Loading...
BCC Minutes 11/28/1995 RREGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 28, 1995, OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:05 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRPERSON: Bettye J. Hatthews Timothy J. Constantine John C. Norris Timothy L. Hancock Pamela S. Hac'Kie W. Neil Dotrill, County Hanager David Weigel, County Attorney Item #3 & 3A AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Call to order the Board of County Commission meeting for Tuesday, November 28, 1995. Mr. Dotrill, would you lead us in an invocation and pledge. MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we thank you this morning for the joy and enjoyment that we have had over the past weekend to spend time with hopefully family members and -- and during the Thanksgiving holiday. And as we look forward to the Christmas holiday season and what it means to a variety of faiths, we look to that with great anticipation and would hope that the enjoyment would be there that should. Father, this morning as this commission involves itself in the business decisions of Collier County, we would ask that you guide their hand in their decision process as it affects the people of this community and that you would bless our time here together. We pray these things in Jesus's name. Amen. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, we have a not too long change list. MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am. Good morning, Commissioners. Everybody's turkey gone? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Working on it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Still working on it. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Constantine, how was that cornbread dressing? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Excellent, excellent. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Did he have cornbread dressing? I'm so happy. He'll be better now. No. Get that southern in him. MR. DORRILL: We have two add-on items this morning, both on the staff report, the first under community development. It's item 8(A)(3), which is the acceptance of water and sewer facilities for phase one of Pine Air Lakes. The next item is 8(E)(3) as it pertains to revised guidelines for tourist development category C funds. I have three requests for continuances, the first request to be continued for one week to the meeting of December the 5th is item 10(A) at the request of Commissioner Hancock as it pertains to the Clam Bay NRPA. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: One week? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just doing my job to shorten the schedule. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we appreciate it. MR. DORRILL: The next one is also continued for one week, item 12(C)(4) under advertised public hearings. It is petition AV-95-17, which dealt with a vacation of a portion of the plat for the Sterling Oaks project. Also continued for one week, item 16(B)(8) on your consent agenda, which deals with the funding associated with the wastewater portion of parcel 1, acquisition of the Bathey property. I have one item that we would like to move from the consent agenda to your regular agenda for a presentation under public works. It's -- 16(B)(9) is moving and will become 8(B)(4), a joint project agreement between the Board of County Commissioners and the Florida Department of Transportation for a pedestrian bicycle pathway on Oakes Boulevard. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Ooh, I like that. MR. DORRILL: And then I have one item that I would like to withdraw, and we will reschedule if necessary, item 8(E)(2) under the executive office report, which was the further consideration of that request for World Tennis Center for use of category C funds under the tourist development grant process. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That is withdrawn? MR. DORRILL: Yes. Yes, sir, withdrawn. We -- we do have one agenda note at the request of the chairman. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That -- that request has been withdrawn. Now the need for it being after one o'clock is no longer there. MR. DORRILL: Very good, then that's all that I have. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That we're not going to hear that at one o'clock? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We don't have to hear it after one o'clock. We can hear it whenever it comes up in the normal sequence. Commissioner Norris, do you have any additions? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Nothing further. Commissioner Hancock? No, ma'am. Commission Hac'Kie? No, ma'am. Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The only item I had was 16(B)(9), and that's removed at staff's request. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't have any either. Is there a motion? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, motion to approve the agenda and consent agenda as amended. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There's a motion and a second to approve the agenda and the consent agenda as amended. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. Item #4 MINUTES OF OCTOBER 31, 1995 REGULAR MEETING AND NOVEMBER 1, 1995, SPECIAL MEETING - APPROVED AS PRESENTED COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, motion to approve the minutes of October 31, 1995, regular meeting, and the November 1, 1995, special meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve the minutes of two meetings. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes five to zero. Item #5B EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARD - PRESENTED Next item is proclamations and service awards. Service awards, Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We have one service award this morning from EMS having been with us for ten years. We have Danny Morris. We have a ten-year pin and your certificate. (Applause) COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I was about to say EMS changed their uniforms. I guess let the record show he's an employee of the Ochopee Fire Department. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Fire control. