Loading...
BCC Minutes 06/09/1998 R June 9, REGULAR MEETING OF June 9, 1998 OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1998 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRPERSON: VICE-CHAIRMAN: Barbara B. Berry John Co Norris Timothy L. Hancock Pamela S. Mac'Kie Timothy J. Constantine Bob Fernandez, County Administrator David C. Weigel, County Attorney Page 1 June 9, 1998 Item #3 AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning. I'd like to call to order the June 9th meeting of the Collier County Board of Commissioners. This morning we're pleased to have with us the Reverend Fred Thorn from the Golden Gate United Methodist Church. If you'd rise please for the invocation, remaining standing for the Pledge of Allegiance. REV. THORN: Let's pray. Dear Father, we thank you for this new morning you've granted us, for the rain that we've enjoyed. We thank you for the Memorial Day which has passed. We're grateful for those who have given their lives for the freedoms which we enjoy. We're grateful for the Flag Day that's before us. Be present with these who are to make decisions today, give them wisdom in your concern and consideration, be near to us that we might continue to grow in your love and care for we do pray in your strong name, amen. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Reverend Thorn. Mr. Fernandez, do we have any changes this morning to our agenda? MR. FERNANDEZ: Ma'am Chairman, we have no changes as such. I just wanted to call to the board's attention my intent to discuss under staff discussions, the decision whether to cancel the October 27th Board of County Commissioners' meeting. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that for a trick-or-treat holiday or something? Why -- I guess we'll get to that. MR. FERNANDEZ: International City Management Association is meeting in Orlando this year and a large contingent of staff are going to be in attendance. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Because it is close for once -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- as opposed to having to travel off to some COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Helsinki. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- other place. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And it is here and it's an opportunity for them -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Makes sense. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- to get to that particular -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It sounds like we just discussed it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, we did. But, anyway, we will formally cover the item. Commissioner Mac'Kie, any changes? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I've got one item I'd like to put under CHAIRPERSON BERRY: C what? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 10(C). CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. I'm sorry. Page 2 June 9, 1998 COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: C spot. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And it would be -- concerned a conversation I had with Mary Morgan. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: whatever Mary wants. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Normally we would just take action on I know. Do we have to have discussion on it? That's what I intend to do. It will be short. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I was going to say I think I've had discussion with her as well. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Me, too. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have two changes; 16(C) (4) I'd like to move to the regular agenda. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Wait a minute. Let's go to 16(C)(4). Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It should be become 8(C) (1). CHAIRPERSON BERRY: 8 (C) (1) . COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And one item under Board Communications. I hope you'll all join me in a rousing rendition of happy birthday for our county administrator -- MR. FERNANDEZ: That's all right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- at the conclusion of the meeting. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, you just flubbed up that whole deal. Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks for -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: With my vocal cords, I think I'll be taking a potty break at that point, but I have nothing else to add to the agenda. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. Thank you. Nor do I. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'll make a motion we approve the agenda and consent agenda as amended. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. MR. FERNANDEZ: Ma'am Chairman? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: I neglected to mention that item that we do have as an add. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: And that is the addition of 7(A), City of Naples' councilman, John Nocera, has requested a public petition to discuss skateboard park funding. I'm sorry. I overlooked that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Madam Chairman, I'll make a motion to reconsider my last motion. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second to Page 3 June 9, 1998 reconsider. Ail in favor? Opposed? (No response.) COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll make a motion we approve the agenda and consent agenda as amended by the manager. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Including Item 7(A)? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the one. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The motion carries five-zero. Page 4 June 9, 1998 Item #4 MINUTES OF BCC MEETING OF MAY 12 AND MAY 19, 1998 REGULAR MEETING - APPROVED AS PRESENTED Let's go back to approval of the minutes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'll make a motion we approve the minutes of May 12, 1998 regular meeting and the May 19th regular meeting. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I have a motion and a second for approval of the minutes. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Item #5A1 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF JUNE 11-14, 1998 AS JEWISH WAR VETERAN WEEK ADOPTED Proclamation to proclaiming the week of June 11 through the 14th as Jewish War Veteran Week. Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I believe we have Herbert Schwartz who is the Second Junior Vice-Commander. I believe we also have General Weiss with us. If you'd both come up and turn around. Your guess is as good as mine as to which camera you should be looking at. It's all new to us. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's one of the two up there perhaps, so just come up here and turn around and face the audience and that will cover it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I will read the following proclamation: WHEREAS, from Colonial times to the present, Jews have played an important role in the defense of the United States of America; and WHEREAS, in 1896 a group of Jewish civil War veterans organized the Hebrew Union Veterans, an organization that was later to become the Jewish War Veterans of the USA; and WHEREAS, thousands of Jews have died in combat for their country and thousands more have been awarded combat medals for the performance of their duty in time of war. A study of Jewish participation in the military during World War II indicates very clearly they served in the Armed Forces beyond their numerical proportion to the general population and they received more than 52,000 awards including the Medal of Honor, the Air Medal, the Silver Star and the Purple Heart. More than 51,000 Jews were listed as casualties. 11,000 died in combat; and WHEREAS, today the Jewish War Veterans of the USA combats anti-Semitism in all its forms, carries an extensive program committed to upholding America's democratic traditions, and fights bigotry, prejudice, injustice and discrimination of all kinds; and WHEREAS, the Jewish War Veterans assist veterans and their Page 5 June 9, 1998 dependents through hospital, rehabilitation and veterans' service programs and maintains Veterans' Service Offices staffed by professionals in major cities throughout the country; and WHEREAS, the Jewish War Veterans of USA represents a proud tradition as the oldest active veterans' organization in America. NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that June llth through June 14th, 1998, be designated as Jewish War Veterans Week. DONE AND ORDERED THIS 9th day of June, 1998, Board of County Commissioners, Barbara B. Berry, Chairman. Madam Chairman, I'd like to make a motion we approve this proclamation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. (Applause.) Ail in favor? Page 6 Item #SB EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED June 9, 1998 CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Service awards this morning. Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We have three service awards this morning; the first, for five years of service to Collier County is Randy Garay in the Water Department. (Applause.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Congratulations. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Next, for ten years in Road and Bridge is Chartchai Isaroskul. I don't know. It's got to be close. Help me when you get up here, would you? (Applause.) COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would you say your name? MR. ISAROSKUL: Chartchai Isaroskul. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was my guess. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sorry I didn't get it right. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Congratulations. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You probably deal with that a little bit, don't you? MR. ISAROSKUL: Oh, once every day. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think I've told Mac'Kie that many times. And last, for 20 years of service in Road and Bridge is David Sanchez. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He's either aging very well or started when he was 12. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Congratulations, David. Item #5Cl BONNIE STEPHENS, OFFICE ASSISTANT II, PURCHASING DEPARTMENT, SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION, RECOGNIZED AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR JUNE~ 1998 CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And next on our agenda, if I could have Bonnie Stephens come forward, please. (Applause.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Bonnie, if you'd come up here and turn around and face the cameras and we're going to talk about you a little bit. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But it's all going to be nice, Bonnie. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: In the office services section of the Purchasing Department, there are two employees who receive, sort and distribute the mail for the entire county. For the past few months, one of these employees has been out due to a work-related injury which necessitated that Bonnie assume a greater responsibility. In addition to her regular duties, Bonnie has had to assume the duties of the other employees and train the temporary employees hired Page 7 June 9, 1998 to help out. Temporary employees are just that, temporary; therefore, Bonnie has had to train more than one employee which she has done without any complaints. Bonnie still gets the mail sorted and distributed on a very timely basis. The mail room is a very demanding job for two people and Bonnie still managed to do the work of two people single-handedly. Her attitude has remained pleasant and she never fails to stop what she is doing to help someone out. Bonnie has done an excellent job over the past few months above and beyond the normal course of duty. And this is what got Bonnie nominated as the employee of the month for the month of June. Bonnie, we'd like to present you with a plaque. MS. STEPHENS: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And also, most important, a $50 check to spend wherever you would like. Congratulations, Bonnie. (Applause.) MS. STEPHENS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. MS. STEPHENS: Thank you. Item #5C2 PRESENTATION OF THE SPIRIT OF LIFE AWARD PRESENTED TO CHARLA ABBOTT FOR HER HEROIC ACTION CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And the next presentation, Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Madam Chairman. This is -- this is a real pleasure to present this little award today. Mayor Barnett, do you want to come forward? MAYOR BARNETT: Good morning. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Good morning. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good morning. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Face the camera, please. MAYOR BARNETT: Which one? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which one? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Either one. You can have your choice. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is high tech joint. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We can have numbers that you can hold up in front, too, Bill. MAYOR BARNETT: Thank you. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: On May 21st, 1998, Tristan Hemstra (phonetic) received a second chance at life after a family day of boating. Tristan and his sister, Mia, were playing in the family swimming pool on Marco Island. Unfortunately Tristan removed his water wings, the little inflatable devices that wrap around the arm, and jumped into the pool. When his sister, Mia, first saw her brother, she thought he was just blowing bubbles, but after she rolled him over and found that his face was blue, she knew that Tristan wasn't playing. 13-year-old Charla Abbott, Tristan's cousin, swooped him up and carried him into the kitchen. At first she was unsure about what to do, but after prompting Page 8 June 9, 1998 from her aunt, Laura Abbott, Charla began performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation with assistance from her aunt. Initially Tristan failed to respond, but after a few minutes passed, Tristan began to cry. When Collier County EMS arrived, paramedics found Tristan alert and crying but with very pale skin. He spent a few days in the hospital but has since been discharged. Charla, will you come forward? (Applause.) COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Charla, in appreciation for your heroic actions, we are pleased to present you with the Spirit of Life Award. Congratulations. MAYOR BARNETT: You can stay right here. You know, I -- you were wondering why I'm here, but years ago I had the good fortune, when I was running the Child Advocacy Program, to meet the Abbott family and it's kind of nice to see CJ that -- what you've become and there aren't very many of us in this room that can honestly say that we've saved the life of another human being. And, so, whatever you do in the future, this is something that you will always carry with you with great pride. Congratulations. Thank you. MR. AGUILERA: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, George Aguilera, Trainer Commander with the EMS Department. One of the things we'd like to do for her also is to extend to her a certificate for Charlotte to -- I'm sorry -- CJ to go ahead and refresh her CPR skills, so we've got a certificate for a, say, free adult, child and infant CPR class for her. (Applause.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Wonderful. Thank you so much for being here this morning and certainly our congratulations to the family as well. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like to just end the meeting on that note. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. Let's go home. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let's go home now. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It can't get any better. Let's go home. Item #TA CITY OF NAPLES' COUNCILMAN JOHN NOCERA REQUESTING PUBLIC PETITION TO DISCUSS SKATEBOARD PARK FUNDING - TO BE SENT TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD FOR THEIR RECOHMENDATION CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Ail right. Next, Public Petitions, we have Councilman Nocera regarding skateboard park funding. COUNCILMAN NOCERA: Good morning. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning. COUNCILMAN NOCERA: It's a pleasure to be here. And I come before you this morning with a slight problem that we have in the city. Really not a problem, but it's -- it's really a wonderful thing that's happened. The kids at the Edge Board Skatepark at Fleischman, we started out with like 300 kids, and this problem was a problem initially where the businessmen in the community had problems with the kids with the skateboards, and they were riding all over everything. Page 9 June 9, 1998 And we try to get kids off the street, so we developed this Edge Board Park. And we -- we spent about $45,000 putting this park together and it has been tremendously successful. We started out with 300 kids and now we're up to over 1500 kids, and we estimate by the end of the summer we'll probably be over 2,000. We've outgrown the facility. We need another $80,000 to make this facility really up to par. What the kids have done is they promise to raise $14,000 and our city council has offered to match that. So, that's $28,000 of the first phase of the project. We need another $55,000 for the second and third phase. And I come before you to ask for help for the kids in our community. I think it's a great project. You'll see it will be used a lot, and I think it will represent all of us to help the kids in the community. And if we can get this pulled off to -- to raise or if you can fund us $55,000 is really what I'd like to see you all do if you can do it. I know you have budget problems just as we have in the city. It seems like there's always some way to find some money and what greater project to be for the youth of our community. And I'm -- I have Val Johnston with me who is the director of Fleischman Park and she has with her a plan that would show you the phases of -- of one, two, and three. If you'd like to say something now, Val? MS. JOHNSTON: It's a great program. THE COURT REPORTER: Ma'am, could you identify yourself for the record? MS. JOHNSTON: Hello. I'm Valerie Johnston, supervisor of Fleischman Park. It's a wonderful facility and, you know, most of our patrons are the county patrons, over 75 percent, but it's a growing sport. It's a growing activity with the youth and -- and it's just -- it's been great, so we'd like to ask for your help. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine has a question and Commissioner Hancock has one. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a couple of comments. I -- Johnny and I talked about this a little bit yesterday and I'm sure you all have, too. And any time we can cooperate especially for -- for children, we certainly should. We'll have to take this and look at it, where it falls into all our priorities, I assume, as part of our budgeting. I'm not sure that we're prepared to make any sort of commitment today, but the one thing, if we do choose to participate, I wanted to make sure the city was comfortable in some sort of interlocal agreement from time to time, either with beach parking or other things we have arguments over. COUNCILMAN NOCERA: I kind of figured you were going to say that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Now we hear it with smiles that, gee, a big percentage of the kids are from the county. I just don't want three years from now to hear that with a frown on our face, so -- COUNCILMAN NOCERA: I -- I feel that the kids are our community, whether they're from the city or the county. I don't like to use that as -- as any kind of backup. I don't really care where the kids come Page 10 June 9, 1998 from. The important thing is to keep the kids off the street, give them a safe place to play, where -- where the parents know they can drop off the kids. We have plenty of supervision there and -- and this should work out really well. So, please don't -- don't throw anything else into this other than we're doing something for the kids in the community. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So, I assume if we did choose to make that a priority in our budgeting process, you'd be comfortable and I know you can't speak for the whole council, but will you be comfortable having some sort of agreement long term with the -- with the county, that assure the county would always have access to it, the same as city folks? COUNCILMAN NOCERA: Thank you, Jim. And -- and I think if you have followed my past, I've always been very, very congenial of working with the county and -- and representing the city. I think we should all work together, and whatever local agreements we can come up with that's fair to all concerned, you bet I'll be there. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Along those same lines, first of all, Johnny, thanks for being here. You and I have worked on the Youth Advisory Committee and it seems that the alternative sports are where our dollars are going to be spent in the future. Baseball diamonds and soccer fields will continue to be built, but things such as BMX and inline skating, skateboarding, the alternative sports, seem to be where the kids are turning now. And our Parks and Rec staff has done a terrific job of responding to that in the county and I've sure you've been to the Sanctuary Skatepark. We've dumped hundreds of thousands of dollars into that and it's very well received by the community. These types of requests, not this one in particular as much as all parks' request, and I see Dr. Woodruff is in the audience. We need to make sure that they all kind of go through the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board together, kind of in a lump, if possible just so we can prioritize them so we can take information from the council that you think is -- how would you prioritize the projects versus the piecemeal approach? That would really help our Parks and Rec Advisory Board come to -- to the decisions that we count on and recommendations we count on to make those decisions. So, like Commissioner Constantine, I would like to ask our staff to go through the Parks and Rec Advisory Board with this request to make a recommendation to us, but if -- if I could ask, if possible, in the future that we kind of lump these things together so that we can jointly prioritize them and send the dollars where they're most needed. I happen to be a big supporter of this particular project. COUNCILMAN NOCERA: Which it certainly makes sense. I just want to mention one thing, that we have kept the fee for the kids of $5 a year and you know that's a big difference, that what's been charged at the sanctuary in East Naples. So, you know that this project is going to be very successful. Five bucks, the kids can come up with a year. When it comes to anything higher than that, it seems like there is a problem. Page 11 June 9, 1998 But, again, the important thing is to keep the kids off the street, give them an area where they would be safe to play and where the parents could drop them off, know that they'll have supervision. We've got supervision down at Fleischman Park. This is a great project. And, sure, we'll work any way we can with you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thanks. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll just add my third voice in support of sending this Parks and Rec Committee for recommendation and with the hope that this is the first of several opportunities that we have to work together where we find that we're serving, you know, the community's kids, so -- COUNCILMAN NOCERA: It certainly could -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- thanks. COUNCILMAN NOCERA: -- open the door for all of us. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. COUNCILMAN NOCERA: And I would hope that you can possibly get this done as quickly as possible because if it's -- if it's possible, I'd like to see it done this summer so the kids will have this. We do have time -- there is a certain restraint time as to ordering the -- the equipment, so -- and I'd like to get more of the community involved in this where the parents can actually help assemble this, similar like we did in Cambier Park, so it -- it ends up being a real community project. This is a win-win. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That is great. COUNCILMAN NOCERA: I just hope that you just come aboard and find -- find the funding for us. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I've still got my scars from Cambier so -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I just want to thank Councilman Nocera for bringing this forward to us today. I'm especially fond of this type of activity because about ten years ago my son was on the front page of the newspaper with a couple of his friends, skateboarding, and they were being thrown out of places just like Councilman Nocera -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Like -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- said. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- yeah. COUNCILMAN NOCERA: It probably was one of your sons that was skating down on Third Street there. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, this has been awhile so -- but in any case, having these two parks available now in our community has really been beneficial for our kids. And there is a little bit down on Marco as well, so our whole community is united in -- in providing this type of activity for our kids and -- and I'm a big supporter as well. COUNCILM3~N NOCEP~A: Commissioner Berry, you didn't comment yet. I'm waiting for your comment. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The chairman goes last. COUNCILMAN NOCERA: I see. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Plus it's all been said and you might -- COUNCILMAN NOCERA: That may happen Saturday night also. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. Anyway -- now you -- my whole train Page 12 June 9, 1998 of thought is gone. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You fjustered her. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. Exactly. But I certainly support anything that we can do to work together on this whole project. I think it's -- it's a win for all of Collier County when we can do that. So, I -- we've heard you and we know what you want and what you need and we'll go from here. COUNCILMAN NOCERA: Great. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you very much for coming out this morning. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks. Item #8B1 CORRIDOR STUDY FOR THE EXTENSION OF SANTA BARBARA BLVD. SOUTH BETWEEN DAVIS BLVD. AND RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD - CONTINUED UNTIL AFTER BCC VACATION FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIRED INFORMATION CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Moving on then to Item 8(B) (1). It's continued from the June 2nd meeting, the Corridor Study for the extension of Santa Barbara Boulevard South between Davis Boulevard and Rattlesnake-Hammock Road. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before we get into the presentation, I really need to address -- and maybe Mr. Ilschner is more appropriate to deal with this, but we've had some conversation on this but I'm just kind of frustrated. I -- I pull minutes, and we've been through some of this, but I've pulled the minutes from the August 16th, 1994 meeting, which I will not read through all of them, but after a lengthy discussion, and this was by no means our first discussion on it, but Commissioner Norris moved to direct staff to proceed with the traffic analysis, thus making the motion in favor of some sort of study like this, and to eliminate alignments one and two from that analysis, which alignments one -- I think two is now actually different than the two it was then, but alignment one is still included. The motion carried unanimously by this board. When this came back to our consent agenda to approve that traffic analysis that Commissioner Norris' motion had asked for, nowhere did it indicate that item one was being added back in. As you read through the executive summary, which appeared only the consent agenda, so one would assume if it was going to be changed. At the very least, it would have been on the blue page and it is not. The executive summary says only to gain approval in execution of consulting engineering services with Wilson-Miller, explains the purpose for Santa Barbara Boulevard four-laning improvements by Wilson, Miller, Peek and has a dollar amount. It does not indicate anywhere there on that executive summary that we were going against board direction in the past. I'm wondering. This was a source of frustration at different times throughout the past six years. It seemed we had it solved and had not had this experience for a little while, but when the board gives some sort of direction, I'd like to have some comfort that -- that will actually be carried out and not ignored at the whims or Page 13 June 9, 1998 wants of staff and wondering what happened here. MR. ILSCHNER: Madam Chairman, Ed Ilschner, Public Works Administrator for the record. Commissioner Constantine, I have had an opportunity to research the record and determine that there was clear, unequivocable direction from the Board of County Commissioners to eliminate alternatives one and two when the item was originally brought before this board. Subsequent to that, a contract was negotiated and executed with Wilson, Miller, Barton and Peek, Incorporated to conduct a preliminary engineering environmental assessment. And in reviewing that contract, the staff identified, of course, several federal regulations and state regulations that requires all practical feasible alternatives must be identified and evaluated. Whether you bill them or not is a different matter, but you must identify those and at least evaluate them if you are to achieve permitting. And my opinion, as I will be totally frank in admitting to you, the staff erred in placing this item on the consent agenda back in 1996. Any time the board's direction is to be altered, it's my opinion the board needs to be notified of that and apprised of that and the reasons for that. This was not done in 1996 when this item was placed on the consent agenda. It should have been on the regular agenda. Those reasons for evaluating four alternatives should have been explained at that time very clearly on the blue sheet as you've indicated. