybe have some new information here that might be important to the rest of the commissioners. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Good. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I think we have that direction, Mr. Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, ma'am. Item #10D DISCUSSION REGARDING READVERTISING FOR THE BAYSHORE HSTU ADVISORY BOARD - TO BE READVERTISIED AND ORDINANCE TO BE AMENDED REGARDING PROPERTY OWNERS CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie, Bayshore H.S.T.U. advertisement for -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Any objection to reopening, readvertising for positions on that advisory board? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: None. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd be happy to make the case for why we should. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Let -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Just a moment. Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: I'd just like to join with an additional question and clarification with the board if they determine to go forward with this. No problem, quite frankly. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Give me a 30 second one. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The 30 second reason was, we had a meeting of the first -- very extremely well attended, about 150 people last week. Of those, more than half the people in the room raised their hand when asked did you know that the opportunity was available to apply for a seat on the H.S.T.U. advisory board, and then almost everybody in the room raised their hand to say, could we please readvertise and open it up to a broader participation by the community. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But let me ask a question. How many seats are on the board? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There are five and there were five applicants. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. So you went through the legal process of advertising and these five people applied in good faith and now you're saying, well -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Those five people join in the request for the application process to be reopened. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: All five of them individually have agreed to it? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have not spoken with one of them. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Would you -- before we do that, would you mind having those five people notify us in writing that they do not object to reopening the advertising? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If a majority of the board's going to require that, I would, but I can tell you that -- I mean, do you not trust my word that they told me -- they were at the meeting, they raised their hand. They said, we would like for you to please reopen it so this is a broader public participation. There's some feeling in the community that this is being jammed down people's throats. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think it's a bad idea what you're saying. I think if -- I agree, only that that way we have some formal notification, only because -- and why I say that is because we've brought the issue up two or three times where one board member or a couple board members have said can we readvertise, and just as a courtesy to those people who have put their name in, we haven't -- have not readvertised, and given it to them because they were duly qualified. If those people don't object, obviously there's not a reason to -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm telling you that they don't object. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's go ahead and readvertise it. I -- you know, I'll make a motion that we do that on the basis that the -- even the -- you know, as Commissioner Mac'Kie has indicated, the individuals who have applied are comfortable with that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Miss Filson? MS. FILSON: Would there be any objection to me just keeping the resumes I have now and then adding to that as opposed to having them __ COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, not at all. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That was certainly my intention. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Sure, sure, I see no problem with that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think Mr. Weigel wants to clarify my motion. MR. WEIGEL: No, not at all, in fact, but in regard to this discussion, it's very timely, is that this M.S.T.U. created in December follows the model of the Radio Road M.S.T.U. created a year or so before it, particularly in regard to the advisory committee and the requirements for membership. As drafted, it provides for members to be residents of the district and I wanted to clarify with the board, particularly timely with the discussion of resolicitation, if that is the intention of the board here that they be residents of the district? In essence, we know with the discussion on the public record up to this point that there are some commercial interests that have been involved who, through ownership or through affiliation, would -- they may not be members. I should say they couldn't be members, arguably, under the ordinance as written because they do not reside in the district, but they are still part and parcel of the properties that are -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie, this is your baby so I'd defer to you on that, but I think we -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Property owners has been everybody's understanding, and frankly, maybe there's another reason to readvertise because if you're required to be a resident, we don't have five. Some of them are commercial property owners, some of the five applicants, so I'll second Commissioner Hancock's motion. MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think you may want to add to the motion that we simultaneously draft an amendment, a minor amendment, but amendment to the ordinance to clarify this, that either there may be membership on this committee by property owners or you may want to even make a ratio of two and three, or maybe you don't want to limit yourself that way. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like to avoid a ratio, but I will amend the motion to include a direction to amend the ordinance to indicate property owners as qualifying for membership. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. Secondly, then if it's a property owner, does it have to be the owner, him or her or corporate entity self, or may it be a representative of that owner? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I wouldn't -- for purposes of clarification, I wouldn't say a representative of. I think it needs to be the owner. If the owner's a corporation, the president or major shareholder of that corporation by default would be that individual, but I wouldn't say a representative of. I don't -- I don't care for that. MR. WEIGEL: That helps very much, and if you would like, again, the County Attorney's office may assist Miss Filson in the resolicitation that goes out to make it apparent the broader scope of potential membership here. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie, does that clarification jive with what -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. Thank you. MS. FILSON: Can I ask one more question? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. MS. FILSON: Now, would this pertain to the Radio Road M.S.T.U. committee, because I've advertised three times and I still don't have enough members for that one? MR. WEIGEL: That's the pleasure of the board. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll take care of that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion, I believe, before us and a second. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All those in favor? (Unanimous vote of ayes.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries unanimously. Item #10E DISCUSSION REGARDING THE IMMOKALEE JAIL FACILITY DESIGN - DISCUSSED Moving on then to 10(E), the jail. Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A week ago we gave our staff direction to go ahead and move forward with preparing to do a design on our Immokalee jail facility. I understand we have an engineering firm or a design firm under contract that they can do, without going to bid, up to $90,000 worth of work. They have submitted some sort of bid that is $89,700 on this, but my concern is that we do -- the one thing we've heard is there were mistakes made in the jail design that we have now which doesn't maximize the space. I would like to see us make sure we don't make that mistake again. The folks who we have under contract that the county has the ability to do that with do not have a background in doing jail design. They may do a fine job, but we don't know if there are other alternatives out there. My real concern though is that eighty-nine seven doesn't include some of the specifics that we hit last week. For example, very basic things, we want to be able to have the telecommunications between the court system in -- court system and the Immokalee center, much the way we do here so that we don't have to transport people back and forth. I would suggest to you that it might be more than an additional 300 bucks to include that as part. There are several parts of what we have talked about consistently putting in that aren't included and I just think it may be in the county's best interest to make sure we maximize the design effort, but also that we're actually getting what we've said we wanted, that we go to RFP. I don't know that the eighty-nine seven is gonna cover everything we've talked about and so I'm just seeing if we have some clarity for the board that let's look at, what are the different firms out there, what are their qualifications, what are -- what's a realistic price to accomplish all the things. The jail is just going to be such a big project. We put a pretty good piece of change into the front end doing the study. We're going to put a huge amount of money into building it. Let's make sure we don't nickel and dime and save $300 in order to get a design that may or may not fit all the requirements we asked for. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No, I completely agree. I think we need to specify more clearly what it is that we are looking for, so that what we get in the end is going to be the best product for our money and something that we will be able to modify and expand and continue to use for generations to come. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Generations of criminals to come. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Generations of criminals to come. Would our staff have contracted for a design that didn't include the essential elements we discussed, Adolfo? MR. GONZALEZ: Adolfo Gonzalez, capital projects director. Good morning, commissioners. We have a few proposals from an architect under contract with us for $89,400 -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, I'm sorry. MR. GONZALEZ: -- for the architectural services, structural, mechanical, electrical. I had intended to secure a similar proposal from a civil engineering consultant, a surveying consultant, a materials testing consultant to do the design on our facility, and we already had a preliminary scope meeting with the architect and the Sheriff's Office staff where we tried to explain our expectations, our understanding of the scope, and he affirmed these understandings of the scope, in that things such as the video technology are add-on's, appliances, if you will, that are going to be connected to the building. The architect did affirm that that is part of his cost proposal to it. We have typically, in the past, broken up a project into various work orders under our -- we have six different professional services, fixed term agreements with us to do that kind of -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know that that's the most effective way to do -- most efficient way to do a project this size. That's my whole point, is rather than break it up into five or six contracts that all fall below $90,000, let's do an RFP. Let's find out who can do the best job at the best price. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How much time does that add to the process, just for information? MR. GONZALEZ: About three and a half months, and that was the only reason I decided to go with the work order system, to save the time for that. We would secure -- it's a no-brainer, low tech facility that we're building, a concrete block structure, dormitory style. It doesn't have the same type of complexities as the Naples jail center. For those two reasons, I elected to go with one of our work orders. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I certainly agree with what you're saying for the Naples jail. I mean, there's absolutely no way we could piecemeal something that gigantic, but if -- and I'm sure you have looked at the proposed facility for Immokalee. It's concrete block squares. I wonder if we need an RFP for that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I wonder if we can build the Naples jail that way, just stack concrete block squares. I kind of like the idea. I'm going to -- I know that you put this on the agenda and I appreciate that. I guess what I'd like to hear from is -- is just the basic recommendation and reasoning from Mr. Gonzalez or Mr. Fernandez on which is the better fiscal course. Mr. Fernandez, you have gone through the jail issue in your -- your previous life in some unnamed county north of here -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Been there, done that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- so I guess your involvement and your recommendation is going to have some weight for me individually. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And maybe you're prepared to do that now, it's just that if everybody wants, maybe we can put it on as a regular agenda item next week and do it full out. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That makes more sense. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's do that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think that makes more sense. I'd like to see a comparison between what's proposed or what we have and what the other proposal might be. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chair? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: If I may, I have already expressed a concern with Mr. Ilschner that I needed to spend more time with the staff to discuss our approach to these jail projects because of the experience I've been through. I don't want to repeat some of those either, and I would really appreciate the opportunity to do that before I come back and give you my thoughts because I'm not sure that we have coordinated or communicated to each other our thoughts on our approach and whether doing it -- whether specific projects or a major RFP approach is better, we need some time to think that over, so I would appreciate the chance to bring this back next week. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In that analysis, I assume that we're going to recognize the fiscal and operational benefits of having this same design group move forward because, you know, a lot of our decisions are based on beds, and the beds were based on a preliminary jail design, so there's some benefit to doing that, but we need to be able to weigh that benefit compared to something else. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think so. That sounds -- we'll see it on the next agenda. Anything else, Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's all until we get to Item 15. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think we're done. PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And now we have any public comment. MR. FERNANDEZ: We have one speaker for public comment. Mr. Ty Agoston. MR. AGOSTON: Morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Ty Agoston. I live in Golden Gate Estates and I'm speaking for myself. Just an aside to the discussion here on the jail design. I have built two houses out of magazines. Now, this is an uninformed comment, but I cannot imagine that the Immokalee jail is that unique in character and needs that you shouldn't be able to get a design from somebody else substantially cheaper than what you guys are planning to spend, but again, this is not an informed comment and I just made that as an aside. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Ty, do you have the address of those houses built out of magazines? I don't think that's up to code. MR. AGOSTON: Yes, they are. One of the addresses is actually listed in the phone book and some of you may have seen it, and you charge taxes on it. You know, that's what's really killing me. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Special rate. MR. AGOSTON: To -- on a more serious note, I'd like to ask you, ladies and gentlemen, if there was a new format in running the government? I have received a -- an invitation to a meeting from the Tamiami Trail Corridor Advocacy Group. I had spoken about this subject about a year ago when I attempted, and several of the members of TAG, attempted to join this group and we were pretty much rejected by the chairman, and I cannot recall his name. I know he was an attorney, whatever, and that it appears that you have to be advocating in order to join. I mean, I think that's a magnificent way to handle it, in that they did not come under -- they did not get covered under the Sunshine Law because it was a private group. Everybody attending the meeting was government paid, either Collier County government or the state government because I've seen everybody in uniforms, and I remember Amy Taylor was having it, whose salary I also pay in a very minor way. Now, we are having -- this is the first invitation I got. One of our co-presidents got one. Apparently it took place on December the 15th, but this meeting in -- on January the 26th involves a number of sub-committees, and looking down the list of the people in the sub-committees, it seems that they are, again, preloaded with environmental activists, and I have a very, very suspicious outlook on environmental activists. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: And a low tolerance as well. MR. AGOSTON: I am not quite sure where they're going. I believe that they have a hidden agenda. As a matter of fact, if you look at some of the government, federal government published agenda, you don't even really have to wonder what their agenda is. They're simply following what's in the book, and in the book, they're looking for world socialism and this -- these booklets, by the way, are published by the Energy Department and the Environmental Protection Agency out of my tax dollars. The people involved here are, just give you -- and they are repeating from one committee to the next, Ben Nottingham (phonetic), Ten Thousand Islands, the Florida Panther Reserve, whoever. I mean, I'm not quite sure just exactly what some of them represent, these abbreviations. There's a Big Cypress National Preserve who is on every one, Chris Straton who was the president of the Audubon Society. What I'm trying to say here is these are all environmental people. Why is it that we as a county are involved in a private advocacy group, and if they are not private, why can't anybody join without them kicking them out because they do not conform to the advocacy requirements they propose to stand for? Thanks very much. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think -- just one comment on that. This is something that has -- Amy Taylor has chaired this group, this is the scenic highway thing, which I believe falls under the auspices of the NPO, they're a part of. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If they move forward, it would have an impact on the county roadway. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right, and it has to do -- and probably her involvement is the fact that she works for the NPO, and since it's U.S. 41, that's probably one of the other reasons why she's involved with this whole project, and so she's kind of the person or coordinator, if you would, for any of the discussion that takes place on that. Any other comments? Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: No comment. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: No comment. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Hiss Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Nothing, thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, we do have a comment this morning. We have to make -- I'll get to you later. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: She still has that teacher in her, you know. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Get that ruler out. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I think we have to comment that today is Commissioner Norris' birthday, and I might add that he finally caught up with me in age, so I certainly want to note that. I want everybody to know that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would we be joining in a rousing rendition of happy birthday for him? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not while the microphones are on. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Now, Commissioner Norris, would you like to say something? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, I would. Mr. Fernandez, I noticed that on our agenda last week we had printed, I believe, the new policy by our chairman of persons wishing to speak on any agenda item must register prior to that item being heard and I don't see it on this one again, so I just -- if it's the chairman's desire to continue that policy, I would just ask that we make sure that it's on the printed agenda each week. MR. FERNANDEZ: I'll make sure that it is. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. Anything further? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Nope. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You don't want to wish all of us something since it's your birthday? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You don't want to open that door. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No, I think I'll pass. Item #15A BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS COHMUNICATIONS - HISTORICAL SOCIETY TO TENTATIVELY HOLD A LUNCHEON ON FEBRUARY 17, 1998 CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The Historical Society has some things they would like to share with us and they have some interest in putting together a little luncheon on a Tuesday coming up in February, and I'm trying to help them make arrangements on that, so just kind of a heads-up on that. I think the 17th is a Tuesday which is expected to be a relatively light agenda, so we'll see about that, but just tuck that in the back of your head. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How lovely. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Happy to be here. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: God bless you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I have nothing to add. Miss Filson? MS. FILSON: I have nothing. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I believe we are adjourned. ***** Commissioner Hancock moved, seconded by Commissioner Mac'Kie, and carried 4/0, (Commissioner Constantine out) that the following items under the Consent Agenda be Approved and/or Adopted: Item #16A1 AUTHORIZATION FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "ARBOR LAKES, A CONDOMINIUM" Item #16A2 EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.626, YHOVANNI OTERO EXCAVATION - WITH STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16B1 ADJUST WATER MANAGEMENT CIP BUDGET (FUND 325) TO REFLECT ADDITIONAL REVISIONS IN CAPITAL PROGRAM Item #16C1 CONTINUATION GRANT FOR FEDERAL OLDER AMERICANS' ACT FUNDING TO PROVIDE UNINTERRUPTED CLIENT SERVICES TO COLLIER COUNTY'S FRAIL ELDERLY RESIDENTS Item #16D1 HODIFICATION #1 TO THE STATEWIDE HUTUAL AID AGREEHENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY, VARIOUS OTHER FLORIDA COUNTIES AND MUNICIPALITIES, ALONG WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COHMUNITY AFFAIRS, DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT Item #16El LEASE AGREEMENT (AND SHORT FORM LEASE AGREEMENT) BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND PRIMECO PERSONAL COHMUNICATIONS Item #16G1 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the BCC has been filed and/or referred to the various departments as indicated: There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:14 a.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL BARBARA 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 BY: Heather L. Casassa