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, that too. Item #SA1 FOREIGN TRADE ZONE DEVELOPMENT INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN LEE COUNTY PORT AUTHORITY AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR ACCESS TO FOREIGN TRADE ZONE BENEFITS AVAILABLE FROM THE FOREIGN TRADE ZONE GRANTEE - APPROVED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have no public petitions today, so we'll move directly into the manager's report, item 8(A)(1). It's a recommendation to approve the foreign trade zone. Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, we've talked about this some in the past. I know Mr. Hihalic is here. Perhaps we could avoid a full presentation. This just seems to be another positive step in the regional cooperation effort. One of the nice things about this is we working as a region to bring new business to southwest Florida, and much like a mall will attract you to one specific area and then you can choose which store fits your specific needs, this allows us to attract businesses to southwest Florida, and they can decide which county and which location will meet their specific needs but still have the benefits of the foreign trade zone. Unless Mr. Hihalic has something to -- MR. HIHALIC: It fits right along the line with your goals for economic diversity and trying to expand an international business, which are generally high-wage jobs. This has been about a year-and-a-half discussion with the Lee County Port Authority. And in conjunction with the Economic Development Council as well as the Foreign Trade Zone Committee of the airport authority, I present this to you as a no-cost way to get foreign trade zone benefits for Collier County. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There have been a whole pile of people who have helped make this possible. MR. MIHALIC: Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I couldn't be a stronger supporter, and I appreciate Commissioner Constantine's work in getting us to this point. I just have a question about the fiscal impact of none, and then there are some fees associated with this. MR. HIHALIC: Well, Commissioner, those fees are when we select a site, and at least tentatively we are looking at selecting the Industrial Development Park, the 22.88 acres at the Immokalee Industrial Park. And at that time we select that forum, we will owe a $2,000 fee, but that will go against the cost of providing the application and the consultant for -- the Lee County Port Authority will develop and provide that application for the Foreign Trade Zone Board. We think that's a bargain. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. I'm certainly willing to spend the money. I -- I -- my question is are there other fees associated -- I mean, I see the 2,000 and -- and there's a 1,000 coming up once a year. MR. HIHALIC: Yes. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that the total cost associated with -- MR. HIHALIC: Upon entering the agreement there will be no costs. So the entering into the interlocal agreement is at no cost at all. I should mention this is an interim interlocal agreement. When we start designating businesses, when we start having operating agreements, we will have to enter into a more formalized agreement with the operator as the Lee County Port Authority as the grantee of this foreign trade zone. So this is really an interim agreement. You may note that it sunsets in five years, although we expect to make much more active use than that. Yes, well within that five-year period. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you have some feel for what's the cost going to be to -- I understand this 2,000 and 1,000 a year. I had heard really big numbers at one point. MR. HIHALIC: Well, when we first started discussions, there were big numbers. And the Lee County Port Authority initially wanted a $300,000 flat payment for us to be participating in this. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. MR. HIHALIC: But through a long period of discussions, we got it down to no costs. And I think that the regional issues really have pushed it. And thanks to Commissioner Constantine for helping to drive that home. This is for everyone's benefit including Lee County Port Authority's benefit to have this utilized, because goods that are shipped out of Southwest International Airport they receive fees from and they receive profits from, so it's in their best business interest as well as ours to promote this foreign trade zone agreement. In fact, the foreign trade zone will be granted hopefully by the end of the year. That's the information we have from the foreign trade zone board in Washington. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I would like to recognize Commissioner Constantine for his work in bringing this issue forward and keeping it moving and getting it to this point, and I'd like to make a motion to approve. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second the motion. MR. DORRILL: You have two speakers. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have two speakers. We have a motion and a second. I have just one quick question. On Exhibit A there's some square footage charges. MR. MIHALIC: Yes, Commissioner. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are those pass-through charges to our lessors, lessees? MR. MIHALIC: We plan to recoup the charges, and we will build them in the lease fees when they utilize these benefits. As you note, they are maximum fees, because we're not sure what the actual charges are going to be, but they're fairly minimum at 1 cent a square __ CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But the intention is to pass through whatever it is? MR. MIHALIC: Yes, Commissioner, that is the intention. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Mr. Dotrill, would you call -- call the first speaker. MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. Mr. Goodlette, and then we'll have Mr. Erlichman. MR. GOODLETTE: Madam Chairman, members of the board, just a moment. On behalf of the Economic Development Council, my name's Dudley Goodlette, just merely to applaud the efforts as you all have acknowledged of Commissioner Constantine and yourselves as well as -- and it should be underscored, Mr. Mihalic and Mr. Drury have just done -- their efforts have been enormous in this, and the county is going to benefit from it, the economic diversity, which is what we've been striving for. The Economic Development Council is very proud and pleased that this is before you today. We think that this agreement should be approved, and we encourage you to -- to adopt the resolution. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Mr. Erlichman, please. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd say going from 300,000 to 3,000 is pretty good, Commissioner Constantine. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Real good. Thank you. Mr. Erlichman passes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My comments to Mr. Goodlette as well who helped on a number of the discussions on making that a reality. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: For the record Mr. Erlichman has passed on his comments. No further questions or discussion? I'll call the question. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes five to zero. Thank you. Item #8A2 AUTHORIZATION TO APPLY FOR FDEP COASTAL RESTORATION PROGRAM AND FLORIDA POLLUTION RECOVERY PROGRAM GRANTS FOR HABITAT AND WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS IN VANDERBILT LAGOON AND CLAM BAY - APPROVED WITH CHANGE IN RANKING Next item is an authorization to apply for FDEP coastal restoration. This is a long one. Mr. Lorenz, it's grant monies, isn't it? MR. LORENZ: Yes. For the record, Bill Lorenz, natural resources director. Yes, staff is here to apply for two separate state grants; the Florida Department of Environmental Protection coastal restoration program and the Florida pollution recovery program grants. There are five projects that total up to $201,863 in state grants. The funding cycle is such that the application needs to be postmarked no later than November 30th. Of course, we're coming here for board authorization to apply for the monies. The state funds will be contingent upon the legislature's appropriation bill sometime in the spring. We wouldn't expect to see the actual dollars granted to us until after July lst; then it will require a separate agreement for each project to be entered into for receiving the grant monies. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there a downside to these grants? MR. LORENZ: No. The county -- county -- we have not committed any county funds in terms of cash dollars except for the yards neighborhood program where we have $2,000 allocated through the recycling and education grant for composting bins. The rest of the money that we're showing is in the application packages is in-kind services which represents staff time and associated costs. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. LORENZ: Because we are on such a stringent time line, in the executive summary I tried to estimate some of the total project costs. The actual application came in different from that, and for the record I'd like to cover those with your permission. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. MR. LORENZ: The -- if you can turn to tab A, which would be page 3 of your executive summary, the Vanderbilt Lagoon yards and neighborhood program came in as a -- with a total cost of thirty thousand dollars -- $30,619 of which we're applying $13,175 in grant monies. The aquatic habitat restoration project has a total cost of $11,997 of which we're requesting $6,000 in grant monies. The lagoon -- Vanderbilt Lagoon flushing feasibility study, we bumped that up considerably to $87,100 of which $75,000 would be in grant monies. I note that there is a -- generally the application guidelines are for up to $50,000 as a maximum, although the guidelines do state that they will consider amounts greater than that, and we feel that we need to go at least $75,000 to accomplish that feasibility study. Clam Bay mangrove replanting project, a total of six -- $6,518 of which $2,768 would be grant funds. And the Clam Bay exotics removal program, we bumped that up to $108,500 -- $108,500 in total project cost of which $105,000 is for grant funds. The only -- the problem with the Clam Bay type of efforts is, of course, we have the task force. We do know that exotics is a problem, and we want to apply for the funds. Our original intent was to match that with the -- the monies that were set aside in the budget, but because the board has frozen those funds in terms of the recommendation of the task force, the applications are not showing any county dollar match for this. But we did have a state official down about two weeks ago, and he saw the exotics problem in Clam Bay and highly recommended that we proceed very soon, very quickly with that as a top priority. So we've -- are requesting the full $105,000 which we think will cover most of the -- the removal program. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just a second. Do you have a question, Commissioner Constantine? I think you were first. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One thing that concerns me here is final paragraph of the first page says, "If approved, the county must enter into a detailed agreement with FDEP." And I'm wondering, are all of these grant monies, in essence, just seed money, and we end up long term spending money that we may not at this point already have budgeted, find ourselves somehow required to do in follow-up as part of those FDEP agreements. MR. LORENZ: No, not directly. If we were successful in getting, for instance, the feasibility study for Vanderbilt Lagoon, the feasibility study itself would recommend that we take certain actions. Obviously we have the -- we have the ability. The board has the prerogative to implement those actions or not, of which case you could -- the county could fund them separately. We could go for other grants. It's not as though we're going to commit ourselves into an ongoing program where all of a sudden we will lose the monies. We do intend, for instance, the neighborhood yards and neighborhood program to look at that as somewhat of a model to learn from it and try to reproduce that elsewhere