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just to be clear, whose role is it to decide what's practical and feasible? MR. ILSCHNER: What is -- whose role? Of course, the board's direction would be to provide that direction if that direction exists to staff. And then, of course, staff would need to take that direction and if it has to be altered by federal or state regulations, come back to the board and at least advise the board of that need if we were to move ahead with the project. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My point is that federal regulation, as you've stated it, indicates that all practical and feasible alternatives must be explored. If the board says they don't think a particular route is practical or feasible, then we're still within the scope of the federal requirement. MR. ILSCHNER: I think if the staff apprises this board of what those federal regulations are and the impacts of not considering those federal regulations, and the board directs staff to still eliminate those alternatives and move ahead with the project, I think that's quite clear direction and the staff would follow that direction. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My final question, I guess, is, how -- and it's a two-part question -- is -- I appreciate you acknowledging what happened shouldn't have happened. How did it happen and how do we assure it doesn't happen again? MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: I'd just like to say that I am very firm in my direction to staff about the criteria we use for bringing things to you on a consent agenda and that is that it must be a routine matter, Page 14 June 9, 1998 either previously directed by the board following through a previous action or something the board has seen previously in another form. If this were coming forward today, the decision would be that this warranted a presentation to the Board of County Commissioners to let you know that it is a departure from the board direction that we had previously been given. The previous question though I think needs to be more directly responded to, and that is, as I understand Mr. Constantine's question on the -- the feasible alternatives, and I would ask Mr. Ilschner to address this question: Would this project be permittable if the -- this particular alignment, alignment number one, were not considered? And -- and the -- the implication of the presentation is that it would not be. The question is, in whose judgment is that? Is this a judgment that another authority would be making or that we make? So, I'd like to have that point clarified. Would this project be permittable if the alignment that the board had previously rejected was not considered? MR. ILSCHNER: It is my personal opinion and professional opinion that it would be rejected if that had not been considered and at least identified. MR. FERNANDEZ: And that's the reason why the staff felt compelled to include that option in the review that's being conducted. MR. ILSCHNER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And, again, my suggestion is that that should be the board's decision. If staff has that opinion -- MR. ILSCHNER: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- by all means come and share it with the board, but that decision really needs to be made by the board -- MR. ILSCHNER: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- not at the staff level. MR. FERNANDEZ: And I agree with you one hundred percent, sir. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Ilschner, was the reason that -- MR. ILSCHNER: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- we had to basically follow state PD&E guidelines is because we're crossing a state road when we did our preliminary environmental impact assessment? MR. ILSCHNER: I'm not sure I can answer that question. Robert, can you answer that question? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason I asked you, you cited federal guidelines. MR. ILSCHNER: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the only reason -- MR. ILSCHNER: The Corps of Engineers guidelines, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Corps of -- okay. I didn't know if we were talking FDOT or we were talking Corps. MR. ILSCHNER: No, sir. It's Corps of Engineers. I'm sorry. I didn't clarify that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. As someone who has been involved in the state's PD&E process and Corps permitting, I unfortunately understand fully what you're saying. I don't think that corrects the error of this being placed on the consent agenda and I don't think we need to, you know, gloss over that. That's important. It's key. Page 15 June 9, 1998 And there is a little pattern here and I'm not going to cast dispersions. I'm just going to state there are two or three road projects out there that the board has given clear direction on, yet when I look at the plans, they don't mirror the board's direction. Our staff has gone ahead with what was originally planned and ignoring the board's direction. And I will take those up with you individually, Mr. Ilschner -- MR. ILSCHNER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- because today is just kind of a -- you know, seeing this and hearing this discussion, it just concerns me that we are -- we feel like we're making a decision up here and then the next time we see it or we -- at worst we hear phone call constituents who have reviewed the plans and say, this isn't what you guys said we were going to do. So, that's a big concern. We need to be very, very clear on how we move ahead with those things and how those changes are made. I do understand the reason for looking at all alignments. It is imperative that this board today, should we not choose alignment one, state clearly and concisely the community purposes for doing so to assist in the application process as we move ahead. Without that, the application may very well be rejected also, so something to remember. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just -- just a short comment about all of this, is not having been on the board when that original directive was given, I agree completely that -- that when some -- the mistake was when it was on the consent agenda in '96. That was the mistake and that's -- we're all clear on that. I am, however, concerned and I hope that in your presentation we're going to get information. Since I was not here in '96, it troubles me to hear that a decision was made by the board of '96, that it is so shocking that an agency would not even give us a permit if we followed that decision. So, I'm going to want to hear what the basis was, and I assume that all information is on the table today but it -- I can only imagine what a position it puts our staff in if the board makes a decision based on community needs that is clearly against environmental policy and permitting policies and others, you know, so I -- I just want to acknowledge that that has to put staff in a difficult position when they -- they think that we've clearly made a mistake. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Pam, I think you're misinterpreting something. One of the alternatives you have to look at is the do nothing alternative. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Understood. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Now, that doesn't make any sense either because we're not going to do nothing, so -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sure. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- you know, just because you have to look at the alternative doesn't mean that if this board deems one of them unfeasible, and again, I wasn't on the board then either, but if the board deems it as a not feasible option, I don't think that's a heinous act. I think that's just -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, no, no. What I -- what I guess I'm Page 16 June 9, 1998 saying is -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You used the word "shocking" and I was concerned about that because I don't -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Are you guys talking about '94 or '96 that you weren't on the board? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: '94. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Because you had mentioned '96 you weren't -- you were talking about '96. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: '96 when this was on the consent agenda, it would not have caught my attention -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- not having known that a contrary decision was made in '94. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And just to clarify, the concern is simply that it appeared on the consent agenda, but that the staff action on that item was one hundred percent contrary to board direction, and yet that was not even noted in the executive summary on the consent agenda. What's bad enough, it's on the consent agenda -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- but then that's not noted in the executive -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wow. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- summary itself. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But in all fairness, some of the people that are here today were not here then -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: See, I don't -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- staff people. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't see that as fair, because if a board takes -- if we take a particular action right now, not only do we expect that to happen but the numbers who are in the public expect that to happen. And if somebody shows up here and takes a day off from work and gets up and shares their thoughts on something and we vote that way -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's not what I said, Tim. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, no, no, no. I'm just saying that's no excuse though. If staff changes two -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I understand. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- they should still be able to expect that that direction is going to hold. And in this instance, it didn't. So, it's not just about, well, you know, my ego, because the board voted this way. It's about the public only participates in this public forum, not at a staff meeting on Horseshoe Drive or in Building H. And -- and so I know that's all he said, but I don't want that to be any sort of an excuse for anyone that we've had changes in staff. That's why you have a board of directors like this so that there is a specific direction set regardless of who is sitting in that seat or standing at that podium. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: I've always regarded it an important responsibility of the staff, of me and the staff, to bring to the board professional recommendations, allow the board to make their decision and then fully carry out that decision, whether or not it's Page 17 June 9, 1998 consistent with that recommendation. As you say, that from time to time may put the staff in a -- in a difficult posture, but it is our job. It is our job to carry out board direction and to carry that out as though it were our recommendation, whether in fact it was or not. And that's an important responsibility that we have and I just wanted to emphasize to the board that we understand that responsibility and intend to continue to carry out that responsibility in the future. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Ilschner. MR. ILSCHNER: Madam Chairman, we will support that one hundred percent. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Wiley? MR. WILEY: For the record, my name is Robert Wiley. I'm with your Office of Capital Projects Management. We bring before you this morning the status report that we have at this particular phase of the contract, the contract with Wilson, Miller, Barton and Peek, a local consulting firm. Mr. Steve Reeves is in the process of setting up the hardware, software, whatever that thing he has there in his computer. That's why I'm presenting from this side. Later on we'll switch over to the other side for the public to make their comments here also. We've had a good history lesson this morning. That was how I was going to construct my presentation. I don't think I need to repeat that. What we have done recently as a follow-up to this contract that was in 1996, within the scope of services, it called for the evaluation and, remember, this is just a preliminary evaluation. It is not a road design. We're analyzing possible corridors and we were to evaluate three possible corridors for Santa Barbara to go from Davis Boulevard to Rattlesnake-Hammock. We were to evaluate three possible corridors for an east-west road going from County Barn Road to 951. We have done a lot of data collection. They have put that into their GIS software. We have a presentation to show you this morning the result from that data collection. This is a shortened presentation of what we gave in a public workshop on March 19th at the Shepherd of the Glades Lutheran Church out on Rattlesnake-Hammock Road. And at that workshop, which by the way was a second public workshop for this project, we let everybody know that we had a tremendous turnout of people. We had over 200 people in attendance, a really good turnout. We had advertised it. We called up as many of the homeowner associations as we could. We contacted the Naples Daily News asking for them to do a story on it so we could get the word out of what was going on for an alignment because we wanted the people to be able to come to the meeting and to evaluate the data we had collected. They live there. They're the experts in that region. They can tell us where everything is out there. And if we've missed something, we wanted that. So, the meeting was held and we did get a lot of very useful Page 18 June 9, 1998 input, not only of the opinions of the people as far as whether they wanted the road to go or not go, but more importantly than that really from our perspective, we got information where we had made minor errors, corrections had been made since then, because that was the purpose, to gather the public's input. We then asked them to provide us some written comments, if they would, in addition to their verbal comments. And as a result of that, we got a stack of comments back. There's about fifty some comment sheets, which is about 25 percent of the people. That's a fairly good number. The main concerns that we received from the people were concerns about increased traffic on St. Andrews Boulevard. If the due north-south alignment were evaluated, we did present to them in the evaluation you will see as a part of the presentation this morning that while we knew the direction was not desirable at all to go due north-south, we knew that. I mean, that was very well understood, but that happens to be one possible alternative that we feel compelled if we're going to advance forward with any permitting, which this environmental assessment is a major portion of it. We have not recommended alignments. That's not what we're here to do. We're here to bring you up to date with what we've discovered to get your direction where you wish us to go. But with the north-south alignment, as a part of that we did evaluate the prohibition of north-south movements through the intersection. That was included within the evaluation matrix. We had some concerns people expressed about increased noise levels and possible air pollution that a roadway could possibly bring. Those would be from existing residences and that would be along any route that we chose to take. There typically -- and I -- I would fall in the very same category because it's human nature of us all, a lot of people expressed the concern, well, if you have to put a route, put it at the one farther from me. And we all understand that. And our goal was not to try to put a road in someone's backyard at all. We're trying to simply follow through with the needs that we have to handle the traffic, which is coming in the future. And so the road, if it is constructed, has to be somewhere. So, we understood the idea of getting as far away from people's homes as we could. We have one gentleman who was there. He had a real good question we felt like, and that was, had we addressed public safety in an emergency situation, getting emergency services in. A very good thing. That's what we needed to know about providing access to the local roads. We felt we had. We still feel we have addressed that issue, but I was glad he brought that issue up to help remind us again of these issues that the public sees is needed out there. And then there was the question, do we even need the roadway, which brought up the question, have we evaluated no build? The no build will be something we have to address as we proceed forward with this evaluation going into design and permitting. But right now our purpose was -- were based upon the assumption something would be built, this preliminary engineering and environmental assessment. We make the assumption something is to be built, so what are the impacts Page 19 June 9, 1998 going to be from that? Who I have this morning is I have Steve Ries. He is running the computer. I have John DeWinkler with Wilson-Miller. He's going to go through briefly for you some of the presentation. It will be on your screens before you to show you some of the data they've collected and to let you understand how we come up with a ranking for the three alternatives, the north-south and the east-west. Again we're not making recommendations, telling you where to build the road. They're just showing you how when we put the criteria of the physical impacts, the environmental impacts, the community impacts and the cost. Those impacts put together result in a ranking. We want to show you today how that ranking comes so, as we proceed forward, everyone is fully aware of what we're facing if the project continues. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON BERRY: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: farther. Commissioner Norris -- Let me ask a question -- -- I believe has a question. -- Mr. Wiley, first before you go any In our board discussion of August 16th, 1994, we were presented with four alignment choices, not three, and we directed staff to eliminate one and two and proceed with the others, but now there is no alignment four in this current study. What happened to alignment four, which actually makes the most sense of any of them? MR. WILEY: Okay. The alignment number four is the alignment which proceeds from Santa Barbara projected south and then make a sweeping turn to the east and going into 951. What we have basically addressed there is through the evaluation of the full east-west corridor from County Barn Road over to 951. So, the criteria of it making the turn and going over to 951 is addressed through the east-west routing also. The alignment number three that is -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, no. I have -- MR. WILEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- to disagree. It's not. I mean, the point of number four was to move the entire arterial over to 951 where you could have coordinated traffic flow from the north to the south part of the county. MR. WILEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That was the whole point of number four. But now, if you -- if you do that, if you eliminate that alignment, then you've lost that point. MR. WILEY: Okay. Maybe I haven't said it right then. What we're saying is from the criteria -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. MR. WILEY: -- that we evaluated, we have covered all the information that we would need to cover to make that turn. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. MR. WILEY: That's what I'm -- I mean, we've covered the physical impacts of the road going over to 951. And making the turn is something we -- we can still do within what we've already evaluated. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Page 20 June 9, 1998 MR. WILEY: Let me also remind you -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine. MR. WILEY: Within the contract that we have, there is the provision for a totally separate four. See, we're evaluating three north-south, three east-west. There is provision. It's a more so directive to take a totally different force alignment, either north-south or east-west, and go back and do this preliminary evaluation for a totally new fourth alignment if we don't have the information we feel we need to for full evaluation of the project. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Wiley, I guess the question is, given our -- our previous conversation about feasible alternatives, isn't alternative number four or alignment number four one of the feasible alternatives that really should have been explored? I think that's the -- essentially the question that Commissioner Norris is asking. I understand your -- your response that we're covering that through the east-west examples but that doesn't preclude, I don't believe, the fact that alignment number four was a feasible alternative and should have been explored. So, by the same logic that we were discussing earlier, it seems to me that that's an alternative that should have stayed alive in this discussion. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, why didn't it stay alive? MR. WILEY: Which it did, as we took the east-west all the way from County Barn Road to 951 covered -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's not on the map in the packet we have today. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's just a hybrid of the recommendations that are made. I mean, you know, basically, you look. There -- there are six alignments here. Of those six alignments you can -- there are actually probably four or five others if you combine segment to segment. And as they go through the presentation -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, I see. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- what's going to be critical is what segments are we desirous of relieving the most and what mix of what's presented is going to do that? So -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- it's there. It's just there in parts instead of in -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- whole as a single number being called out, which, you know, might have been clearer. But regardless, I think that's -- that's what I'm understanding. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think it might be best if we heard the presentation. At present I think we have all kinds of questions and I think they can probably answer some of these. If they can go ahead and tell us what they'd like to tell us and then if we have questions, let's go from there. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Gee-whiz, that sounds like common sense. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Obviously you have one more, Commissioner Constantine. Page 21 June 9, 1998 COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I just wanted to make sure I understood Mr. Wiley correctly. The no-build option, hasn't been -- the impacts of an no-build option hasn't been considered yet? MR. WILEY: We will consider those when we go to actual permitting. Under this analysis we are looking at right now, we make the assumption that there is a build option only for the purpose of this evaluation. When you go into your permitting is when you address as part of your alternative analysis. You address the no-build option with the agencies at that point. So, what you're doing is you're doing your homework now in preparation for future design and permitting. And this is just one phase of the homework that has to be done. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would just hope if the no-build option is even mildly feasible that we wouldn't be spend a whole lot of time and taxpayer money on looking at all the other options. I think we're going to need something there. But if no build is an option, I would hope -- I don't completely follow why you do that as an after step instead of before. MR. WILEY: What you have to do as part of the no-build option is you have to evaluate the total impact to the community; can you still serve the needs and meet the requirements of the Growth Management Plan, which is directed by our 2020 plan right now on traffic needs. It identifies roadways in there. If we decide we don't want to build the roadway because of the result of this preliminary engineering and environmental assessment, then we need to go back and look at possibly affecting the 2020 plan, re-evaluating the traffic management plan for the long range projections. If we decide to do that, then there's not even a permit application involved. But this is to identify what we would encounter if we desire to build. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Proceed. MR. DEWINKLER: Good morning, Madam Chairman. My name is John DeWinkler. I'm with Wilson, Miller, Barton and Peek. I'm their Director of Transportation. We're here this morning to give you a brief presentation of where we are in our study effort. Robert indicated that we held public workshops. We held one back in May of 1997 to solicit a lot of input from the community. We also held one in March of 1998 whereby we presented about a 45-minute presentation, which I'm not going to do today. We've tried to take the highlights and try to condense this down to perhaps about a ten-minute presentation. The purpose of our study was to evaluate and analyze the social, economic and environmental effects on the human and natural environment by the proposed project. We also wanted to compare alternative alignments within our study area to evaluate the physical, natural, social, cultural, economic and human impacts of each alternate upon the surrounding community. We also included a public involvement effort as well as coordination with the permitting agencies for our study. Now, our study area was relatively large, some six square miles for this particular effort. The graphic that you see on -- on your screen shows that our study area was bounded on the north by Davis Page 22 June 9, 1998 Boulevard, on the west by County Barn Road, on the east by Isle of Capri Road, County Road 951 and Rattlesnake-Hammock Road on the south. The particular effort that we're in right now is finishing up our task to our preliminary analysis. We have completed the data collection and part of the purpose of this presentation is to solicit your input on whether we need to proceed with our -- our recommendation to OCPM. Before we started any study of any of our alignments, we felt like we needed to establish some criteria so that we could fairly evaluate one alternative against the other. We -- we felt like we needed to take the large study area and condense it down into corridors. We also needed to develop design criteria and standards for the roadway sections. We also wanted to develop some environmental and community criteria so that we could fairly evaluate the alternatives and how it would affect the community. And cost obviously was one of those considerations that we also considered. And the Carter identification, we took that broad study area and developed it into the shaded area that you see on your screen. The Santa Barbara extension or what we sometimes talk about the north-south extension, are connected on the north at it's existing intersection of Santa Barbara and Davis Boulevard and connected down at Rattlesnake-Hammock at St. Andrews Boulevard as one -- one of the connection points and the other connection point was at Rattlesnake-Hammock and future Grand Lely Drive. The east-west corridors were bounded on the north by Country Road on the north, extended pretty much along the section line over to Isle of Capri Road. The corridor was bounded on the south by Whitaker Road and you notice it swung to the north to avoid any kinds of impacts to the Shadowwood Airport facility and then connected back to Isle of Capri Road. Our typical sections that we looked at for Santa Barbara, the long-range plan identified Santa Barbara as an arterial facility, which means it needs to be capable of handling relatively large volumes of traffic. You'll notice in the typical section it's a six-lane divided facility, it has a 28-foot wide median which will accommodate dual left turns at the major crossroads, three travel lanes in each direction. It has a bikeway on each side of the roadway as well as pedestrian pathways on each side of the right of way. And the right of way in this case is 150 feet wide. The east-west connector was a, designed as a collector facility. The median in this case did not need to be quite as wide; consequently we were able to tighten the right of way up to 120 feet. It was a four-lane divided facility, two lane travel lanes in each direction, a four foot bikeway on each side as well as a five-foot pedestrian pathway. Some of the environmental considerations were that we wanted to minimize both wetland and wildlife habitat impacts. We wanted to avoid any of the archaeological, cultural or contamination sites. We also wanted to avoid, if possible, any residential displacements and we also wanted to try to minimize community separation. The cost criteria that we looked at, construction costs for the roadway were $3 million a mile, kind of an average cost we use for Page 23 June 9, 1998 wetland mitigation was around $51,500 per acre because we actually classified the wetlands into what we call high, medium and low. We also estimated a -- our right of way costs associated with the project and we obtained this information from the tax assessors or the Tax Appraiser's Office and actually had an estimate for both land and residential dwellings and structures. The process that we went through, I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time on the chart, but it shows the flow of how we -- we got to where we are today. We collected a lot of data. We met with the regulatory agencies. We met with both the public, government and political groups. From this we identified what we termed project issues. These issues then we tried to put together quantifiable information so that when the alignment was defined, we could actually score each of the alternates and make a comparison of one to the other. This process required that we come up with weighting factors to -- and this -- the weighting factors were determined from a committee comprised of the county. Our firm had some representatives, but it also included a good functional cross-section of both engineers and environmental people. The major objectives that we identified in this area, which came a lot from our -- our community input were traffic circulation, cost, community impacts and permitability. Traffic circulation considered such items as how long a particular alignment may be, compatibility of an alignment with the existing road system that would create unsightly skews or potentially dangerous intersections that the facility was built, and also how did this -- how did this alignment compare to the 2020 long-range plan that has been adopted by the Metropolitan Planning Organization? Costs included such elements as design, right of way and a roadway cost. Also it included the estimate of wetland mitigation. Community impacts included such things as how many parcels were affected, how many residential units could potentially be affected and also what type of external impacts would this alignment create outside of our study area such as the concerns expressed by the Lely Neighborhood Group, what could be done to perhaps offset or avoid some -- some of those concerns? Now, those costs were included within our evaluation. It also included an estimate of what it would take to realign the future Grand Lely Drive to fit any of our eastern alternatives. Permitability included such things as after-hour meetings with the permitting agencies, an estimate of difficulty of permitting any one of our alternatives. It also included, as I said, impacts to both wildlife habitat and wetlands as well as consideration of contamination sites. The weighting factors that we came up with, our four objectives from this chart, if everything was equal, you would expect to see 25 -- a number, 25 or 25 percent. You can see our committee felt like the traffic circulation was a little bit more important perhaps than permitting. And you can see the range of our weighting factors that we developed. It might indicate under each one of these objectives, there were 29 separate measures that we utilized to -- and these were also Page 24 June 9, 1998 weighted. Our alignments that we looked at, the three that we were asked to evaluate, alignment A is a direct north-south facility. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just need to interrupt there. Commissioner Norris pointed out before -- first of all, you weren't asked to do all three of these, but the fourth one you you've told us, or Mr. Wiley told us, was included in here as well or the information regarding that is all available in here, so maybe you can do that as part of the your -- your presentation when we talk about these three alignments. Commissioner Norris asked about the fourth, which was specifically requested by the board, and we're told it's included in this report, so when you say the three alignments, let's talk about all four and maybe you can fill us in on the fourth one as well. MR. DEWINKLER: I only looked at three, sir. Now, the other three, or I think as Commissioner Hancock pointed out, is part -- a part -- a portion of east-west and a portion of the -- of Santa Barbara could possibly be the fourth that you're talking about. It was not evaluated at all. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may, maybe while you are bringing those three forward, Mr. Wiley, it's a combination of a -- of basically half a project of one and a half a project of the other. I think what the commissioner is asking for simply is give us an idea of what the combination of those two would be so that we can compare it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What the commissioner is asking for is that the job this board asks for be done. And -- and we asked that that alignment be considered. Mr. Wiley tells us it was considered and that information is all available and you're standing at the podium telling me, I never considered that alternative. So, again, I'm told two different things during this -- this public hearing. Which is true? MR. DEWINKLER: The information that you have before you as part of the presentation is for a total alignment. You're asking for specific pieces. That information is available but it's not available for this presentation. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There was a total alignment that was requested from this board. That isn't included in this presentation; is that correct? MR. DEWINKLER: It is indirectly. It is a portion of Santa Barbara. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All right. Either it is available and you can share it with me or it's not. MR. DEWINKLER: No. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Don't give me half an answer. MR. DEWINKLER: It's not available at this meeting, no, sir. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MR. DEWINKLER: You're welcome. Would you like me to continue? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Continue, please. MR. DEWINKLER: Okay. The three alignments that we looked at for the Santa Barbara alignment A is a direct north-south facility connecting on the north at existing Davis Boulevard and connecting at Page 25 June 9, 1998 the south at St. Andrews Boulevard. Alignment B pretty much went through the middle of the community, pretty much down the back property lines between Sunset Boulevard and Sandy Lane. Alignment C pushed -- pushed as far to the east as it could without impacting any of the existing major developments and tying in along Parkers Hammock Road down at Rattlesnake-Hammock. We evaluated the various land uses that each of these alignments potentially could affect. We looked at the various residential properties and the -- the outbuildings that any of these alignments potentially could affect. Alignment, to give you an example, alignment A impacted some 28 parcels, did not impact any residential units. Alignment B impacted some 42 parcels of land and 11 residential units. Alignment C impacted some 32 parcels and 12 residential units. We also evaluated for each of the alternatives, the impacts of -- of wetlands and surface waters. You can see in your graphic that we've tried to identify the high, medium and low types or quality of the wetlands. Alignment A had some impact to some 19 acres of wetlands, alignment B some 25 acres, and alignment C some 27 acres. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Did you -- MR. DEWINKLER: We also evaluated -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, but did you grade those? MR. DEWINKLER: We'll get there, ma'am. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. DEWINKLER: The potential listed species' habitats, and the species that we were primarily concerned with were the red cockaded woodpecker, the black bear, panther, gopher tortoises, fox squirrels and the Eastern Indigo snake. Even though there's been reports, probably the only species that will be of concern will be the red cockaded woodpecker. Alignment A had some 30 acres of impact, alignment B some 30 acres of impact, and alignment C 34 acres. On the east-west alternatives, alignment A followed existing Country Road and then pretty well followed the section there, from there over to 951. Alignment B is a brand new alignment. There's no existing roads for that facility, but it's pretty much a direct east-west facility. And alignment C followed Whitaker Road for about two-thirds of its alignment, swung to the north to avoid any impacts to the airport runway and followed the southern side of the section line. We went through the same evaluation by looking at the potential impacts of land use, the residential and other structures that each of these alignments potentially impacted, the archeological and contamination. Most of the archeological sites is a little red arrow or star. That was not affected by any of our alignments. Potentially archeological sites would be principally areas that potentially have Indian artifacts associated with them. The only contamination site that we really potentially have a problem with is there at the county maintenance facility principally because of petroleum contamination. Page 26 June 9, 1998 Wetlands and surface waters, we evaluated each of those alignments. Alignment A had some 31 acres of wetland impacts, B had 33 acres, and C, 20 acres. The potential listed species, we evaluated. Our recommendations that we gave to OCPM is based on this matrix of our final weighted scores of all these criteria. Alignment A scored best in all the four categories that we looked at. If we look at alignment B and C, they scored pretty much equal to each other. However, we felt like that because alignment C scored better in the community impacts and traffic circulation, we -- we recommended to OCPM that we proceed with alignment C as well as alignment A. On the east-west facility, the matrix, you can see that alignment C, which is the southern alignment, scored the best in our weighting process. Alignment A and C pretty much are the same, but we went through the same criteria here that because alignment A you're occupying existing roadways. It also scored best in traffic circulation as well as didn't really have any negatives. We felt like B was going to create the most environmental concerns because it was a brand new alignment, did not occupy any public facilities at all. So, we recommended A and C to OCPM for further study. I think you can see, perhaps, Commissioner Constantine that indirectly, I think what you term number four is in this, but it's not available. We did not score that particular alignment as a separate issue. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's part of my frustration. I wish we had, because that was one of only two that we did ask for. And -- and that may not be your fault if the staff didn't ask you to do that one. You can't read minds. But this board asked for two specific alignments. The contract gave six alignments, which is three times as much as we asked for, and it didn't include one of the ones we asked for and it did include, obviously, some we didn't require. So, if the explanation is we had to exhaust all and look at all alternatives, that's fine. But for whatever reason, we didn't look at one of the ones we asked for. And -- so that's -- I'm a little frustrated with that. Mr. Wiley, maybe you can help me and maybe in the course of this event you can piece together those two things and -- and share that with us before this -- we move on from this agenda item. But I just -- I'd prefer to be able to see that as compared to the other corridors as well, because that was one of the ones we had specifically asked for. If we're doing that matrix to help decide which ones to pursue and which not, we probably ought to compare all four of them rather than three and then say, well, oh, yeah, we have some information on the other one. MR. WILEY: We have the ability to do that. I would advise you of one thing though. You're going to be basically talking a little bit apples and oranges when you compare it because you're taking the north half of one route and the east half of another route. So, things like cost, that would vary because of the length. You don't have the traffic circulation to the same roadway, so -- Page 27 June 9, 1998 COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, maybe someone can explain to me maybe -- MR. WILEY: I mean, we -- we can do that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- maybe it's you or maybe it's Ilschner, but maybe somebody can explain to me why we didn't look and be able to have all that information so that it's apples to apples for something the board specifically requested. MR. WILEY: What I'm saying is and Mr. Ilschner is very free to speak, too. We evaluated comparisons of north-south routes and comparisons of east-west. We have made no comparison of north routes to and east-west. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm -- I'm very aware of that. What I'm saying is the board of commissioners asked for two specific alignments including one that goes north-south and then turns to the east. And you're telling me you can't give me an apples-to-apples comparison of that. We asked for that. We don't have that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do we need another continuance, commissioner, to get that? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It seems to me if we're going to have a fair comparison between these and -- and you're telling me maybe we can't do that, then I'm wondering again, you added some things in that the board didn't ask for. Now it appears we've eliminated some things that the board did ask for. Who's running the show? MR. ILSCHNER: Commissioner Constantine, we do have the data available and can generate that and the answer to your question is, yes, we can generate that. Now, his response was we can't compare that to another partial north-east alternative because that would be just basically one alternative to look at from a cost perspective but one then could look at that alternative with respect to the other alternatives now listed. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I get an apples-to-apples comparison -- MR. ILSCHNER: It would -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- including the -- MR. ILSCHNER: It would be an apples-to-apples -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- comparison that we specifically asked for? MR. ILSCHNER: -- comparison if we produced that for you and it would involve alternative A, the north half of alternative A, if you're looking at it, and it would involve the east half of alternative A in the east-west corridor. We did a corridor study here of two corridors basically, and we can produce that information and it can be an apples-to-apples comparison at that point in time. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie, I appreciate the situation because that would really be my preference. If we're missing a piece of the information, it seems like we can't very well make a decision today without having one of the alternatives available to us. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I feel really at a disadvantage, to be honest with you, not having been here in '94. I'm trying to read through the minutes of the '94 meeting to understand what it was that caused the board to eliminate the -- the route that now is ranked as the number one route. Page 28 June 9, 1998 So, I was going to ask if somebody could tell me that and I'm sure you can. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'd be more than happy to do that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Hold on just a second. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'd be more than happy to do that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock is ahead of you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie, like you and, you know, Commissioner Berry, I'm -- I'm sitting here and -- and I think we have a -- a responsibility to provide continuity of past board decisions. To do so means that basically you review everything every time someone new comes on the board and all of that has a healthy side to it. It also has a side of basically sending the wrong message to the community, a mixed message, if you will. But I need to back up just a little bit so I understand. Many times as we're looking at these alignments and particularly if we're going to be looking at a hybrid of what's presented today, the question comes to mind just specifically what is the problem these roadways are fixing? So, let me go through a few questions, if I may, Mr. Wiley, and see if I can't get a clear focus on the intended goal of these roadways to help us at least make a decision on -- on what is an appropriate alignment. As we look at the four perimeter roadways; 951, Davis Boulevard, County Barn and Rattlesnake-Hammock, which segment was at or near failure at buildout as being the impetus for this particular study? MR. WILEY: Right now what we're looking at is from your 2020 plan. It shows the whole network through there as having problems. It assumes -- in the 2020 plan, it assumes County Barn Road has been enlarged to a four-lane configuration. It assumes 951 is enlarged to a six-lane configuration. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. WILEY: And it shows Santa Barbara as coming down with possibly needing to be up to a six-lane configuration. In 2020, it can identify as a six-lane configuration. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: For Santa Barbara. MR. WILEY: For Santa Barbara. Now, we're seeing the whole region through there having a problem handling the traffic. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do we have the -- MR. WILEY: The east-west roadway is identified also in your 2020 plan as going from County Barn Road over to 951. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do we have sufficient right of way for County Barn to be four-laned? Do we own it? MR. WILEY: We are in the process of acquiring it. I don't believe we have acquired it all. We have the design pretty well near complete and we have been acquiring right of way. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. If we're to move ahead with the north-south alignment that comes near Grand Lely Drive, would we be able to acquire Grand Lely Drive, since it's a future roadway to line up with that alignment? MR. WILEY: I may be incorrect, so please go back and check, but from my understanding of where I stand right now is we would have to Page 29 June 9, 1998 request them to modify an approved PUD which has a road alignment and all the commercial laid out. If we request it, we're probably going to be also having to fund those changes. I don't know that we can force them at their expense to do that. Now, we have had conversations with them and we have not gotten absolute negative response. It's just a matter of who would bear the cost of that realignment configuration. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Or if they at the time of connection failed to meet our access management guidelines, they would have to address that themselves. MR. WILEY: That's also a part of it, that's right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So, we have a chip there but nothing very clear. MR. WILEY: But I don't guarantee you how that would play out. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: All right. It comes to mind as I -- when you're talking about that whole area has problems, in our 2020 plan that can be said of just about every roadway. You know, this board has just recently taken significant steps to see that build-out population come down a significant chunk and I know those decisions probably were not factored into the overall transportation plan here. We're talking about a hundred thousand fewer people, plus or minus, that would be on the roadways at that time. But all these questions ask me what population is this project intended to serve, because whether it stops -- the bird stops at St. Andrews or whether it continues over, if it more or less dead ends, so to speak, at Rattlesnake-Hammock Road, what's the desire to get the entire northern part of Collier County down to Rattlesnake-Hammock Road? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Exactly. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It seems to me, and this -- this is my -- obviously an assumption, that the population that we're serving here is a south county population, not necessarily the ones that sits between Rattlesnake-Hammock Road and U.S. 41. Now, that area is pretty much built out with the exception of Lely. The rest of -- you've got St. Andrews, you've got other communities that have been built there for awhile, so to me in deciding what roadway corridor is most appropriate, the population we're serving, their origination and destination is -- is key information to me because alignment A that would run into St. Andrews Boulevard wouldn't help Marco Island or Fiddler's Creek get to the north part of the county. If I lived out on Marco Island and I want to get up to Pine Ridge Road and Airport, which I don't encourage people to do, mind you, but that intersection has got enough. Oh, Fay, it's not anti Marco. You're so sensitive down there these days. You know, it's a congested intersection, Fay. Do we understand each other? MS. BILES: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. If that's kind of the -- where -- where this general population we're seeing a demand for transportation needs, then having a roadway that more or less dead ends at Rattlesnake-Hammock in my opinion doesn't serve that need. So, my concern is that it seems that we're building roadways that Page 30 June 9, 1998 are taking an entire north part of the county bringing them down to Rattlesnake-Hammock but where in God's name do they go from there? They're going to go east or west to 951 and it wouldn't make sense that they go west because they're kind of coming from a north-west direction, coming down Santa Barbara, or if you live in the estates, you come over there to come down and go back over to 9517 So, I'm looking again, and I'm starting to see the logics behind why the board in 1994 asked for something that came across and turned into 951, because what you're then saying is to everyone south of this project, with the exception of that section between Rattlesnake-Hammock and U.S. 41, if you're off 951, you're going to come up 951 onto this roadway and move up that way and instead of going on Rattlesnake-Hammock, instead of going even on 1-75. I mean, you're -- it provides an option to a large population. If the roadway dead ends at Rattlesnake-Hammock one way or another, you're asking those same people to come up 951 and make a left on Rattlesnake-Hammock and then get on this roadway. So, the question then -- I know it's difficult to answer, but it's something I've got to know, is this roadway is intended to serve what population north to south, south to north? Because if it's not the folks south of Rattlesnake-Hammock and north of U.S. 41, then what we have in front of us in my opinion is a bad design. MR. DEWINKLER: No. The long-range plan actually says that you need a connection all the way down to 41 east. The study effort unfortunately stopped at Rattlesnake. And all of our evaluations -- that's why we put in a factor called the external neighborhood costs -- was to take the 30,000 cars a day in the year 2020 that was assigned to Santa Barbara, what happened when it dead ended to Rattlesnake? Obviously they were going to have to take Rattlesnake either over to 951 or future Grand Lely, so that required that Rattlesnake itself be improved to a six-lane facility. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Which is -- flies in the face of this board's direction. You -- you -- you said something that's important to me. You said that what we'd like to see, obviously, is one that goes all the way to 41. That's a need. However, to accomplish that, we have one of two options; one, destroy St. Andrews Boulevard and the neighborhood that surrounds it. I mean, because if we're going to take this thing -- if -- also if we turn Santa Barbara into St. Andrews and make St. Andrews an arterial roadway -- MR. DEWINKLER: You wouldn't want to do that. It's too many local driveways. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Exactly. Okay. So, that's not an option. And as I look at that segment, there are no other viable options to get you from Rattlesnake-Hammock to U.S. 41 other than 951. MR. DEWINKLER: Or Grand Lely. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Or Grand Lely. Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which is exactly how we got to the point of -- that goes back to answering your question. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I'm following. Yeah. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is deja vu. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And the reason I have to go through this -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's perfect logic. Page 31 June 9, 1998 COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- is I need to understand what the board did in '94 and why, and I think I'm getting there, and I think I further understand why that option of coming down and heading out to 951. It looks to me if we can do a hybrid that connects to Grand Lely and connects from there westward or eastward to 951, we've accomplished the transportation game to -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Twofold. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- the greatest extent we can in that area. But to run straight down to St. Andrews and then force everyone onto Rattlesnake-Hammock to end up at 951 anyway, just -- just fails the logic test for me. And, so, if -- if I'm on alignment with what you guys talked about in '94, either we're all right or we're all wrong. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: This was the whole point, Tim, in asking this -- this discussion, that we get some more of this background because even when I read the minutes, I didn't get -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I didn't get it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- the background in there that helped at all. So, now, Commissioner Norris, if you enlighten us from your -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I would be glad to. It's -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- recollection. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- because we do have -- we do have three new members and a little bit of the background might be helpful. Commissioner Hancock has intuitively though hit on -- on the high points of the discussion that we had back in '94. But here's the problem. If you take -- and if you have your minutes -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- there's a map that almost has the whole area in there. It shows the alignment number four, if you have that and can turn to it. The problem that you're looking at, and Commissioner Hancock hit on it, is if you take Davis Boulevard, go east to where it connects with 951, take 951 south down to the intersection of 41 and 41 back up to Airport Road and then to Davis, their only commercial in that entire area is on the periphery and you're -- I'm sure you're familiar with where it is. It's along Airport Road, a little bit along Davis and then out at the intersection of 951 and Davis and no more commercial really until you get down to the intersection of 41, and then there's scattered commercial as you go back up towards Airport Road and getting up close to our -- our -- between Rattlesnake and the courthouse is the heaviest commercial. But there's one little strip center in -- in this entire area that's just west of -- of County Barn Road. And other than that, this is entirely a residential area, and nothing else but residential. Now, why in God's name does anybody want to put four lanes of arterial traffic and dump it in a residential neighborhood? I mean, when -- if we do that, if this board does that, which board in the future is going to have to come back and correct all these traffic problems? I mean it's just -- I mean, it's the craziest thing I've ever heard of. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The idea of a grid framework makes sense if they're all little two-lane roads. What happens is we don't have the land available to do a true grid in there, so what we're ending up Page 32 June 9, 1998 with in essence are arterial impacts not, you know, neighborhood gridding, so -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. And the other thing is that this board recognized this back when we were going to expand Rattlesnake-Hammock and the board very clearly said we do not ever -- because of the residential character of this entire area, we do not ever want to six lane this Rattlesnake-Hammock. We want you to build a cross-section that is a four-lane neighborhood type road, residential type road, and we want it left at that and we do not ever want to expand to a six-lane road. I mean, it's in the minutes. It's not in the minutes that you have in front of you but go look and see. That's exactly what we directed the staff to do. Now, the whole point of the north-south arterial was to move people from the south to the north and vice versa. Now, the way you do that is alignment number four. You -- you bring Santa Barbara down, swing it out to the east, hook it up to 951 and those people in -- in Marco Island and all of the south county, as Commissioner Constantine said, Fiddler's Creek and those people -- or Commissioner Hancock may have said that -- Fiddler's Creek and all that area that will be coming on line and even the -- a lot of the people in the Lely resort there now have a -- a easy access to go right, right up to Santa Barbara, hook it up and go north as far as they want to go. And that's the whole point of alignment four and that's the one that we don't have an analysis on in our material today. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And -- and Commissioner Hancock really hit a -- hit it on the button. I mean, it was absolutely deja vu from 1994. You did it a lot more succinctly and a lot more clearly than perhaps we did in our long discussion in '94, but there is a method to our madness. There is some reason why the board makes its decisions and -- and when the staff gets up and says the purpose of this thoroughfare, and I appreciate you asking that question, is to get traffic from north all the way to 41. And -- and the reason we didn't connect it with Route A was that would either obliterate Lely with St. Andrews Boulevard or you would put in a T in there and you wouldn't serve your purpose of getting traffic all the way to 41. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Either one of those scenarios is not desirable. Either you ruin a neighborhood or you don't fulfill your purpose. So, there's a logical reason why we did not want our time wasted on looking at that alternative. The one alternative that we did look at that would connect that far down that the gentleman from Wilson Miller said is you could hook up with Lely Grand or Lely -- Cultural Boulevard or whatever that Lely route is going to be and go down quite a bit further south on 951. There are some complications with that as Mr. Wiley outlined. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But the point -- and you're right. The point is you want to get to 951, so -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- why don't you just go to 9517 COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Exactly. And that's where we came on would be -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Just go 9 -- just go forward -- Page 33 June 9, 1998 COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's where we came up with the other alternative and that's why I'm so disappointed we don't have that because from the logic we have just gone through in the last ten minutes, that appears to serve the purpose of what we're trying to do. If the roads are overloaded and we're trying to get people to the southern end of the county or from the southern end of the county have a way to get to the heart of the county, the way to do that is not a dead end into Rattlesnake-Hammock Road. The way to do that is the connection at 951. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And -- and now as I'm following all of this, I'm understanding more and more. The next question is -- and then what are the neighborhood impacts of that segment of -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- four that we don't know and what are the environmental impacts and what are -- so, I -- I can't possibly make a decision today without knowing that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Pam, did they give us that on the east-west COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can we put it together? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- corridor? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They did. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You have to extrapolate it but just on the initial look, what you're talking about is alignment four -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- with the exception of only looking at A by itself probably has the least collective impact of the combination of any two segments that have been presented. And that's just a quick look at it, you know, but that -- that appears to be, you know, the -- the end result to me. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you recall, we did some of the things with Naples National and then the residential piece to the south we actually -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Reserved right of way. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- reserved a right of way there for this very reason. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I kind of feel like I wish -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Hold on. I have a question. MR. ILSCHNER: Yes, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You all be quiet a minute. Golly, chatty Cathys -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, mom. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- up here, I'll tell you. How far -- I'll tell you. Unruly bunch of kids. Suzanne Orschell, you know that these kids would have never gotten away with it in school, right? MS. ORSCHELL: No, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's tough being mother hen, isn't it? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You betcha. I'll tell you. Okay. I just have a quick question. On this alignment one, I'm just asking a question, so don't go into a state of apoplexy, all right. At the end of -- of one when it comes down to Rattlesnake-Hammock Road, what is the distance where it dumps off there where you have to go left or right, obviously, because that's what it would be. You Page 34 June 9, 1998 wouldn't be running them through St. Andrews. What's the distance if you went to the right over to 417 MR. ILSCHNER: It's approximately -- do you know that exact distance? MR. DEWINKLER: A little over a mile. MR. ILSCHNER: A little over a mile either way toward 951 or 41. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So, whether it's -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's more than a mile. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's more than a mile. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You said over to 41. Did you mean -- MR. ILSCHNER: 41 is about a mile. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No. I didn't say 951. I said 41. MR. ILSCHNER: It's about a mile. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's about a mile. It's about the same distance then to 951, too? MR. DEWINKLER It's about two and a half. MR. ILSCHNER: It's a little bit further, two and a half miles. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: About two and a half miles to 951. Okay. I was just trying to see what perhaps the logic may have been if you were bringing people down this -- I'll call it an extension for lack of a better term right now, and if you wanted to get them onto 41, the idea was for -- to get them over to 41 and -- by using this? Is that what your idea was? MR. ILSCHNER: Correct. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But not -- but the consideration was not taking them through the residential area. MR. ILSCHNER: Never to go through the residential neighborhood. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. ILSCHNER: The goal was to try to move this north-south traffic to 41 and do so without impacting the Lely development that already existed. Of course, that is -- in turn impacts, as you know, Rattlesnake-Hammock roadway and ultimately in the future would require it to be widened to -- to six lanes. I think the -- the thing I want to point out and the reason I -- I came up to the lectern was to point out that we do have all the data necessary and it has been looked at in this analysis to pull together alternative four that's referred to. It's -- it's the north half of alternative A and the east half of alternative A in the east-west corridor. And when one looks at that, one can speculate -- one can project, not speculate, but project using the existing data, they were looking at about a $10,000,000 project compared to other alternatives there if we're trying to say, well, how does this compare to A, north-south? Well, it compares -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What are the other -- MR. ILSCHNER: -- about another $2 million as do some of the other alternatives over to, of course, Grand Lely. So, I think we can make that assumption. But the point I'm trying to make is that we do have all the data necessary. We just didn't generate that particular alternative. But if you'll look at -- and I don't know which one this is referenced to in your -- in your data there, but one can -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's the data on the power point. MR. ILSCHNER: -- use the -- Page 35 June 9, 1998 COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's on Page 31. MR. ILSCHNER: -- east-west corridors and just simply use the north half of alternative A and use either A or C after you get past Sandy Lane. And -- and, so, therefore you have dollars available to evaluate if you want -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But dollars is not the only issue. I want to know about neighborhood impacts. I want to know about environmental impacts. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MR. ILSCHNER: You're looking at about six or seven structure impacts that don't on any of the others at that point. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I want to see it on a map like these. I don't understand -- MR. ILSCHNER: And we can produce that for you for a future meeting. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And, frankly, I feel bad that we're up here talking about something that the community cares about so desperately and we have a map that shows four and it's not even -- people don't even know what we're talking about. It's that one, you know. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think it would be easier for me to understand but probably a service and I -- this has got to be terribly frustrating for the folks who live in that area -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No kidding. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and are wondering. But if we have -- if we hold off on trying to make any recommendation until we have the specifics of that because it's easy to say, well, it might impact six or seven. If you're one of those people that live there, you want to know whether that's zero or one or two or three or whether that's my home. And, so, I might ask if the board, if it could -- I mean, can you have that in a week's time? Can you have that for Tuesday night? MR. ILSCHNER: Yes, we could identify that with the data that we have. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was just going to say, if you live there, that's probably about the most important thing you can think of what it's going to impact on your home. So, I -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Can I correct something before we go any further? Commissioner Berry asked the question: How far is it from alignment one to 951 and 417 It's almost the same distance. Look on your map. You were given erroneous information before. It's exactly two miles to 951. And it -- this map I have doesn't show it but it's got to be at least very close to two miles to 41. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, maybe if we get this other information, you can come back -- MR. ILSCHNER: We'll have that for you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- and get that back to us, please, at that time. MR. ILSCHNER: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can I look at the -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: What's the pleasure of the board on this? What -- what do you want to do in terms of holding off or -- Page 36 June 9, 1998 COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I don't think we have enough information to move forward with a single-minded direction today as far as going to the next stage of the study, obviously, but I think we do have a general consensus up here that what was previously referred to alternative four, which is an extension from the south terminus of Santa Barbara eventually turning eastward to County Road 951 utilizing the sections of alignments that have represented here today with whatever modifications are necessary to make that happen, it's something we want all the exact same information on that we have on these alignments in order to fairly evaluate the direction we should take. So, I think we need to give that direction to our staff today and, obviously, if -- I mean, people have taken their time off for the day to be here today and whatnot. You know, I don't know that those -- that comments are particularly, you know, valid since we don't really even have what may be the end solution to this problem at hand. That's a call for the chairman, but I think as a board we need to send staff back, give them one week, if one week is appropriate, to come up with that alternative, the best alternative of that -- of that scenario and bring it back in the same format as we received the others. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'd like one other point, too. I would like to go previous to the time of 1994. Obviously, they started with something. In other words, when Santa Barbara or when this was all planned originally, how long has this particular number one or A corridor, how long had this been on the books prior to -- MR. ILSCHNER: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- that time? Now, I understand that things can change. It's the same thing in my previous life, you decide to put a school in a particular location, and depending on the growth and the numbers around it, sometimes you adjust those numbers and you adjust that particular positioning of a school. But the same thing is I want to know here. How -- what was the length prior to 1994 when this was first discussed? Let's -- please give us a little bit of history on this. What was the thinking at that point in time prior to the discussion that took place in '947 I -- I think I personally -- and I don't know -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- if anybody else shares it, but I -- I need to go back a little bit because there was a board prior to 1994. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There was? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, sure, there was. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It started in '92, John. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Something like that. A couple up here think it started when they arrived, but at any rate, I'd like to go back and get some of that history, if we could, and to just kind of know what the thinking was, what the thoughts -- and let's go forward -- MR. ILSCHNER: Yes, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- if we could, please. MR. ILSCHNER: We will -- we will involve our Metropolitan Planning Organization staff in that exercise as well. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'd like to point out something, too, for the board members. There are -- there are some people who want to see Page 37 June 9, 1998 this -- this road opened up and connected for convenience sake, and I just want to point out that there's absolutely no reason that we couldn't connect up secondary roads for access to that alignment number four -- MR. ILSCHNER: Right. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- in the future as well and that way giving some convenience to the people who live out in that area. But that certainly doesn't override the point that -- that dumping four lanes of arterial traffic into the neighborhood residential area is a mistake. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, but I think, John, we need to take a look at -- at what the reasoning was before and what's happened now and get the whole picture in terms -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- of, you know, we talk about neighborhood. Let's find out what the, quote, residential neighborhood is. We've got a lot of streets, roadways, that run through, quote, neighborhood areas and we need to -- we need to know exactly what that impact is. If we have a four-lane road, which was just done, Rattlesnake-Hammock Road was just four laned, I'm not excited about that becoming a six-lane road. We've gone through the same effort out on Golden Gate Boulevard out into the estates. There's been a lot of discussion, as you all know about that. But that on the other hand doesn't preclude that some board down the road, excuse the pun, but in some year long after we're here, may want to and may have to do something else. And many of the people that are opposed to some of these things now are going to be long gone, but there's going to be others here that are going to look back and say, thank God somebody thought about the future. So, we just need a lot of -- MR. ILSCHNER: Madam Chairman, may we continue this an additional week and -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You certainly may. MR. ILSCHNER: -- we'll bring back the data I understand you would like to see at a meeting. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just want to be real clear that I'm not prejudging that, you know, that that's the answer to -- alternative number four is the answer. It's just that I don't have enough information -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Exactly right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- to make a decision. MR. ILSCHNER: I understand. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'm -- I'm also very concerned that historical data and some analysis about the neighborhood that we keep talking about dumping into. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I -- I think we need facts. Unfortunately these issues can get very emotional. MR. ILSCHNER: We can provide that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And we need -- we need to know facts and know exactly how we got to where we are in addition to what our colleagues have provided us here with today. MR. ILSCHNER: I think we clearly understand what you would like to see and we'll bring that back to you in a week. Page 38 June 9, 1998 COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I make a motion to continue the item for a week. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, request -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Just a moment. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: A request on the motion, if I may. I'd like the maps to -- and, Steve, I appreciate the GIS technology. It is a lot better than -- than the lines on paper that we've had in the past. I'd like the map to go back down to U.S. 41 so when I look at it I see from the intersection of 951 and 41 -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Agreed. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- to the intersection of Rattlesnake-Hammock and 41 -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Exactly, because it -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- so I can see the big picture. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I agree. MR. ILSCHNER: I understand what you want. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's -- that's why I was asking what the distances were to try and -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I think we're -- we're looking inside the box and we need to go outside the box and see the general impact. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And this sounds kind of silly but seeing them in color is a whole lot easier to follow. We do have color copiers in the world now, so give us color copies for heaven's sake. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, what we're looking at up here -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. This is great. Either that or give it to me on a disk. I'll put it on my own computer. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I just wanted to ask that the motion include expanding that visual out to -- to those -- those intersection points. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, this may not be a popular recommendation but I think in view of the information the board wants to have on this subject and given our agenda deadlines, it may be more prudent to shoot for the meeting of the 23rd for this presentation rather than the 16th. That will give us the time to not only provide all the information that you've asked for but to give it to you in advance time so it's part of your packets. Otherwise, we're handing out documents -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No way. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- you will not have seen them before the meeting. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let me just interject something. Is this a time -- are we looking at a time problem for this whole -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: For advertising? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, no, no. Not for advertising. MR. ILSCHNER: We can go to the 23rd without a problem. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm not ask -- I'm looking beyond that because I know that the 23rd meeting, I think, is going to be pretty loaded because it's going to be the last meeting. Is there any reason why this has to be dealt with at this point in time? Page 39 June 9, 1998 No. No. We can bring that back after the 28th -- MR. ILSCHNER: after your break. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Can we do that in July or August -- MR. ILSCHNER: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Even better. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- those first -- that first meeting? MR. FERNANDEZ: That would give it even more time to -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. Now, then, let's do that. There's no sense in -- in trying to do this at the same time. I think you've heard the desire of the board in terms of what we think we want. MR. ILSCHNER: It's quite clear. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And -- and we're finally getting -- getting down to what we need here. Let's -- let's -- if you wouldn't mind amending, whoever made the motion? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I did. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If you would amend your motion to perhaps -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Bring it back when staff thinks it's the appropriate time. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we just make a point? I know there are some folks who were here last week. There's some folks who are here this week. I would like two things to happen. As soon as we do have some of the maps and showing the fourth alternative, which they may not have seen, available, if we can make sure it's available to them as well. And, also, if those of you who are here would leave some contact point with our county administrator, maybe we can let them know since we're being vague on when it will come back, maybe we can make a point to let them know exactly when that will be. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Maybe at this point in time -- I know Miss Filson's in here with us, but I do know that in our office we have someone at the desk in there and if perhaps you would -- if you would like to have this map, if you would just step in there, give them your name and your address and a phone number, and then we'll make sure when you get the maps available, we'll make sure that you are notified that -- that there's a map available for you, if you don't mind doing that. MR. ILSCHNER: I think it's a good suggestion. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I -- I apologize for -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think I seconded the motion. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- making you all come back today but this is an important decision that affects all of you or many of you that are here. I know you're here for a specific reason. We need to have all the information that we need to have in order to make this decision, so -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I seconded the motion, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I will rule on this. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Thank you and -- and we'll come back again with it. At this point in time, we're going to take a little break and -- Page 40 to give our court reporter a break. (A recess was had.) Item #8C1 Thank you. June 9, 1998 RESOLUTION 98-178 INCREASING FEES FOR THE LICENSING OF DOGS AND CATS IN COLLIER COUNTY - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We'll resume our commission meeting, please, and we'll go to Item 8(C) (1). This was an item to hold off the consent agenda by Commissioner Constantine regarding the pet licenses. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My only question, I wanted to make sure the increase, and it's a minimal increase, but the increase in cost per dog or cat under age of one or for neutered dog or cat would not negatively impact the amount of people who participate. MR. OLLIFF: I don't know that I can answer that. I'm, for the record, Tom Olliff, Public Services Administrator. I don't know that I could give you a good answer for that. That is a fear. The reason the fee increase is there is it was part of last year's budget. It was approved by the board and it was directed that we go in and raise the fee slightly to try and help offset the cost of some additional clerical staff that was hired. We have not raised the fees for five years and we tried to keep this fee increase fairly small, at a dollar per category. And I guess what I would offer to you is that we would try and track this extremely closely once we had the rate increase and should we see anything in the way of decrease in the number of licenses, we would bring that back to you for consideration to reduce it back to where it was. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know it's a balancing act. My assumption is that $7 versus $8 probably won't affect it. If someone's going to comply, they'll comply for the extra dollar, but I just didn't know. Get a feel for it. MR. OLLIFF: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I move the item. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second for the approval of the pet license increase in fee. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Page 41 June 9, 1998 Item #10A COUNTY GOVERNMENT PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE'S REPORT AND RECO~ENDATIONS ON ITS EVALUATION FO THE COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY'S BUSINESS PLAN - REPORT ACCEPTED Moving on then to Item 10(A), the County Government Productivity Committee's Report on the County Airport Authority Business Plan. Good morning. MR. DELGADO: Madam Chairman, good morning, members of the board. For the record, I'm Mario Delgado, one of the members of the County Government Productivity Committee, and coming to you today as chair of the subcommittee on the Airport Authority in review. With me is Mr. Charles Getler, one of the members of the subcommittee. Mr. Carl Otto, unfortunately, couldn't make it for this meeting for previous commitments. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excuse me. Just quickly, if I may. I -- I think there's -- no offense, Commissioner Mac'Kie, but this report was requested by the board of commissioners; correct? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. MR. DELGADO: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: None taken. I wish that the executive summary had not said it was at the request of Commissioner Mac'Kie because we brought the matrix in and asked everybody to approve what the work would be. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it's just important that we all recognize and understand that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. DELGADO: Yeah. And we serve at the pleasure of the entire board. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. DELGADO: In general terms, we'd like to commend the Airport Authority. I think we found that they have done a commendable job and an impressive job in doing what -- what they have intend -- planned to do. We feel after reviewing the data and the projections that they should be become self-sufficient in less than ten years if a few things take place. And I analyzed the projections. They did it on a conservative basis. They used local variables. They did some correlation analysis and utilized some local variables and identified the key ones, and when they completed that projection, they discounted the projection based on state and national trends, the work below the local ones. In other words, they toned it down. Another thing they did in their projection that were based primarily on traditional uses for the airport, and that's inferior from a revenue and economic standpoint, that the industry development that they are planning to do in the future, and they are projected, so utilizing those traditional uses kind of underestimates the potential that they have by not counting, and having the industrial driver that they're going to use in the couple of the airports. And we feel that the Everglades and Immokalee Airports are poised Page 42 June 9, 1998 for growth. They almost have the critical mass and resources to really grow in a -- in a -- in a rapid way. We also feel that the delays from actualizing that is having a very significant -- show an opportunity cost for the county. But to realize this dormant potential, there are three things that we feel that must be completed. First, it needs to be marketed more aggressively and more effectively than they are being marketed now. They need to bring to it also when they do the marketing the right industries. They need to bring industries that are right, really fit it to the conditions in the environmental, culturally in that respect and resource, industrial resources that those communities have to offer. And also we feel that some of the products, and when I'm talking about products, I'm talking about the public goods, the infrastructure, somewhere, needs to be touched up to really capture the immediate growth that we project and the area could have. And I'm talking specifically about roads, housing and possibly making a more integrated use of the three airports as a unit as they compete with the surrounding airports. And to maximize the -- their -- their specializations. We feel also that and we recommend that the County Commissioners hire a private marketing firm to do that. The reason we mentioned that is unfortunately at this present stage we feel the county is in, we're facing almost a dual economy, structure of the county. We have a developed section of the county and we have an underdevelped, for lack of a better word, section of the county that require different combination of resources, maybe a more in-depth analysis of what is needed to be age to capture the potential of those things are. And that requires an amount of resources, a time and a specialization that, provided that the units that the county has at hand now, the marketing units are not adequate to accomplish those analysis and review. Again, and is -- it is not a negative statement only but in reality over it, if you look at the marketing efforts that the county has tried or accomplished so far and if you look at the firms that have come down based on those marketing efforts, they -- they all have been located in urban Collier. So I mean the track records so far indicates that there's a need to -- to do a more concentrated effort on the -- on the Immokalee and the Everglades area. Overall, the potential is there. We feel that if the marketing and the balance of the resource requirements; in other words, the public goods, the infrastructure requirements are looked at and addressed forcefully, we're going to have an explosive points there in both Immokalee and Everglades. So, I think the potential is there to -- to do that prior to a ten years' mark. I don't know how the Marco, becoming a city now, how will that affect, but if it does affect, who controls the airport, one more reason why we need to work. It will not -- well, either way, it would -- it would help the bottom line picture anyway to emphasize. That's about the essence as you can tell from the reports of the -- of the analysis. We have so much specific alterations and Page 43 June 9, 1998 recommendations that you can add and touch base with some more detail elements of their review. But that's what we will include, some elements of this. And the next report we will be completing hopefully within a month about economic development plans that the county has, a structure will include this as part of the observation. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Mac'Kie, question? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just one. The specific recommendations that you have in, for example, the -- when the -- it struck me was about the video tape -- MR. DELGADO: Right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- that apparently -- I haven't seen but that apparently you think flies in the face of what they're trying to do. Have you discussed those specific recommendations with Mr. Drury or with the Airport Authority board and gotten any kind of reaction from them? MR. DELGADO: Well, specifically not, but we forwarded them a copy of this review as is prior to bringing it in front to you. And they -- they have any -- any contradictory statement and any rebuttal or anything like that, they are, you know. When we're seeing that audio, I mean that video there, we made some comments about it in general terms, not in any depth because it were, you know, chronolized many other things. But they -- they were aware at that point in time there was some immediate reaction to what -- what that video would represent. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Did they have a response to that? MR. DELGADO: No. No. Not really. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I just want like to thank the Productivity Committee for going through this. I have been a supporter of the Airport Authority and it's -- it's good to have confirmation that we're on the right track with the Airport Authority and appreciate the suggestions that you've made. Maybe we can work those in as well. Thank you very much. MR. DELGADO: It's a pleasure. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's kind of -- there's been a nice little pendulum swinging here in the right direction. Our concern was when we looked at the business plan of the airport, is this a feasible plan, is this something that can be achieved that in all high probability will be achieved? And what we're hearing is the answer is not only can it be achieved, it probably could be achieved in a more rapid scale than what the Airport Authority has shown. In other words, the Airport Authority is showing, according to your report, very conservative numbers on the revenue side with the hopes to exceed those obviously. I think the key for us, this report brings out is, in the first given year or two that those numbers are exceeded, where are those excess revenues dedicated? Are they dedicated to repayment as a priority or dedicated to redevelopment as a priority. So, I think this report brings out something that we need to be conscious of during each budget cycle in looking at the revenues Page 44 June 9, 1998 produced of actual overexpected, which is what we hope to see, and I appreciate your bringing that out. I, too, had some notes in the margin under the observation regarding the video for the Immokalee Airport, and that's because I've had discussions with the Economic Development Council regarding who was being targeted as the, quote-unquote, employer, the one or two individuals that actually would be the -- the decision maker in determining what does or doesn't happen at the Immokalee Airport. And those individuals, there are elements that need to be expanded on in the Immokalee area as to the employment base and whatnot that I think are very crucial. However, we have a kind of a split personality in that many of the people that own these companies want the, quote, luxury lifestyle offered in the urban area but want to be near their production. And, so, rather than seeing the two as polar, I see them as strengths. I see them as -- as jointly together drawing on a variety of individuals that we can serve by people that choose to want a work force that lives near their place of employment and in Immokalee we have that work force. We obviously have some housing issues that need to be addressed. But there also may be those that want the life, the urban lifestyle, but be 20 or 30 minutes away from an industrial base. And, so, I think in looking at that, as that tape is reviewed and possibly modified, the Economic Development Council would have some very, very strong input because they've been fielding requests and inquiries as to who is and isn't interested as to what the target market of that video should be. So, although I appreciate your comments, the other facet of this, we have the Airport Authority, we have your committee approach, I think we need to bring the EDC into that because when it comes to marketing business, they've shown themselves for expansion and retention of businesses to be very successful. So, I'd just like to see kind of that third perspective from the EDC applied to that before, you know, we -- we make any recommendations for changes to the -- to the Airport -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Excellent idea. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- Authority. But, again, I have to mirror the comments. Thank you for the work you've done. I appreciate the recommendations and they all seem to be right on point. MR. DELGADO: It's a pleasure. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you very much. Item #10B DISCUSSION REGARDING JOINT MEETING WITH THE MARCO ISLAND CITY COUNCIL - COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO SET UP A MEETING WITH MARCO ISLAND CITY Moving on to the next item, we had an addition to the agenda or actually it was brought on to the agenda regarding a joint meeting with Marco Island City Council. Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just simply, we recently had a misunderstanding with the community development block grants that HUD Page 45 June 9, 1998 provides in the relationship between the city and the county on that. The budget process is surely going to have some challenging moments. The County Administrator and the City Administrator have gone as far as they can at their level, we're told, and over and above all that, I guess, on those budget issues, over and above all that, there is -- there are some misperceptions with the city council that they're somehow being slighted by the commission and it just seems logical that from what we've done in the past when we'd have misunderstandings with the City of Naples or if we have issues that -- coming up in the future to make sure that line of communication is open. We've had sit-downs with them and it seems like we ought to do the same thing here. I know the County Administrator has sketched out a proposed agenda for it, and I'd just like to ask the board to go ahead and give the direction to our County Administrator to schedule some sort of joint meeting with the City of Marco so that we're not -- some of those issues, I'll put more importantly, open up a comfortable line of communication. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Madam Chair. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just I -- I'm anxious to talk to them about several issues. I'm thrilled to hear you say misunderstanding. Is there some possibility that they are willing to participate in the block grant? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The issue is going to be brought up for reconsideration on June 15th. I've had a conversation with a couple of the city councilors, so, yes, is the answer. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's wonderful. And my only question -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There is -- there is a down side to that. HUD is not agreeing to our -- separate from the city having anything to do with it, HUD is not agreeing wholeheartedly with our census figures right now so we're going to have to go through a little struggle to prove that to them. It may be delayed for a few months but it looks like we will have a cooperative agreement with the city on that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Headline; HUD fails to help Collier? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. As long -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Suggestion, if anyone is picking up on it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As long as the City of Marco is willing to help, that's just a wonderful step in the right direction. And I'm -- I'm anxious to meet with them but I want to be very respectful, frankly, of the County Administrator's time budget here. As I have been meeting with them and talking to them about, you know, when are we going to go head to head, when are we going to face the music and talk about the Marco budget issues, what I've heard reported, and it's been awhile since we've talked about it, but it is -- let me keep working. There's still a little more staff can do, so for me, yes, it absolutely lets me, but let's do it when we're clear that staff has gotten as far as they can get and defer it to Mr. Fernandez' -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Absolutely. And Mr. Fernandez can answer for himself what his and my most recent conversation was, is that they have gone as far as they can. And that is one of my points. Page 46 June 9, 1998 CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Hancock, I think, wanted to get in here, too, but I'll jump in. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You're anticipating a meeting, not a workshop, I hope. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm open to a suggestion on that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, as you know, I'm not much on having workshops. I don't like to go through all the process and not make a decision, so I'd certainly rather have a meeting than a workshop so that we -- after we discuss whatever we're going to discuss, if we want to take action, we can do it. No matter what we do, it's going to be too late for a budget, is it not, because we're starting that next Monday. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And in that light, what I thought might be helpful is that if I sit down with Mr. Fernandez as the board designee and Mr. Moss, perhaps I can get a sense of where we are on those -- these issues that we're stuck on and be able to help report that at the -- at our budget hearings next week when we start that. If the board has no objection to that, I'd be glad to volunteer to do that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Great idea. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd predominantly would just echo what Commissioner Mac'Kie said about the natural progression of things from the administrators' levels, so I agree with that. I knew that we would end up at a -- either a workshop or a meeting at some point. And I think from here I would like to put that in Mr. Fernandez' hands as to what is the most appropriate time for that, because as you know in the season when we have -- when we talk about meetings with the city council in the past, yeah, it's nice to get together and have a buddy session every now and then. But unless there is a specific agenda with specific issues and back-up at the meeting, it's simply a waste of time. And we've -- we've done that before and decided not to do it again. So, I want to make sure that Mr. Fernandez' office can produce a specific -- and, obviously, in concert with the City of Marco -- but can produce a specific agenda with each side being argued on paper first so that we can review that going into it and have points of discussion to move from. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I concur wholeheartedly, and that's -- as I said, and, Barb, maybe you can help me out here. With our conversation, you've indicated -- as a matter of fact, you've indicated in writing to the administrator on Marco that it appears the staffs have gone as far as they can, and also you and I talked about some agenda item specifically, because I -- the same thing. I don't want to feel good; get together, let's do some substance. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: In fact, my last letter to Mr. Moss did indicate that it seems as though the issues have -- have gone as far as they can at our level. I think I again reminded him of the press of time Page 47 June 9, 1998 with budgets and our need to move forward and so forth. It's really -- it's really a question that the board can decide when it -- it feels we have reached that point. I understand that there is some movement on the part of the city of Marco Island on some of the issues. And with that, I may be getting a response from Mr. Moss to my last letter saying, well, in fact, maybe we can move off the position that we've been on. But it seems like -- it seems as though we've come to the point that we've discussed our respective positions as far as we can unless there's some change in those respective positions. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just one more question. If the HUD grant issue might -- might resolve itself on its own, I assume that the primary issues we have to discuss would be budgetary. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There are two and let me give you the 30-second synopsis of the HUD thing. The question was if we have over 200,000 population, we automatically get some money from HUD to deal with affordable housing type issues. And if it is below, if our population is below 200,000, we'd have to apply. We may get some. We may get none. And we don't know what the situation is. Originally, Marco had opted out of that, which assured us that we would be below 200,000 people and have to compete for those moneys. When I explained -- I had a good conversation with one of the city councilors and explained we have agreed to work with the city on that element of their growth management plan. They wouldn't have the option to apply for that money anyway unless they were to take that responsibility back from the county, which they don't want to do, and once the issue was clearly explained, they're comfortable going ahead, and so they're going to put that on their agenda for next Monday to reverse their opinion on that. The one issue, as I said, HUD doesn't recognize the same statistical source that we use to assure that we're over 200,000. So, we've got to go and prove to them that our census information is accurate and that we are over 200,000 and that's likely to take some time. The other issues, right, are primarily budgetary. The one other thing I think that's important is they've been a city for several months now. We haven't had any sort of formal get-together and there are some misperceptions, I think, sometimes about things that are said here at the board that the city feels as though they are being slighted or in some way denigrated by this board and -- and that's certainly not, I don't think, any of our intent, but I think probably a face-to-face sit-down at some point in the not too distance future just helps allay those concerns on their part. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Does -- I want to ask Mr. Cautero to make me clear about that HUD question, if you'd come up and do that but the -- my -- my thought about how the budget process was going to work is that we would workshop our budget. We would say, here's what we're willing to do, and then that would be our position and it would be delivered to Marco. Are you -- are you thinking that we will have that conversation, you know, at -- as to parks, here's what our policy is going to be, as Page 48 June 9, 1998 to roads, and bridges, here's our policy. Is that what you're thinking we'll discuss? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, yeah. I think ~- we may set that policy and then sometime during the summer months when we're putting that budget in its form for the September hearings, may be the appropriate time to sit down with them, because I suspect they will not agree with one hundred percent with what our policies are. And rather than trade quotes and quips through the newspapers, let's just sit down face to face. And if we don't agree, that's fine, but at least it will all be clear and ultimately it's our requirement -- our responsibility to vote on that budget anyway. But I think we just want to make sure they're an active part of that once those policies are set. I agree with your time line. We need to make -- okay, this is our policy, this is what we're willing to do, this is what we're not willing to do. And then if they have some reaction to that over the summer and have some areas of disagreement along with the items that the County Administrator has already laid out on an agenda, maybe that's the appropriate time to sit down. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So -- so, we -- so, to go through this first cycle of budget workshops and then -- that makes sense to me. Vince, are we -- MR. OLLIFF: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are we close to getting that HUD grant application in after all? MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero. I believe the point is moot because the deadline has passed given the fact that Marco's issue was one of cooperation and, not cooperating, we received a letter from the city manager. There's been -- I'm sorry. Commissioner? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry to contradict you, but that's not what HUD said last Friday. There was a teleconference between Mr. Mihalic, who's now on vacation, and then left immediately after that meeting so I don't know if you had a chance to talk with him, but -- and the city manager of Marco and a couple of other folks. And HUD had said we're not that worried about the deadline, we can extend that. The census issue is in realty the question for them. MR. CAUTERO: I have no knowledge of that, commissioner, and I spoke just yesterday to the housing manager, who gave me new information and said the point is moot. We would not qualify this year. We are 4500 people short. Even if we do challenge at this point, he assured me we are past the deadline. However, we do need the City of Marco's cooperation for next year. We would not have to wait. That -- it would be a little over a year if we received the City of Marco's cooperation and used their numbers. Even if they did extend the deadline, I will tell you that being 4500 people short with Marco's population means we're going to have to hire a private firm to dispute the population figures. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. And that's the key, is even with Marco's numbers, according to HUD, we are short. And that was -- the deadline wasn't the issue on Friday. They were fine with us on that and said, you know, if we can -- if it was a matter of having the Page 49 June 9, 1998 information that put us over 200,000 today or next Monday, they didn't have a problem with that. They're saying we only have 195,500 people. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Realistically, we're not going to get any HUD money this year. MR. CAUTERO: Based on what Commissioner Constantine is saying, if we -- obviously, we have different sources of information and I -- I -- I'm sorry about that, but I will certainly look into it personally because if what you're saying is correct, and I hope it is, we may be able to do something this year. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's try. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. And what Greg had said to me on Friday is we can do that, but it will be a several months process as opposed to a couple of weeks process because the same thing you just said is we're going to have to bring someone in and what they do with the -- the census numbers, let's go back and dispute them in 1993 and realized that it was actually higher in '93 than what HUD saying it was. And then when you look at the growth on that number, it's a little bigger for the next year and so on. And that gets us to where we legitimately are, over 200,000. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's wonderful and it's worth it if -- if -- is it true that there's a automatic grant if we are over 200,000 in population? We automatically get some money? MR. CAUTERO: Once the qualification is assured, the money is automatic is my understanding. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, it's worth fighting for this year. MR. CAUTERO: It sure is. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's about a million and a half dollars. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, I have a -- I have a -- excuse me. I have a question here. Were you involved in this conference call? MR. FERNANDEZ: Oh, no. No, I wasn't. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You were involved in a conference call? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was not on a conference call, but we had conversation. As a matter of fact, Bob and I had talked Wednesday or Thursday with this, and I told him I'd be talking to a couple of the city councilors and would have -- I thought they would be reconsidering their position. And in order to make sure everybody was on the same page, we scheduled a teleconference with HUD. I assume you're the one who asked Greg to be a part of that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: He didn't know about it. MR. FERNANDEZ: I didn't know you'd had a -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That somehow magically appeared because I didn't ask Greg to do it, so I'm not sure who did, but -- and the City Administrator from Marco Island. If it's criticism for it, trying to save a million and a half dollars, I'll take the -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, it's not. It's not, commissioner, but it's a problem. It's a problem. This opens up a whole lot of other concerns and, number one, it -- setting all of this aside for just a minute, but dealing with this issue, I was not aware that this issue was going to be on the agenda until I got a phone call from the News Press that this was going to be on the agenda. Page 50 June 9, 1998 And there have been some exchange of materials between the Marco Island -- what do you want to call him -- chairman, and myself and also involving Mr. Fernandez. And I -- I was under the assumption, maybe perhaps wrong, that any discussion that takes place between the two groups representing county policies or issues at this point in time was between our County Administrator and the City Manager on Marco Island. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or the chairman, frankly. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Or whatever. And in any conversation that we have had. And I -- I was taken aback by this because, you know, the first question to me is, you know, what's the problem, what's going on, we understand there's some misunderstandings, et cetera, et cetera. And, so, I was kind of blindsided by this, which I certainly didn't appreciate, and none of you would have appreciated either had you been in the -- in the same situation. And I -- I was just -- I -- I still feel that until the time comes when Mr. Fernandez, Mr. Moss, say to us, this is the time. We have these following issues. We absolutely cannot go any further. It is then time for us to sit down and discuss these items. And I -- you know, to broker, and I'll use that word, this kind of communication and it puts us in the situation sitting up here how could you deny having a meeting? I mean, there isn't any one of us up here that doesn't want to talk to somebody else. But at the same time, it's appropriate that this be handled by our County Administrator. He's the one, and Mr. Moss on Marco Island, are the two that are handling and running their respective entities. And until they determine that they have reached a point that they can't discuss anymore, then I think it's time that we sit down and discuss the issues at hand. But I haven't heard that from the County Administrator. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I have, and if I can respond, Mr. Fernandez, did we or did we not have that conversation? Did you or did you not send a letter with those exact words to the manager? And did I not tell you last Wednesday that I thought maybe we should put this on and ask the board and you agreed? Boy, yeah. Let's see if that's something we can pursue. Did those three things happen? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, except for the third. The third one, it was already on the agenda when we talked about it. You'd already placed it on the agenda. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As of twelve noon, because Wednesday at twelve noon is the deadline and our meeting is at two o'clock. MR. FERNANDEZ: Two o'clock. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So, it certainly could have been -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Out of courtesy to the balance of the board, if it were something that we could as a group decide to do -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It absolutely is but I can't come to you except in this forum, so -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But you could come to him and ask him to put it on the agenda, instead of it being Commissioner Constantine's proposal for, you know, the summit. It would be better if we went through the regular channels. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure. If it matters that much to -- Page 51 June 9, 1998 from what source it comes, Mr. Fernandez and I had the discussion. Mr. Fernandez -- as a matter of fact, last Wednesday was not the first time that you have told me. It was as far as you thought you could go, and so I -- I'm a little frustrated at the criticism here because CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I was a little frustrated when I got called by the newspaper. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me finish my comments. I didn't interrupt you. The -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Excuse me? Excuse me? I am the chairman, and you'll speak and then that's it. Okay? I'm sorry, Tim, but this was very offensive to me. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I'm sorry you're offended that I put an item on the agenda. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I was not offended by that. I was offended in the manner that it happened. If you wished to put this on the agenda, you could have had the courtesy of at least sending a memo to me. You send a lot of other memos. You could have sent a memo to me that said that you were requesting this meeting for the following reason. Nothing more. You didn't have to discuss anything. At least I wouldn't have been blindsided by the press when they call and want to know what's going on. I had no idea. It sounds pretty stupid and I don't appreciate that. I didn't appreciate it in this item, because I know that we have had ongoing conversation with the chairman down there and I have ongoing conversation as the same has happened with Mr. Fernandez and Mr. Moss. Now, I don't know where the communication link broke down, but obviously there's been a breakdown. Now, If you want to circumvent the rest of us and you want to start doing things down there with Marco, that's up to you, Tim. You have every right to talk to them, anybody down there you wish to talk to. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know I do and I'm certainly not trying to circumvent the process. Let me explain two individual things here. One, Mr. Fernandez and I had discussed on more than one occasion that he felt he and the staff had gone as far as they could go. I suggested that we put it on the agenda so that all five of us could discuss the opportunity of a joint meeting, plain and simple. That's all there was to it. If someone else made that suggestion, I would not take offense at that. It just -- I happened to put it on. It hadn't been on the agenda up till this point. It still seemed like a logical suggestion to me that the two groups ought to sit down and do that. Separately, and I'm -- I'm unsure as to this is circumventing policy, we had a deadline on Friday, June 5 for that HUD grant. We saw an opportunity as of Wednesday to save that grant chance for a million and a half dollars to benefit the Collier County community. I could either speak with those city councilors or I could wait until Tuesday after the deadline had passed and asked you as chairman to do that or, you know, asked for permission from the board to go talk to someone on Marco Island. I was simply making an effort to try to do what appeared perfectly logical, and that is save a million and a half dollars for Page 52 June 9, 1998 Collier County, bring that grant into a realty. I have no idea what happened and we can decipher that outside this forum as far as Mr. Mihalic being on that call and whether Mr. Fernandez was involved or not. When I talked to you midday that day, you were well aware that a teleconference had gone on, Mr. Fernandez, and were making calls to try to inform me on the information that that happened. So, I don't know who scheduled that. I didn't. And -- but, frankly, I think it was a good thing that it did happen because we may have a chance of getting some money for this calendar year as part of the -- or this fiscal year as part of that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. The HUD issue is one issue. All right. Let's set that aside. Is there an agreement on the Marco Island City Council that they wish to sit down and talk to us? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's -- that's why I brought it to the board is I'm asking if the board is comfortable in giving our County Administrator direction to go and tell them, gee, the board would like to sit down. Do you guys have interest in that? When would it be? Where would it be? My understanding is Shell Peterson's going to break up the same issue down there and just say, the county is interested. I think it's a good idea that we ought to all sit down and -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I guess one of the things that offended me, Tim, was in the press release that you sent out that you stated that there have been quips and so forth in the newspaper. That, I -- you know, it's one of those very, very sensitive issues. I don't want to get into a verbal battle. I have not wanted to get into a verbal battle, but I'm going to tell you right offhand, it hasn't been initiated from this Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: For sure. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. But on the other hand, when someone makes a comment, I'm not going to sit back and be drilled. I mean, that's not my nature and I'm not going to sit back and have someone run all over the side of me. And, sp -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Nor would any of us. I don't -- and I'm not criticizing you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And that's the point and that was what I didn't understand and what this whole thing was about as to -- it was like we've had -- we've got this big dissension going on. I'm not aware of any dissension. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Me neither. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I have certainly read about comments from some of the council down there that they have made. And that's fine. They're entitled to their opinions. They can say what they want to say. But to insinuate that there is a battle going on verbally through the media between our group and their group, I think, is an unfair characterization of the whole event. It's -- it's not the case. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, and I don't -- I don't think it has escalated to anything more than a few minor quips, but I would hope that -- I know in the case of the City of Naples over the past six years from time to time it has escalated beyond that. And the way Page 53 June 9, 1998 we've diffused that each time is by sitting down with them and finding what the differences are and what the likenesses are. And that's all I was suggesting here is let's not wait until it escalates further because I don't think there's a problem now. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There have been some inappropriate statements ironically in that article where we're trying to talk about cooperation, one of the Marco City councilors is still taking jabs at the board. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I know. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But the whole point is rather than let that escalate, maybe we ought to just find a time and it may be a month from now, maybe two months from now but we ought to -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's fine. I don't think -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- address that willingness to sit down. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't think anybody objects to that. It's the timeliness and I think that's what's important. Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Really, what this comes down to is an issue of process. From my standpoint as an individual commissioner, it was my understanding that the board had directed the County Administrator to work with the City Administrator, and the City Manager in Marco, to come up, you know, at some point they would arrive at impasse. And at that point, for the County Administrator to come to the board and no one's arguing with your idea. I mean, I think we all realize eventually we were going to end up with a sit down, face to face, to talk about the impasse elements because we know we're going to get there. I can -- I can just say that as -- you know, every chairman has their own way of doing things, and I think from Barb's standpoint -- I thought it would come from the County Administrator through Barb to the board. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Me, too. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Whether it comes from you or Barb is immaterial to me because the result is the same, but the press release -- I got the same phone call and I hadn't read your press release when I got the phone call. I had no idea what -- you know, the elements of the -- I wasn't prepared for the phone call. And that can be frustrating. You hate being called by the press on something that seems out of the blue, and that's part of the frustration. It's not a criticism. I think it's just a realization that's -- that's the case. In the situation of us in Marco and then Barb's being traded back and forth, you know, that's just going to happen. It's -- it's a formation of a new city. Their goal is to be as protective and representative of their -- their constituents on Marco as we are of the county at large, including the Marco and the City of Naples. So, that's just going to happen. That's the nature of the beast. And the paper and media is going to play it up and they love the divisiveness, you know, whenever it appears, and it will get front page news and all that kind of garbage. My personal feeling is don't contribute to it. If one -- you Page 54 June 9, 1998 know, if one side is throwing stones, the best thing you can do is just not throw back. You know, let's -- let's do things in a face-to-face, businesslike manner so that the community has some level of respect for how we deal with these important issues. The one thing I'd like to ask when we get to that meeting and, again, I'm going to count on the counsel of the County Administrator and through the proper channels to let us know when that is appropriate. One thing that has been left out of this discussion is we have a current relationship with the City of Naples. And one thing that may not be understood from the city councilman's perspective on Marco is we can't necessarily do for Marco what we don't do for the City of Naples, nor can we do for Naples what we don't do for the City of Marco. We've got a standard out there to compare our actions to and with that has to be consistent. And in our effort to be consistent, I think we are -- we are taking a lot of shots for -- for not treating Marco, you know, as Marco itself. But, you know, we have to be consistent. Otherwise, if we start doing X on Marco with general tax dollars, we have to do it in the City of Naples, too, and in Everglades City. So, that consistency is something that I think it's all the five of us are trying to achieve. I don't think it's anything more or less than that. I don't think it's any more or less personal. And we'll continue to get communication from individual city council members and I'll continue to respond to those individually, but as a board, and when we make comments to the press as individual commissioners, I think we need to keep in mind, and, again, I'm not directing this at you. I'm -- I've read -- I mean, I've said some things in the past, that I can go back and etch out of the paper because they were -- they were either misinterpreted or -- or played in such a way that they were not intended. Let's wait until we're face to face to talk about policy, and I think we all can do that, and this thing will run a lot smoother. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Mr. Fernandez and then Pam. MR. FERNANDEZ: Ma'am Chairman, I just wanted to say that I think what's happened here is that -- and there's a potential for this often because I don't think there's any secret about the fact that on many issues the council on Marco Island is not unanimous in their position. And as chairman, you may be receiving feedback from your counterpart in one direction. Other commissioners may be receiving feedback in another direction. And that's, I think, what adds to the -- the complexity of dealing with an issue like this. I have in fact advised that I thought we had gone as far as we could go with our negotiations. And I have -- I have said that in a -- in a letter of correspondence to the City Manager. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you know when that letter went, Bob? MR. FERNANDEZ: It's been about two weeks, I think. The next step is for him to either concur with that conclusion or not, for him to say, you're right, we're as far as we can go. It's now time to call our commissioners together or our councilors together and, I guess, at that point it would be appropriate for me to then come to the Board of County Commissioners and say, we've gone as far Page 55 June 9, 1998 as we can go. The other side concurs. We now have the following issues to resolve. And that's how I envision proceeding. But, I think we need to be very careful not to get caught up in some of the controversy that is part of a new community establishing their government and trying to make some difficult decisions. We've tried to be very consistent. We've tried to use the City of Naples as the benchmark on issues that we felt we could provide service and issues where we felt we could not. And we've tried to be very consistent about that. But I think the important thing here is to give him the opportunity to respond to my position that I think we've gone as far as we can, see if they concur with that, and then if that -- there is concurrence, call the meeting together. What I think happened is that we got feedback through the chairman that maybe indicated that wasn't the case, that there was more opportunity for a discussion at the administrative level and, therefore, it may be not the right time to call a joint meeting together yet. Mr. Constantine may not have heard that same communication since he may have been communicating with a different city council member and that's where I think we're getting mixed signals from the board who is not unanimous on -- on these issues. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: At this time, Mr. Moss you have not had a response back from -- MR. FERNANDEZ: No, I haven't. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- from him regarding the letter that you sent. MR. FERNANDEZ: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Well, then I think until the time comes that you do, I think we should, you know, just kind of hold off, but Commissioner Mac'Kie, you wanted to speak? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have three points, the most substantive of which you've just described and that is we don't know yet if they agree that it's time for the boards to talk. They may yet be willing to give some more, so let's -- let's wait and see. Of course, we want to talk but I'd like to just to go back to the -- to what I thought was the -- the plan and that is that when Mr. Fernandez tells us that we've gone as far as we can go in the staff direction, then he'll tell us that as a board and we'll make a decision as a board. I didn't know that there that was a press release. I wonder about why that would be because that -- that does seem to me to be sort of circumventing the chairman and troubling. And I want to know, I think we have to, we have an obligation to find out who told who to do what in this staff conference call, because we are not allowed to tell staff what to do. We're allowed to ask staff for information and we're allowed to ask you to ask staff but, you know, that's a real important point we've got to be careful about, so I'd like to know the resolution of that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And perhaps my recollection is just completely distorted and wrong, but I've asked Miss Filson to get a copy of that letter, and it seems to me it was more than two weeks ago, first of all. But, second, Mr. Fernandez in our discussions, you expressed some Page 56 June 9, 1998 frustration and surprise that you hadn't got any response and even indicated that it appeared maybe you weren't going to get a response because several weeks had gone by. And, so, I don't think it was just two weeks ago. And when you and I talked about it Wednesday, it wasn't the first time we had talked about it, but even so, that would be then ten days after that letter had gone out or a week after that letter had gone out, and I don't think you -- the indication would have been, well, we're as far as we go and that's it. I think the letter, from what you've told me in previous conversations when I -- more than two weeks ago, and you were frustrated that you hadn't got a response back. So, secondly, on your items, it's no different than any other item I've done for six years. If I put an item on the agenda, I often do a press release. That's not circumventing any policy. If I add an item onto the agenda, I explain why in writing, the same thing I've done for six years. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It would be nice though if you'd copy your fellow board members instead of send it to the press or maybe in addition to. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, that's fine. I'll be happy to do that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And -- but my recollection of my conversations with Mr. Fernandez are very different than what's been expressed here. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I think we've beat this dead horse. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think so. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I apologize. I will never suggest a joint meeting or a good communication with another government body again. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, that's what we're all asking. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what we're looking for, Tim. Thanks. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't see where it was so controversial. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, it's not. It was just a -- a situation that you put us in. It wasn't what you did. It's what you failed to do in letting the rest of us know what you were doing. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think the board can -- we talked about it. We're going to have a meeting come through Mr. Fernandez. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And he tells us. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the chairman will advise the board of when that will be scheduled and, you know, off we go. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I think that's a direction. I don't think we need to take a vote on that either. I think everybody's pretty much in agreement on that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I am, however, appreciative of Commissioner Constantine's work on the HUD grant. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's fine. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Somebody did need to step in and get involved on, so for that thing -- Page 57 June 9, 1998 Item #10C DISCUSSION REGARDING SPACE NEEDS FOR SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. Moving on then, the next Item 10(C) concerning the Supervisor of Elections. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I assume that Mary Morgan has talked to the rest of the board about some space needs. I thought I might sit down with her at the direction of the board and go over a few things and maybe see if we can develop a couple of ideas to bring back to the board if that's okay with all of the board members? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: need to be addressed. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think that's a great idea. Okay. Voice some real legitimate concerns that That's it then. Let me ask this. We -- Mary had asked to -- to see me this afternoon on that. If we're going to appoint a liaison, does that become problematic or -- as long as we do it individually? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: As long as you do it individually -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- you can do whatever you want. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Ail right. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Because I likewise had gotten a call regarding that. Does staff have any comment or any concern? You know what's going on so -- okay. Ail right. I don't believe we need to -- do we need to appoint Mr. Norris to act as a liaison or -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Nobody objected. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's close enough. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's as good as you're going to get, pal . COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We're down to the Ty Agoston item. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Where is Ty? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You're right. Any public comment? Mr. Fernandez, do we have any registered speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: Not on that subject, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Nothing on that subject? MR. FERNANDEZ: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- Miss Filson was just indicating 10(C)? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: 10(C). COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, yeah. That was the Mary Morgan item. We appointed Commissioner Norris liaison to discuss that issue with her and bring it back to the board. MS. FILSON: Okay. Page 58 June 9, 1998 CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We're going to try and see how far we can go here. If we get bogged down in some of those, then we'll go ahead and take a break, but otherwise let's see if we can keep on going here. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The first one looks like it might take a few minutes but we've got a scrivener's error, we've got a couple of reductions in densities, so it seems like it's fairly easy. Item ORDINANCE 98-49 RE PETITION PUD-97-19, MR. WILLIAM L. HOOVER, REPRESENTING GARRETT F.X. BEYRENT, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "A" AGRICULTURAL TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS THE MAGNOLIA POND PUD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 1-75 AND APPROXIMATELY ONE-HALF MILE WEST OF CR-951 - ADOPTED WITH STIPULATIONS CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let's see what we can do. Item 12(B) (1), Petition PUD 97-19 considering an agriculture rezone to a PUD known as Magnolia Pond. MR. BELLOWS: Madam Chairman, since this is a quasi-judicial hearing, please swear in the speakers. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Would all those people wishing to speak to this item, please rise and be sworn in? (The witnesses were sworn by the court reporter.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I for one have had contact with people on both sides of this issue and -- but I'll base my decision according to law. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've spoken with just -- let's see. Who have I spoken with? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You've got outside contact. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You've had disclosures. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've had outside contact. I need to disclose with whom. Oh, with Mr. Yovanovich and his side. That's -- yeah. This is that one. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I've had contact from both sides of the issue. I also will comply with state requirements. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Hancock will -- Commissioner Hancock will make his statement when he gets back in here. In the meantime, if you want to start with the presentation, please. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The petitioner is requesting to -- THE COURT REPORTER: Sir, would you identify yourself for the record? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The petitioner, Mr. Hoover is requesting to rezone the subject of 42-acre site from agriculture to planned unit development, the property is located on the north side of 1-75 and approximately one-half mile west of County Road 951. Proposed Magnolia Pond PUD leaves out a development scheme of 294 dwelling units which results in a density of 6.99 units per acre. The residential dwelling units are projected to be developed as villas or coach homes or condominium units. Page 59 June 9, 1998 As you can see on the site plan, access to the subject site is from access road number two, which is just south of the Golden Gate Health Park. The density of the Golden Gate Health Park has a residential component of 6.8 units per acre. The agricultural area to the west is one dwelling unit per five acres. The Heron Lake PUD at the end of access road number two has a density of five units per acre. Across the Golden Gate canal is Golden Gate City lots at RSF-3, Golden Gate Estate lots. The PUD stated intent is to construct residential dwelling units with a maximum height of 35 feet per single family if developed that way and 38 feet or three stories for the multifamily. The proposed dwelling types are compatible with the dwellings that are approved for the Golden Gate Health Park PUD. Furthermore, the application of development standards and the architectural theme requirements of the PUD should remove any perception of any incompatibility with adjacent land uses. The traffic impact study indicates that the project trips will not exceed the five percent level Service C, designed volume of CR-951. The Collier County Planning Commission reviewed this petition during their May 21st, 1998 hearing and it was their determination that the requested density was somewhat high. Staff had recommended a density of 5.5 units per acre as a transition between the five units approved in the Heron Lake PUD and the 6.8 units in the Golden Gate Health Park. However, the planning board recommended six units per acre as an adequate transition. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Staff recommendation again was? MR. BELLOWS: 5.5 units per acre. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: The petitioner has also been working with the agents for the Golden Gate Health Park and they have come up with some revised language for the PUD document and their agent will hand that out. It's an additional stipulation concerning access to the Golden Gate Health Park. No letters. Staff has not received any letters for or against this petition. I'd be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any questions for staff? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: This -- yes, I do. The access there on 951 will be right in, right out only. Is that correct? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. If we could hear then from the petitioner. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: At six or five and a half units an acre, how many units are we talking about total? MR. BELLOWS: Well, at six, it's 252 units, and at 5.5 -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So, that's 232 units plus or minus. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So, we're talking about multifamily, plus Page 60 June 9, 1998 or minus eight trips per day. We're talking about over 1700 trips right in, right out only per day. MR. BELLOWS: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Closer to 1800 trips, right in, right out only. Those who want to go northbound will have to go south on 951, I assume, make a U-turn? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. They would have to do that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do we have a division of traffic; how many trips would go north and how many would go south? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I think on the traffic impact statement, and it may be part of the staff report. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Isn't there more to the access issue here? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There is. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, there is by the petitioner. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There is and we're going to hear more about it. I just want to make sure my understanding is correct. MR. BELLOWS: Well, the access point may become moot since this is part of the -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Then we'll wait to hear what agreement, if any, exists because I'm -- I'm very concerned about the northbound traffic having to go south and make a U-turn on 951 there. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner, did you have any disclosure that you had to make? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, I'm sorry. I wasn't here. I have had a canceled phone conference from the petitioner and had a meeting with the Golden Gate Health Park people. That's it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. If you'll just hold your thoughts for just a second, we'll change recording individuals. (Brief recess taken.) MR. HOOVER: For the record, Bill Hoover, of Hoover Planning, representing the petitioner. To answer Commissioner Hancock's question, the traffic study was submitted with 25 percent of the traffic splitting to the north and 75 percent to the south. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Based on? Based on -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How did you choose that? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you have someone here who's a transportation engineer that can help answer that? MR. HOOVER: We don't have a transportation engin -- no, the traffic was approved that way. And I think the trips ended up at 1,630 weekday daily trips. Okay, the intensity of several hundred acres of land designated in this activity center for industrial and commercial uses, and the fact that the project abuts 1-75 for a substantial length sort of coerced the developer, who's also the petitioner in this case, into developing the project for multi-family units for people that would actually be working in this activity center in retail, industrial and office positions. And what we designed up here is an eight-unit carriage home project, similar to Carlton Lakes and Calusa Bay Carriage Homes, that are currently being developed in North Naples. Within the PUD Page 61 June 9, 1998 document, the petitioner has agreed to numerous architectural standards so that the project would be commensurate to each of those two projects. These require high quality architecturally designed lighting and signage, tile or metal roofs on all multi-family buildings, a carport or garage for each unit, and all buildings to be finished in light subdued colors with stucco, except for decorative trim. And what we see up here is what the petitioner would like to develop. That's at 6.47 units an acre. You can see there's an exterior sidewalk bike path around the entire project. Additionally, we've got substantial recreational facilities on there. And all units have frontage on the lake. Regarding the access issue, we have spent considerable time, as well as the representatives from the property owners to the north of the access road, and you can see it on the drawing up here. Access road number two is about a half a mile in length, and it goes from County Road 951 to the eastern boundary of our project. And there's 74 acres of land on the north side of that that's owned by Bonita Bay Properties, which is also known as Golden Gate Health Park PUD. On the south of that, it's owned by a man named Frank Homan, and my understanding is that Hole, Montes and Associates has been working with long-range planning and will probably submit a PUD rezoning on that, whenever DCA finds the most recent comprehensive plan change -- approves that. In what we've agreed, we do have a -- an agreement with Bonita Bay Properties on sharing a fair cost of the loop road. And you can see it in yellow up there. And do you want to hand that out? It's a little bit lengthy, but we've agreed to place that in the PUD document. And I think all the COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Hoover, has the representative from the Bonita Bay people agreed? I mean, have you guys come to agreement on the language? MR. HOOVER: Yes. And Ed Kant has had a chance to look at it and make a few changes also. So basically, we've agreed to pay a fair share on that, including land costs with a cap on there. A fair cost of the traffic signal out there, including turn lanes, engineering, surveying, and a whole -- so we've spelled it out in quite a bit of detail so everybody will understand it's down the road here. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So this now gives you the flexibility of being able to make a left-hand turn northbound rather than going south and making a U-turn -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A U-turn. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And a signalized intersection. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And -- MR. HOOVER: Yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- a signalized intersection. MR. HOOVER: So the safety for -- right now the Golden Gate Health Park does not have an access onto access road number two, they only have cul-de-sacs. But they're coming in for a sunset that I understand will be submitted this fall. So you would have an Page 62 June 9, 1998 opportunity to review that. And you can see our language says that if that access is placed onto access road number two. Personally, I think their project functions better if they utilize that access. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Hoover, would this tie in with the development of the property that you're speaking about, as far as the timetable is concerned? The development of this road, or would it be -- would there be a lag in time where for a period of time your project would have to go out the other roadway and make the right-hand turns, or would this other -- MR. HOOVER: Right now the median cut is right in front of access road number two. And this is a little bit similar to -- if you thought about Pine Ridge Road at the Shell Station there where they have a median cut, that's going to be closed, if I'm understanding that right, when the road is six-laned. And then a traffic light is designated to be at Whippoorwill Lane and Pine Ridge Road. So it's a little bit similar in this case. So I don't believe there's a traffic problem for us utilizing access road number two now. I think when you get commercial out here and the Golden Gate Health Park gets developed, if we develop prior to them, then we would just be using access road number two until such time they actually developed or platted their land and put this road in. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Go ahead. MR. HOOVER: One other point that we had in the agreement that I'd like to put on the record, Bonita Bay Properties has agreed to not object if we came in with a petition to rename access road number two to Magnolia Pond Drive. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Question. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Hoover, the PUD master plan in our package varies from the plan that is on the wall in the location and size of lakes. And I hope I don't offend your creative license when I say what I see on the wall is probably the most unimaginative design I've seen in, you know, my -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What is that? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- years in planning. Which of these are we to believe is to be developed, or are these basically bubble diagrams and we're going to end up with something different? Which one is the plan we're looking at today? We have a PUD master plan that shows lakes in one location, we have a master plan on the wall up there. There's none in our packet that shows lakes in a different location. I guess it's ultimately up to the property owner how they want to design it, but -- MR. BELLOWS: If I may, for the record, the master plan in your PUD document is what has been submitted as the PUD master plan. I believe this is to give the board additional information as what could be developed. MR. HOOVER: You're allowed some latitude on modifying things, as long as -- and if you look at the preserve area, it's all been retained the same. So where we're showing two lakes on the PUD master plan, we created an extra lake on the south side. And on the north side, we combined the two lakes into one. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The question is, which is your current Page 63 June 9, 1998 plan, the one that we have -- MR. HOOVER: The rezoning is governed by the PUD master plan. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So what's the purpose of that one? MR. HOOVER: That's what we intend to build. And my understanding would be -- is that this would comply with the PUD master plan. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: One of the problems I have with the plan you have on the wall is that it's obviously reduced infrastructure cost by dead-ending just about everything. But -- you know, I understand it costs me to build the internal roadways, but internal loop roadways to allow people to get around areas rather than dead-ending everything is just a far better design for the community, for public services, for fire safety. You know, for a fire engine to make a wrong turn down there, they get to the end, you're going to have to do fire turnarounds at the end of each cul-de-sac. It's going to -- you know, they'd have to back out and seek another unit. Your signage plan is going to have to be substantial for the fire department to understand the buildings and unit numbers. You know, I'd just like to see you do loop roads and not have so many dead ends there. Because I just think from a safety standpoint inside the community it would be advantageous. The plan you have in our packet obviously envisioned looping roads around lakes and orienting the units internally to those roadways. That's obvious from this. I think this is a safer plan, a better plan for public safety application than that one. And I'd ask your client's consideration in not dead-ending all those roadways. I just think that's a bad idea. MR. HOOVER: I don't think we have a problem, if you want to make that a stipulation, Commissioner. Just to -- if you want loop roads so that there's no dead ends. I think the -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're going to have to be looping your infrastructure anyway, so, you know, I don't -- you know, it's just not that big a deal. I'd like -- as everyone else talks, maybe talk to your client about it. I just think that's a -- quite frankly, that's not a good design, and it's one that could be safer for the residents. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: From a marketing perspective, I know that's not our department -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can't touch marketing. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- but I'd rather live here than there. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Kant? MR. KANT: Edward Kant, transportation services director. Yeah, we had just reviewed this language that they're requesting to be inserted into the PUD document, and had recommended some changes which they've agreed to. The issue had come up a few minutes ago, which I wanted to address, about the intersection of ac -- what we'll still call access road number two, until it's officially changed -- and 951, and the question of timing. We don't have any better information than what's been presented here with respect to the timing of the Golden Gate Health Park and how they may want to make changes, or what changes they may want to make Page 64 June 9, 1998 as far as their sunsetting procedure. So it's very probable that there will be a significant amount of traffic, depending upon what this developer's schedule is, that will come out of access road number two before a road through Magnolia -- before -- through Golden Gate Health Park is available. And I would submit that if we operationally find that that intersection is having problems, either from a safety or operational point of view, and the project obviously is not going to get built out overnight, we would have an ability to recommend to the development services department that building permits be withheld until such time as we get adequate operation of that intersection. The major problem I don't believe is going to occur at that intersection. I believe that if there's going to be any problem at all, it will be further south at the existing signalized intersections as a result of U-turns, and that from the weaving to get over there. So we've looked at this, and we recognize that this could cause some operational problems. On the other hand, there is an issue as to whether or not the project can be simply turned down flat. There is a certain window in there that we think will work sufficiently. Obviously, if the health park road comes about at about the same time or slightly after this comes about, then this issue is moot. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Kant, is there some number of units that we should go ahead and put in here that is the target point that we stop? MR. KANT: I'm not convinced -- this is only a couple of hundred of units at the outside. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Two or three. MR. KANT: If there were a major project, seven, 800, the type we normally see in large PUD's, we probably would make a phasing recommendation. But at this point, I don't see that that would be practical, because then it may preclude the developer from getting started at all. And again, that's a policy issue, but it's not one that we feel ready to make a recommendation on. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think realistically, seeing access road number two, or Magnolia Lane, whatever they want to call it, as an interim roadway, but once the Golden Gate Health Park roadway is constructed, that be the primary access, if not the only access. I think that's the best we can hope for. Because we can't force Golden Gate to build theirs. But once it's in place, we do have a public safety issue, as Mr. Kant has identified potentially at the south area, for people moving across several lanes of traffic moving at a decent speed in that area to end up making, you know, a couple hundred U-turns a day, so -- MR. KANT: I would also submit, commissioners, that the other piece that Mr. Hoover alluded to, I believe the name was Loman -- Homan. To the south would be more problematical because that has all -- except for just a few feet, all of its frontage along the limited access line to the interchange. So his only point of access is going to be via access road number two or the new Golden Gate Health Park access road. So that's going to take some hard looking when that comes -- assuming that's going to come in sometime in the next couple Page 65 June 9, 1998 of years. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: By requiring from a public safety standpoint that this language be incorporated in the PUD, we set the stage to allow for an interconnection for that property in the future, do we not? MR. KANT: Absolutely, Commissioner, yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't think we really have a choice there. I think from a public safety standpoint, both parties agree to this language, it's the best thing for all involved. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Do we have any speakers, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chairman. First is Rich Yovanovich -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- and the second is Anita Jenkins. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: For the record, Rich Yovanovich with Roetzel and Andress, representing Golden Gate Health Park. I think Anita is going to waive and Dennis Church is going to waive. I just wanted to state for the record that we may need to make some grammatical changes to this language, but the concept is agreed to by the Golden Gate Health Park PUD, the owner of that. What we were attempting to do was -- we anticipate that when we come through with our rezone during the sunsetting act, we may be required to provide this access road. And if we are required to provide that access road, I just wanted to make sure that the appropriate parties pay their pro rata share. We've been able to work that out with the Magnolia Pond people when they anticipate a similar requirement, and the Homan property, when they come through. So we do agree to this language being inserted in the PUD. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I assume that we're not going to have a problem with the 10-day transmittal time, based on working the grammatical errors or corrections. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think we're 90 percent, 95 -- MR. PIRES: We can accomplish this by Thursday. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Identify yourself. MR. PIRES: Pardon? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Identify yourself. MR. PIRES: I'm Tony Pires, of Woodward, Pires and Lombardo. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I have two attorneys saying they're pretty sure they can agree, that's about all I can hope for. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's about as good as it gets, I think. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I'm not sure we can hold you to that, Tony, but okay. Thank you. Nothing personal there. Just a professional joke. I get them all the time. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any other speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: We have the other two, Anita Jenkins and Dennis Church, and -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They waived. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- I assume they've waived. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: They waived, okay? Page 66 June 9, 1998 Ail right, at this time, do you have any further questions, commissioners? I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, I'm going to move approval of the project based on the following: One, that the inclusion of something in the substantive form of the proposed language requiring a fair share of contribution be implemented or installed in the PUD. Two, that the project utilize internal loop roads, where possible, to avoid dead ends, where practical. How's that for enough wiggle room for everybody? And lastly, on the density issue, I've got to agree with our staff, I think they took a prudent look at this and I think the information they provided was substantive, and I'm going to ask that it be at 5.5 units per acre. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. If there's no further comment, I'll call the question. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Item #12B2 ORDINANCE 98-50 RE PETITION PUD-86-7(1), WILLIAM VINES OF VINES & ASSOCIATES, REPRESENTING RICHARD K. BENNETT, TRUSTEE, LAND TRUST 5222, REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE TWELVE LAKES PUD, ORDINANCE NO. 87-4 FOR THE PURPOSE OF REDUCING THE NUMBER OF AUTHORIZED DWELLING UNITS AND ESTABLISHING A MAXIMUM GROSS FLOOR AREA FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF DAVIS BOULEVARD AND SOUTH SIDE OF RADIO ROAD ONE-HALF MILE EAST OF SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD - ADOPTED Moving on to item 12(B) (2), petition PUD-86-7(1). This is regarding the Twelve Lakes PUD ordinance number 87-4 for the purpose of reducing the number of authorized dwelling units and establish a gross floor area for commercial development. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, this looks like kind of a no-brainer. We're cutting the number of units from 310. I don't see a downside to -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You've always liked that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Once again -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Nino, is there some downside to this I'm missing as I read through the item? MR. NINO: No, you're not. Cut and dried. It's -- Ron Nino. It's definitely -- it executes the decision you made quite frankly some six months ago when you amended the Twelve Lakes development order. These commensurate reductions were made in the development intensity in that DRI, and this merely confirms and implements the DRI development order to establish the same density and intensity requirements. The petitioner has of course agreed to this. He advised me that he wouldn't be able to attend this meeting, since he's in North Carolina, and because it is such a no-brainer, didn't think he'd have to be here. Page 67 June 9, 1998 CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let the record reflect. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't know, I've got a lot of questions. Just kidding. Just kidding. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, having said all that, I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Move the item. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Did we have any speakers on this? MR. FERNANDEZ: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not sure who actually made the motion, but I'll second it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Ail in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Nino. We have a motion and a second. Motion carries five-zero. Thank you, Mr. Item #12B3 ORDINANCE 98-51 RE PETITION PUD-97-15, BLAIR A. FOLEY, OF COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC., REPRESENTING GEORGE V~IKOBRATOVICH, TRUSTEE, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "CF" COMMUNITY FACILITY TO "PUD. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A MIXED COMMERCIAL LAND USE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY IN A PROJECT TITLED WILLOW PARK FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF AIRPORT PULLING ROAD SOUTH OF LONE OAK BOULEVARD AND IMMEDIATELY CONTIGUOUS TO PRINCESS PARK - ADOPTED WTIH STIPULATIONS The next item is petition PUD-97-15. Petitioner is requesting a rezone from CF community facility to a PUD for mixed commercial land use development entitled Willow Park. MR. NINO: Madam Chairman, this is a quasi judicial meeting and we'll have to swear in. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Would all the persons wishing to speak to this item please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. Commissioner Mac'Kie, any disclosure here? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No disclosure. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: None. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: None, although I will initiate the no-brainer discussion, if you -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. I've had no discussion either, so you can initiate the no-brainer. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We made some policy changes in the past because parcels like this were forced into a high density residential configuration because of their small size. This is low intensity commercial, it's heights are compatible with the adjacent properties, and I just don't see a difficulty in moving forward with this particular application. Page 68 June 9, 1998 COMMISSIONER NORRIS: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: see him. Where's Mr. Foley, he's supposed to be the Well, if he were here -- -- petitioner. -- I'd take it up with him, but I don't CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Asher is here representing -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We could beat up on John equally as well. MR. NINO: Madam Chairman, I do need to bring to your attention an issue, however -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Please do. MR. NINO: -- that as currently structured, the PUD is based on the assumption that an ERI -- EAR amendment was going to occur, namely, the amendment for the office in in-fill commercial. That is not in place today, so that technically this PUD is inconsistent with the FLUE. However, if this PUD were further conditioned to indicate that no development would occur, that is at variance to the current commercial under criteria, which is 25,000 square feet, and use is only limited to the C1T, that that level of initial development would be consistent with today's requirements of the future land use element. And to that end, I have an additional stipulation that would accomplish that and which the developer has agreed to. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Basically all it's saying is that at the time of the building permit application, if we are unsuccessful in the EAR process going forward with the request that changes be made, then require to be consistent with the current standards. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We'll play by the current rules until they change. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What a concept. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Play by the current rules -- MR. NINO: And with that stipulation, we do have a PUD that is entirely consistent with elements of the growth management plan. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Mr. Asher, would you like to say a few words? MR. ASHER: Not really. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, that's fine. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good answer. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have any speakers on this item? MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. If there's no question for the petitioner, I will close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Move the item consistent with Mr. Nino's comments. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. If there's no further questions, all in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Thank you very much. MR. ASHER: I was surprised not to get a comment on the land Page 69 June 9, 1998 planning from Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He'll catch you later. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I'm sure if -- if you inquired, I'm sure he would be happy to give his thoughts. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You were sufficiently vague as to avoid any direct criticism. MR. ASHER: One long street, dead end cul-de-sac. That's the only option on that piece of property. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, not much you can do. Item #12B4 ORDINANCE 98-52 RE PETITION PUD-96-08(1) MARK MCCLEARY OF COMMUNITY ENGINEERING SERVICES REPRESENTING WORTHINGTON COMMUNITIES OF NAPLES, INC. REQUESTING TO REPEAL THE CURRENT VANDERBILT PINES PUD AND TO ADOPT A NEW PUD TO CHANGE HTE NAME OF THE PUD, REDUCE THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENT FOR SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, AND REVISE THE NATIVE PRESERVE PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF CR 951 AND VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, item 12(B) (4), petition number PUD-96-08(1). This is representing Worthington Communities of Naples, requesting to repeal the current Vanderbilt Pines PUD to adopt a new PUD to change the name of the PUD and reduce the minimum lot width, et cetera, et cetera. This is located at the intersection of County Road 951 and Vanderbilt Beach Road. Ms. Murray. MS. MURRAY: Madam Chairman, this is a quasi judicial nature. As such, you need to swear myself and others in. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All individuals wishing to speak to this item, please rise and be sworn. (All speakers were duly sworn.) MS. MURRAY: Susan Murray -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Excuse me, any disclosure, commissioners? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: None. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: None. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No disclosure. One quick question on the description here in our summary. It says for property located at the northeast corner of the intersection of CR 951 or Vanderbilt Beach Road. That property literally on that corner isn't part of this PUD; is that correct? MS. MURRAY: Not directly on the corner. It would be just northeast of that intersection. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks. MS. MURRAY: Thanks. Susan Murray, for the record. Basically, as you read into the title, this requested rezoning action accomplishes three things: First, it changes the name from the originally adopted name of Vanderbilt Pines PUD to the Vanderbilt Country Club PUD; it amends the native preserve plan to add drainage corridors within specific areas; and allows for relocation of preserve areas and replanting within the clubhouse tract. Page 70 June 9, 1998 COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I don't know if we've had any objections, but again, this doesn't seem like anything too controversial. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have any public speakers on this item? MR. FERNANDEZ: None. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have one question. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The total reduction in native preserve area is how much? MS. MURRAY: I don't think there's any total reduction -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MS. MURRAY: -- it's just a reconfiguration. The amount of preserve area stays -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The staff report implied a reduction and that's why I asked the question. That wasn't my understanding. MS. MURRAY: I think there's a reduction in certain areas, and it is compensated for in others. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So the native preserve area remains the same acreage-wise? MS. MURRAY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any other questions from commissioners? If not, I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Move the item. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to approve item PUD-96-08(1) . All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Thank you for your great presentation, gentlemen. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good job. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Item 12(C) (1) has been continued to the June 16th meeting. Item #12C2 ORDINANCE 98-53 AMENDING ORDINANCE 97-17, THE COLLIER COUNTY STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES ORDINANCE - ADOPTED We will go to 12(C) (2), adopt an ordinance amending ordinance 97-17. These are all sorts of things. Adding for standards and procedures, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you close the public hearing, I'd be happy to make a motion to approve the item. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I will close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I make a motion we approve the item. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll second that motion. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to approve item 12(C) (2). All in favor? Opposed? Page 71 June 9, 1998 (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a thank you, Mr. Ilschner, getting this here. MR. ILSCHNER: Thank you, Madam Chairman. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It needed to be there. for Item #12C3 ORDINANCE 98-54 AMENDING ORDINANCE 98-5, TO CORRECT A SCRIVENER'S ERROR RESULTING FROM SAID ORDINANCE NOT ACCURATELY REFLECTING THE EXACT WORDING, REPRESENTED TO THE BERKSHIRE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION RELATIVE TO THE PROPOSED PERSONAL SELF-STROAGE FACILITIES TO BE LOCATED NEAR THE N.W. CORNER OF DAVIS BOULEVARD AND SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Item 12(C) (3), Community Development and Environmental Services Division requesting approval of an ordinance amending ordinance number 98-5 to correct a scrivener's error. Mr. Nino. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Scrivener's error? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How did this happen? I'm just curious. MR. NINO: Ron Nino, for the record. Well, apparently -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How did we catch it? MR. NINO: I beg your pardon? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How did we catch this error? MR. NINO: It was brought to our attention by -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A gentleman who lives in -- MR. NINO: -- a gentleman who lived in Berkshire who maintained that the amendment, as it occurred, the final amendment, did not mirror image the language that was conveyed to them in the -- their meetings with the developer in attempting to convince them -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that meant no change? MR. NINO: -- that this was a great project. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. Some of the stuff didn't match up the way -- MR. NINO: As our executive summary points out, however, we -- we remain of the opinion that the substance of the amendment carries out the intent that you approved, and it's really a wordsmithing kind of scrivener's error, and -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If the petitioner doesn't object to the wordsmithing, and it makes all parties happy, I don't -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then let's do it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- see why we shouldn't proceed with it. No harm, no foul. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's my thought. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to approve this item. Ail in favor? Page 72 June 9, 1998 Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Item #12C4 RESOLUTION 98-179 RE PETITION SNR-98-3, GARY K. WILSON OF PORTER, WRIGHT, MORRIS & ARTHUR, REPRESENTING LUXURY HOMES AT MARSH LINKS, INC., REQUESTING A STREET NAME CHANGE FROM SLIPPERY ELM COURT TO PERSIMMON COURT~ LOCATED IN PELICAN MARSH - ADOPTED Next item, petition SNR-98-3, representing Luxury Homes at Marsh Links, requesting a street name change from Slippery Elm Court. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thus the need. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, decided the reason. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I can understand why you want to change this, Dan, I can't even say it. Slippery Elm Court to Persimmon Court, located in Pelican Marsh. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Too controversial for me. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Whoever named it Slippery Elm in the first place ought to be -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do you have a number -- could we just ask, are there a number of residences along -- MR. NINO: There are six lots on this -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No residences? MR. NINO: -- piece of road. Yes, there are. They've all signed -- they've signed -- there's one residence on it, I believe. And that resident is the person who initiated the petition. However, we have a petition that is signed by the six property owners, indicating their agreement to change the name of the street. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That was our main concern, make sure we'd accommodated all the people. I'll close the public hearing. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, you have one speaker. MR. THOMPSON: That's me. I'll waive it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I believe he doesn't want to talk us out of this. item. much. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to approve this Ail in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Thank you very Page 73 June 9, 1998 Item #13A1 RESOLUTION 98-180 RE PETITION CU-98-3, RICHARD F. DURLING REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE ESTATES ZONING DISTRICT FOR A MODEL HOME FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY AND SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD - ADOPTED Item 13(A) (1) is continued from the May 26th meeting. This is petition number CU-98-3. This is the request for a conditional use for a model home located on Santa Barbara just south of the intersection of Golden Gate Parkway. Ms. Murray. MS. MURP~AY: Madam Chairman, this is a quasi judicial hearing. As such, I need to be sworn, and you-all need -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, anyone wishing to speak to this item, please rise and be sworn in by our court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Put your hand down, Dave. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right, please proceed, Ms. Murray. MS. MURRAY: Susan Murray, current planning -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Just a moment. I don't have any -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No disclosures. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Besides Dave, do we have a petitioner? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Go ahead, please. MS. MURRAY: The applicant is requesting a conditional use approval in order to continue a temporary use permit for a model home in excess of three years. This is a Marvin Homes model, which fronts on the west side of Santa Barbara Boulevard, just south of the intersection -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I believe -- do any of the commissioners -- you're all familiar with what she's talking about. If there's no concern over this -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: None whatsoever. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- particular item, I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Move the item. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to approve this item for a model home usage. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Page 74 June 9, 1998 Item #13A2 RESOLUTION 98-181 RE CU-98-5, BRUCE TYSON, ASLA, AICP, OF WILSON, MILLER, BARTON & PEEK, INC. REPRESENTING THE FOUNDATION FOR MENTAL HEALTH, INC., (DAVID LAWRENCE MENTAL HEALTH CENTER) FOR A CONDITIONAL USE, NAMELY CONDITIONAL USE "2" SOCIAL & FRATERNAL ORGANIZATIONS OF THE ,,E" ESTATES ZONING DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY AT 6075 GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY - ADOPTED Next item is petition CU-98-5. This is a request from David Lawrence Mental Health Center for a conditional use in the Estates. I believe this is located on their current property. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It is. MR. NINO: Quasi judicial meeting. We need to swear in -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All individuals wishing to speak to this item, would you please rise and be sworn in. (All speakers were duly sworn.) COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I did meet briefly with Mr. Schimmel on this item. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I had a phone conversation with him. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I met with Mr. Schimmel as well. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I may have had limited conversation. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's enough. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I met with Mr. Schimmel, but I also need to disclose that during my time in the private sector, I handled a conditional use request for this property. Obviously that was a different time. I have no connection to the property at this time and no conflict, but I felt it important at least to -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's fine. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- disclose that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Appreciate that. Thank you. Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Yes, Ron Nino, for the record. The David Lawrence Mental Health Center is an existing facility on the north side of Golden Gate Parkway. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Does anybody think this is not a no-brainer? I think this is a slam dunk, myself. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think this finally puts the campus together in a single plan that makes sense. And in actuality, this is the end product. You can't do much more on the site than what's being proposed here. And with that being the concern, obviously -- do we have any letters from the adja -- neighbors? MR. NINO: No, we've had no objections lodged against this petition. Planning Commission were unanimous in their endorsement. Petitioner has agreed to the stipulations, which would provide a masonry wall along the north side of the property; where any parking lot occurs, lighting has been subdued. We think we have a very good product here. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So do we. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Other than Mr. Tyson, is there anyone else that needs to say anything and try to talk us out of this? Okay, then I'll close the public hearing. Page 75 item. June 9, 1998 COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to approve this Ail in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. You arrived just in time, Mr. Schimmel. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 'Bye, Dave. Page 76 June 9, 1998 Item #13A3 RESOLUTION 98-182 RE CU-98-6, ALL AMERICAN HOMES, INC. REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE OF THE LDC FOR AN EXTENSION OF A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT FOR A MODEL SALES CENTER FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 930 39TH STREET SW IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES - ADOPTED COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't know, I think we're about to slow down this next one, I've got all kinds of problems with it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, yeah. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think so. I think this probably -- we need to allow probably -- maybe we should take a lunch break and come back and deal with this one. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Come back with this one. Because gosh, I mean, this is very controversial. I mean, especially considering, you know, who it is and everything. I mean, that in itself. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think we better take a long -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't know. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- time to discuss this. Mr. Badamtchian, if you could, please. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good afternoon, commissioners. This is a quasi judicial hearing, those who wish to speak need to be sworn in. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Would all those individuals wishing to speak to this item please rise and be sworn in. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let the record reflect that we have a little trouble discerning between the left and right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No disclosure. Just thought I'd throw that in there. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No disclosure. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No disclosure. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: None. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: None other than the unfortunate. You know, I know both the people here on this item, so, you know, that's obviously going to hurt it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Badamtchian, please? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good afternoon, commissioners. This is a typical conditional use for a model home extension. The parcel is located at the corner of -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You need to have -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'm sorry to interrupt here. It seems like it might be remarkably similar to item 13(A) where it's just an extension for a model home at an appropriate location. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Has there been any opposition to this? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, no opposition. I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Move the item. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second for this item. All in favor? Opposed? Page 77 June 9, 1998 (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. We realize this took longer than anticipated. Page 78 June 9, 1998 Item #14A MEETING OF OCTOBER 27, 1998 TO BE CANCELLED DUE TO INTERNATIONAL CITY AND COUNTY MANAGERS ASSOCIATION IN ORLANDO Moving on then to staff communications. We have to deal with the cancellation of the October 27th board meeting. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, as I said earlier, this is a meeting that conflicts with the International City and County Management Association meeting which is held this year in Orlando. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Can't they change it? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Don't they know we meet? MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm afraid not. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Darn. MR. FERNANDEZ: And because it's being held in Orlando, I'm asking that more staff attend than would normally attend, because the cost is relatively low. It's probably the best professional development opportunity that we have all year long. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My only question is, do we want to have a meeting on a different day of the week, instead of just eliminating a meeting? Because, you know, people with land use petitions have interest clocks running, and we're spending their money when we don't meet. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, that's the reason why it's coming forward so far in advance. I think by having it on the calendar this far in advance, no one can claim dumb at the last minute and say gee, I didn't know. This is an opportunity that -- you know, that I think those who are interested in county management should take advantage of, so, you know, it benefits us as a county directly, and I think we ought to support the request. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I assume the function doesn't take place only on Tuesday anyway in Orlando. MR. FERNANDEZ: No. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, the whole week's -- MR. FERNANDEZ: It's three days on. It's Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I appreciate your concerns, Commissioner Mac'Kie, but I don't know that it's necessary. As long as -- as Commissioner Hancock said, there is some advance notice here. Five months. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just willing to meet on Thursday if there's a need, I guess. Just note that. I mean, if some huge thing comes up -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think if there's a perceived need and it's an emergency kind of thing, we can always call an emergency -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- meeting to deal with the issue, if that's required. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Understood. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But other than that, with this much notice, I believe that we can let everybody know in our planning staff and all, the word will be out so they can advise people coming in what needs to Page 79 June 9, 1998 happen. ***Okay, Board of Commissioners' Communications. Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Wouldn't think of it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez, do you have anything that you'd like to add? Item #14B COUNTY MANAGER TO SIGN DOCUMENTS WHILE BCC IS ON VACATION IF NECESSARY MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, that discussion you just had about emergency meetings prompted a thought in my mind about the conversation we've had about the vacation period. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. MR. FERNANDEZ: I am not proposing to have the board authorize me to approve items in your absence, as we did last year. And alternatively, would be asking if there is the possibility to have a special meeting during those periods just for the purpose of adopting a consent agenda and no other matters. I was wondering how the board felt about that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask why we would do that? First, I have a discomfort with that, because I planned my family vacation around the vacation schedule set by this board specifically so I will not miss any votes. I'm not -- I don't feel comfortable, other than my honeymoon, taking a vacation when we have board meetings scheduled. So I'm not real comfortable thinking well, while I'm in Maine with my family, there may be an issue that I'm going to miss. It has worked for at least 11 years that way, and I'm curious, why the suggested change? MR. FERNANDEZ: I was uncomfortable with it last year. It's unprecedented for me. Although I received prior approval by the board and then ratification of the items after when you returned, I understand that in spite of that, the clerk does not recognize that approval. And I was concerned when we did receive a challenge to one of the items that was approved in that manner. There was, I think, a bid award that was challenged, and the process became an issue. I understand the county attorney has never been completely confident -- or comfortable with it. I won't speak for him, but he's expressed those thoughts to me. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Can we have a consent agenda meeting by conference telephone call? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know for a fact we can, because that's how I've attended an MPO meeting in the past and, matter of fact, will be later this month. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: How do we do that? MR. WEIGEL: Well, it -- Page 80 June 9, 1998 CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: -- could be done. Obviously it would be observed very carefully, but there would need to be some -- it would be held here at the board room. There would have to be simultaneous communication so that the public could hear the commissioners and the interchange that would be had for those commissioners that were not here present. I've not heard of -- historically seen anything of -- where no commissioners are present and they're purely communicating by some kind of telephonic link-up, but -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It may become the newest thing. MR. WEIGEL: -- I would not recommend it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was about to say, hey -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We've got all this newfangled equipment, maybe we'll put it to use. MR. WEIGEL: But -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I suggest that those items, because we do -- I think the point you made is most important, because we do ratify those decisions after the fact. Those items that are non-monetary or that the clerk isn't going to have to handle, we'll just go ahead with the same procedure. If something happens to pop up of that nature where it's a contract that might otherwise be delayed, then maybe with some -- enough advance notice to get everyone on the phone and do whatever advertisement you need to do, reschedule it. But I just hate to do that otherwise. I'm not comfortable missing meetings and have already made plans because we had a scheduled recess. MR. FERNANDEZ: I understand. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Here's the thing about that, and that is although an item may appear to be able to command a majority for a consent item, the board certainly reserves the prerogative to vote nay on an item that might be ostensibly administratively approved during that hiatus period. And so that any party having an interest or a document or some kind of transaction approved by the board would certainly have to have the understanding, at the very least, that it is -- it is an approval, an administrative approval at risk. Because in no way could we attempt to state, nor would I advise this board, that it has delegated its prerogative to say no when it comes back for confirmation at a later date. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And frankly, that's consistent with what we've done in the past. I mean, the idea is that if someone just needs a routine plat approved, it shouldn't be slowed down three weeks. And at the same time, we probably don't need to have people calling in from all corners of the country to take care of that. The chances of the board coming back and saying wait, that plat's not going to go, are so slim that a reasonable rational person could go with that assurance that yeah, legally the board could come back and raise that question, I'm just going to have to ratify this. But what you're describing is exactly consistent with what we've done for certainly the six years we've been on the board and I know it was done for some years before that. MR. WEIGEL: That's true. It was a policy adopted before I was Page 81 June 9, 1998 county attorney. I've chafed lo' these many years under that policy, quite frankly. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any further thoughts from any commissioner? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, are we dealing with a real crisis here, or are we just trying to shoehorn an old policy that the county attorney and county administrator are not comfortable with? If we just don't take action over that three weeks, and if everyone knows now we're not going to do it, I mean, that -- let's not chase our tail for something that may not really be an issue. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let's back up here a little bit. Just as what we just now did regarding the October meeting, this is June, okay? July, August, September, October. You've got four months that everybody's put on notice. We made our vacation schedule -- I'm sorry, our recess schedule out -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: January. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- January, I believe? We tried to put everybody on notice then, and we tried to tell all of land use people that -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Point made. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- these are incredibly -- you know, this is it, guys, if you need to get something in. If these are routine matters for the most part, you know, I -- I don't really see a big problem with it. But I was just under the impression that we gave people -- that's why we did it in January, to give everybody a heads-up, look, guys, if you know that something's going to be coming in that needs to be approved, you know -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But they've assumed -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- they're not going to be here for a period of time. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think they assumed we're going to do it, though, the way we've done it, like you say, for the last 11 years. And, you know, it really is significant to somebody if they don't get their plat approved, even though -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- it's something that we don't talk about very much. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And to be frank, I would like Mr. Fernandez to go ahead and continue to do it as we have. And if there are specific money items that the clerk has a problem with, we can single those out. But in general, I would like you to go ahead and do that. And if there's some discomfort on your part, I apologize, but I think as the chief executive officer, that responsibility needs to be taken. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I agree with that. I'd rather you just do it the way we always have. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And those of you not comfortable with that, you think or Mr. Weigel thinks are not appropriate -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hold for us. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- then don't do 'em. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Notice has been given. Page 82 June 9, 1998 CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Absolutely. Hold on to it. MR. FERNANDEZ: Those that can't wait or have the substantial financial implications. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. Absolutely. With closing, happy birthday and happy anniversary -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Happy happy. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Happy anniversary. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- and all those good things. And Ms. Filson, is there any more? MS. FILSON: There's nothing. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We are adjourned. ***** Commissioner Mac'Kie moved, seconded by Commissioner Norris and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted with changes= Item #16A1 EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.649, FOR MIKE HOLLEY EXCAVATION, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST; BOUNDED ON THE NORTH BY VACANT LOT, ON THE EAST AND THE SOUTH BY VACANT LOTS AND ON THE WEST BY 4TH STREET NE R/W - SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16A2 - deleted Item #16A3 APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "HILLTOP ESTATES" - SUBJECT TO CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 83 June 9, 1998 Item #16B1 APPRAISAL AGREEMENT FOR VALUATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE FOUR-LANING OF RADIO ROAD FROM SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD TO DAVIS BOULEVARD - AWARDED TO REAL PROPERTY ANALYSTSf INC. Page 84 June 9, 1998 Item #16B2 REPORT ON THE STATUS OF THE GROUNDWATER MONITORING PROGRAM AT THE NAPLES LANDFILL Item #16B3 ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL BY HASKINS, INC. FOR THE REMOVAL OF DEBRIS BURIED ON SITE AT THE WASTEWATER COLLECTIONS FACILITY LOCATED AT 6027 SHIRLEY STREET~ NAPLES~ FLORIDA - IN THE AMOUNT OF $69~000.00 Item #16B4 ALTERNATE ROAD IMPACT FEE AND AN OUTSTANDING CREDIT FOR THE ROBB AND STUCKEY FURNITURE STORE ADDITION ON U.S. 41 NORTH Item #16B5 - Deleted Item #16B6 RENEWAL OF ANNUAL CONTRACT 96-2498 FOR FIXED TERM PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES - WITH BARANY, SCHMITT, WEAVER AND PARTNERS, INC.; VICTOR J. LATAVISH, ARCHITECT, P.A.; ARCHITECTURAL NETWORK, INC.! AND GORA/MCGAHEY ASSOCIATES IN ARCHITECTURE WITH THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT, FOR ONE ADDITIONAL YEAR, UNTIL JULY 15~ 1999 Item #16B7 BID #97-2739, AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD MEDIAN LANDSCAPE REFURBISHMENT - AWARDED TO HORTICULTURAL INDUSTRIES, INC.; AND BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR SAME AND PURCHASE OF LIMEROCK NEEDED FOR GOLDEN GATE ALLEYWAY PROJECT Item #16C1 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS FOR THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT SUMMER FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM Page 85 June 9, 1998 Item #16C2 - Deleted Item #16C3 LANDSCAPE SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH TECH OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC. - RETROACTIVE TO OCTOBER lr 1997 Page 86 June 9, 1998 Item #16C4 - Moved to Item #8C1 Item #16D1 RENEWAL OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND WILLIS CORROON CORPORATION OF GEORGIA FOR GROUP BENEFIT INSURANCE BROKERAGE SERVICES - SUBJECT TO THE SAME TERMS, CONDITIONS, AND FEES WITH THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE RENEWAL BEING OCTOBER 1~ 1998 Page 87 June 9, 1998 Item #16D2 RFP-98-2799, FOR THE ACQUISITION OF MAIL PROCESSING EQUIPMENT - AWARDED TO NEOPOST Item #16D3 BOARD EXAMINATION AND APPROVAL OF THE SUFFICIENCY OF BONDS OF COUNTY OFFICERS Item #16D4 BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING EMS IMPACT FEE RESERVE FOR GROWTH RELATED EXPENDITURES FOR HELICOPTER OVERHAUL AND MAINTENANCE Item #16E1 BUDGET AMENDMENTS 98-242 AND 98-263 Item #16G1 SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER Page 88 June 9, Item #16G2 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED 1998 The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the various departments as indicated= Page 89 June 9, 1998 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:36 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL BARBARA B. BERRY, CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on presented or as corrected , as TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY ROSE M. WITT, RPR, AND CHERIE' R. LEONE, NOTARY PUBLIC Page 90