in the county and other areas where there are water quality problems. But, again, that's -- that is a separate decision by the board. It certainly doesn't commit us into any long -- long-term program. There is another -- another item, if I might, Madam Chairman, is the ranking. The board does -- the state does request us to look at -- provide some degree of ranking. If you turn to page 1 of your executive summary, item number 5, the Clam Bay exotics removal program is in a different funding source. That's the Florida pollution recovery program, so we don't have to rank it. But we -- staff would suggest that the ranking follow the order that the Clam Bay mangrove replanting project be number one in priority. Number two priority be the Vanderbilt Lagoon yards and neighborhood program. Number three would be the lagoon -- Vanderbilt Lagoon habitat restoration project, and priority number four would be Vanderbilt Lagoon flushing feasibility study. If you concur with that ranking, we will simply transmit our applications with -- with those -- with that ranking. If not, certainly obviously it's your prerogative to change the ranking and -- and direct us to submit to appropriate ranks. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: First of all, I'd like to offer my thanks to Mr. Lorenz and his department. Some of these -- these four applications were on very short notice that resulted from; one, being aware of the program; and two, a lot of citizen groups such as the water quality task force and Vanderbilt Lagoon and their involvement. I thank your staff for getting on this in a timely fashion. I do have questions about the ranking. It seems to me that there are some things on this list that through volunteer efforts and local coordination we have a better chance of succeeding with should we not get grant funds, and then there are things with which we don't have those resources. It would appear to me that things we don't have the ability to do would be priority in the form of trying to achieve the state grant funds. My personal feeling is that a yards and neighborhoods program at a minimal cost, if we wish to proceed with it, we might have the ability to do. But I look at something such as the Vanderbilt Lagoon flushing feasibility study, and I see something that there's just no way in our existing budget those funds are going to be made available, and a grant may be the only way really to make that happen. So from my perspective something such as the flushing feasibility study would be a priority, as in number one or at least number two. The aquatic habitat restoration project, I think it's a good idea, but it is very short term. As you know, aquatic habitat, you're talking about a somewhat tidal area. It's going to move. It's going to change. I would like to see the flushing feasibility study ranked as number one with the mangrove replanting as number two. That's my personal two cents on the ranking. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other comments? Personally I agree with those -- those rankings because the flushing's a water quality issue, and I can't see that -- not being a water expert, but aquatic habitat restoration being ranked ahead of a water quality issue wouldn't -- to me doesn't make a lot of sense, because water quality needs to be served first to keep the aquatic habitat viable, so I can easily agree with that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, to complete that, if I were to rank them, I would put the Vanderbilt Lagoon flushing feasibility study first, the Clam Bay mangrove replanting second, the Vanderbilt Lagoon yards and neighborhoods program third, and the aquatic habitat restoration fourth. Again, I think the mangrove replanting is important, but at this point we are not sure what we're dealing with in there, so that's why I would not put that as number one. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We'll know in another week or so, Won't We? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I hope. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I hope so, too. Anyone have any other comments or any disagreement with the rearranging? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just one. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I, from a layman's perspective, agree completely with the ranking I just heard. I'd like to hear -- do we have public comments, Mr. Dotrill? Are we going to hear from speakers? MR. DORRILL: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Lorenz, will you give us professional advice? MR. DORRILL: There are some speakers. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There are? I'd just like to hear from professionals about what sounds logical from my layman's perspective. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dotrill, would you call the speakers, please. MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. Again, we have two; Mr. Gore -- Dr. Gore, I should say, and then Ms. Johnstone, if you would please stand by. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't know what it is about Dr. Gore that it's so difficult for everybody to remember Dr. -- Dr. Gore. MR. GORE: It doesn't matter. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, you probably spent a whole lot of time -- MR. GORE: For the record, Jim Gore with the Conservancy. I want to -- actually I want to endorse what -- the projects. All the projects are wonderful, and they're necessary and need to be done. And actually you guys stole all my thunder, so I really haven't got too much to say. I agree with the rankings that you've put forth. A couple of these things are premature. The habitat restoration, as you've pointed out already, is probably not going to be useful until the water quality is actually cleaned up. You can make all the habitat in the world, but if the water quality is insufficient to support the animals, they can have all the homes they want, but they can't live there. So that's something that needs to be either down the list, or at least you need to make certain that money can be encumbered to the point where when water quality is reestablished that you can then apply that money to that restoration. The other thing is again with the mangrove planting. Since we're not quite certain what's causing those mangrove die-offs, and there is a possibility that at least part of problem might be with the substrate itself, chemical imbalances in the substrate, replanting right into that substrate isn't going to cause those seedlings to succeed. So before that situation is handled, we need to be sure that the water quality and the sediment soil quality is sufficient to support replanting, because juveniles don't do as well in those poor soils as the adults would. So that's -- those are the two points that I need to make, and you get to hear from me again a couple more times today, so thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Dr. Gore. MR. DORRILL: And Ms. Johnstone. MS. JOHNSTONE: For the record my name is Judy Johnstone. I'm a member of Vanderbilt Beach Property Owner's Association and a member of the water quality task force. We all do want to thank Bill Lorenz's staff for getting these preliminary grant applications in in an extremely timely manner. Thank you. I'm here today to read a letter from the president of Vanderbilt Beach property owners. Dear Madam Chairman Matthews, Commissioner Norris, Hancock, Hac'Kie, and Constantine, the purpose of this letter is to express our support for the county division of environmental services grant applications and the continuation of board direction to pursue grant applications for implementation of a neighborhood awareness program and also the possible interconnection of Vanderbilt Lagoon with Pelican Bay and the Clam Pass system as described in your staff memorandum. The Vanderbilt Beach property owners has been very active with respect to the water quality issues affecting not only the Vanderbilt Lagoon but all of the Wiggins Pass and Clam Pass estuary system. The water quality within the systems affect a tremendous number of county residents, and the preservation of this public resource is of preeminent importance. We encourage that the State of Florida for it's preapproval process may provide some level of funding for neighborhood programs designed to improve the quality of runoff within the lagoon and water circulation within the lagoon. Pursuit of these funds will help us to collectively begin a reversal of processes which have led to the problems which currently exist. We understand that as an organization that the road to improve water quality will be long and hard. We also understand that the Vanderbilt Beach property owners and its members must likewise make commitments to do what they can to help in improving the water quality. To this end we have done the following over the past year. We've held a number of public workshops at our general membership meetings in which we have brought in water quality experts including the county's own environmental and stormwater management representatives, as well as members of the environmental community such as the Naples Conservancy to specifically speak on the issues of water quality within the Vanderbilt Lagoon and to educate our members on the current status and possible remedies. We have constantly updated our membership on the need for remedial actions through publication in a monthly newsletter. We have met on an ongoing basis with your county staff for the purpose of identifying remedial actions and specifically how individual residents can contribute to the solution of these problems. We have appointed a water quality task force who over the course of the last year has been active in water quality issues and has assisted both the county and the Naples Conservancy in conducting preliminary testing. We have finally committed $4,000 to the Naples Conservancy to an active program of ongoing water quality testing for the Vanderbilt Lagoon so that we have accurate data with which to evaluate water quality over an extended period of time and providing for the future. We have recently been in communication with representatives of Pelican Bay for the purpose of forming a cooperative alliance to address the health of the entire ecosystem shared by Vanderbilt Beach and the Pelican Bay property owners. Our water quality task force, the board of directors, and the general membership of the Vanderbilt Beach property owners are committed to improving the water quality in our area. It has consistently been listed by our membership as one of our top priorities. We would ask that you support the grant application requests directed towards the purpose of obtaining state funds to help address these issues. If any board member should have any questions or comments, please feel free to call me directly. Because of a meeting with the Department of Environmental Protection, I will be unable to attend the county commission meeting of Tuesday November 28, 1995. However, please understand that you have our full support and commitment to cooperate in solving the water quality problems. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Ms. Johnstone. MS. JOHNSTONE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Lorenz, do you have more to add to it? MR. LORENZ: Just to answer the question in the terms of the ranking. If you look at the ranking, basically we swap the flushing study from four to one, and all the other rankings are basically the same as what the commission seems to be focusing on. The reason staff looked at that is -- number one is when we submitted the preapplication, it was our understanding that a study such as the feasibility study probably would not be considered and, hence, we put it at a lower ranking. Also that -- since it's such a long-term program, because it's going to take a year for the feasibility study and then maybe several years to implement it, we thought that the other -- the other components could be -- could be done very quickly and have some positive effect. That was just our rationale, but certainly this ranking we can forward to the state. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I mentioned earlier that I thought the ranking was basically a -- your idea of which one do we have the best chance of getting, and you put that first, and then you went down the list, and I assume that's what you just said. MR. LORENZ: We weren't sure whether that was going to affect the status of the other -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. MR. LORENZ: -- projects. I don't think it will after we've had some further discussion. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So my question is will our reranking diminish the odds of getting the grant. I mean, should we play the game and put what they like first? MR. LORENZ: No, I think we're a little bit too conservative in terms of that concern. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So you don't feel that the reranking has diminished the opportunity to get the grant funds? MR. LORENZ: No. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Is there a motion? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, with that I will make a motion that we authorize the natural resources director to sign the completed grant applications and list the priority ranking as Vanderbilt Lagoon flushing feasibility study first, Clam Bay mangrove replanting second, the yards and neighborhoods program third, and the habitat restoration fourth. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion and a second to give direction to staff as stated. Any further discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes five to zero. Thank you, Mr. Lorenz. Item #8A3 WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR PINE AIR LAKES, UNIT ONE - APPROVED WITH STIPULATIONS Next item on the agenda is item 8(A)(3). This is the acceptance for Pine Air Lakes. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, motion to approve the item. MR. DORRILL: One quick -- this one is slightly different. Although this is normally a routine item, there are some conditions that were written into the executive summary. And if you could, I'd just like for their agent to put on the record that he's in agreement with those conditions. MR. CUYLER: For the record -- MR. DORRILL: A prestigious agent at that. MR. CUYLER: For the record, Ken Cuyler with the law firm of Roetzel and Andtess. Petitioner is in favor of the conditions. Is that all right with you, Wayne? MR. ARNOLD: For the record, Wayne Arnold. Staff had suggested that there might be another modification to I believe it's stipulation number 4 regarding the replacement of the lift station. It currently states January 20th. We would ask that that be replaced by language consistent with the C.O. date of the project. MR. CUYLER: I talked to the engineers this morning. I was advised by Wilson, Miller that we are going to install that this week, so that should not be a problem. I can agree to that as well. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: First off, that's stipulation number 5, not number 4. I just want to make sure the record shows that it's number 5, and the date is January 20th. MR. ARNOLD: We would ask for that to be changed to be consistent with the C. O. date for the project. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a motion? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll amend my motion to include those stipulations. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second amends. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Second amends. Any further discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes five to zero. MR. CUYLER: Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Cuyler. MR. DORRILL: My thanks to Mr. Chrzanowski and other people on the staff at Horseshoe Drive. They hustled yesterday to accommodate this particular project that has had some problems. I just want them to know we appreciate it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Item #SB1 LAND PURCHASE FOR ENVIRONHENTAL HITIGATION FOR THE NORTH NAPLES ROADWAY HSTU, LIVINGSTON ROAD PROJECT - STAFF RECOHMENDATION APPROVED Next item is 8(B)(1), a purchase land for environmental mitigation of the North Naples roadway HSTU. Mr. Gonzalez. MR. GONZALEZ: Good morning, Adolfo Gonzalez with your capital projects management. Since the last report that we gave you back in Hay, a couple of significant things have happened. We have already received the South Florida Water Management District permit for the Livingston Road project. My understanding is that the corps is in the process of issuing the dredge-fill permit for the project even as we speak. You also asked us to get some appraisal reports for the value of the land. We got two appraisal reports. One was valued at $1,278 an acre. And the other one was valued at $1,300 an acre. Since then -- what we're recommending to you is that we purchase the mitigation land for the $1,200 an acre. We have a commitment from the landowner's group to subsidize the difference between the 1,200 and the 1,400 that is in effect now with the final six months of our option agreement. We also are asking you to amend the option agreement so that we have another four months to actually close on the property. That is actually being worked on right now. All of the other items that you had directed us to do in the previous five or six months, we've accomplished that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner MAc'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just in summary then, I -- we asked you to get -- to stick to the $1,200 an acre property price and, in fact, that appraisal's given higher than that, but -- and the seller has not agreed to reduce from 1,400, so this group that Mr. Goodlette, Mr. Coleman represent are going to make up the difference? MR. GONZALEZ: Yes. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And on the four-month extension, will the price stay the same? Basically what we're doing by exercising this today would be buying at a fixed price that doesn't go up, and we have to have this as a condition of the permit process continuing? MR. GONZALEZ: The price -- my understanding is the price will remain at 1,400 an acre. Prior to the closing the landowner's group will actually give us the difference between the 1,200 and the 1,400. The permit stipulates that within six months from the construction of the first phase we have to give the -- actually transfer the land to the water management district and the other long-term maintenance and management obligations that we have with it. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sounds like you guys did a really good job if we told you to stick to the 1,200 and you did at such a pace that you required the other party to come up with the difference, so I commend you for that. MR. GONZALEZ: Well, I think it's a credit to the public-private partnership we have been working on for quite some time. It is really to the credit of the landowners' group for helping us to put this package together. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's great. MR. DORRILL: We have no speakers. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No speakers? I've got a couple of questions regarding the permit, especially the special conditions in the permit. And special condition 13 requires Collier County to construct three water control structures shown on Exhibit 26 by July 31, 1997. What's the intended method for funding those? MR. GONZALEZ: That is also part of the construction cost that you have. Actually we have it itemized separately. I think it's part of the roadway construction cost. When we started negotiating for that land, one of the parties in that negotiation was the Big Cypress Basin. They indicated they wanted some type of dry season control, flood elevations in the Corkscrew Swamp area. So what we're doing is we're adding some control structures at the very upstream end of the Corkscrew canal and one of the laterals to the Corkscrew canal. I think our estimated costs was in the thirty to fifty thousand range for all three structures, and that will be a part of the roadway construction costs. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So those -- those water structures have already been funded? I mean, you know where the money's coming from? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They've been budgeted? MR. GONZALEZ: I don't think they have been budgeted. They are part of -- they're lumped in with the management costs that we have. I don't think actually they show up in any of these line items here, because that was part of our final roadway construction budget which we haven't given you yet. We were taking it one step at a time as far as giving you all of the environmental mitigation costs. We still have some final design activities to complete and then some of the funding for the construction costs. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What's the average cost of a water structure? About a million dollars? MR. GONZALEZ: No, no, the ones we're thinking of are some very simple slide-gate structures, which are in the ten to thirty thousand dollar range for each. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: None that looks like what's going in on the Cocohatchee, which is quite extensive and very expensive? MR. GONZALEZ: No. That is on the order of half a million to a million dollars, yes. That's not what we planned to do. That's not the direction we got from the Big Cypress Basin. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I just want to make sure that we understand what we're doing. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is good. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Another problem -- and not really a problem -- I guess I need an explanation. On page 9 of our package, limiting conditions, item number 1, it says the permittee, which is Collier County, correct -- MR. GONZALEZ: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- shall implement the work in a manner so as to minimize any adverse impacts on the fish, wildlife, natural environmental values and so forth. And -- and I can agree with that, but whose standards are we going to use? MR. GONZALEZ: This is a standard boilerplate condition that appears on every single permit that we receive from the corps. That really means putting in silt fences, turbidity barriers, things like that during construction. We typically just reference the DOT specifications, and they accept those. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Just wanted to clarify. That's -- I guess that's all the questions that I had. Those -- there's some other wording in here similar to that first one that gave me a little bit of grief wondering whose standards we're using, but I'm -- I'm going to assume that you've got this covered and that we're working with standard boilerplate language where the standards already exist. MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to make a motion -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Number 8 under special conditions says endangered species, threatened species, or species of special concern have been observed on site. And also it says fish and game and the U.S. Fish and Wildfire Service for guidance, recommendations, and so forth. That's very open-ended, and those are two sometimes black-hole agencies that things go in and never come out of. MR. GONZALEZ: Yes. And that was one of the corps' main concerns and really being hesitant to give us a permit. They wanted to make sure they dotted all their I's and crossed all their T's with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Fish and Wildlife Service. The species that have been observed or we think they're on site are red cockheaded woodpeckers east of the alignment on the north-south leg and gopher tortoises on the east-west alignment. That's a Game and Fish concern that we usually relocate during construction. So the federal concerns have been addressed in the corps permit. We do have to do some follow-up monitoring as part of some of those obligations. That will be part of the corps permit conditions. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. You don't foresee any real hurdles in either of those two species as far as the project construction is concerned? MR. GONZALEZ: No. The gopher tortoises are typically -- in advance of construction we secure our relocation permit on site. The red cockheaded woodpecker habitat, we're just required to monitor for those sites throughout for I forget how many years. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions? Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I want to make a motion to accept the staff's recommendation. I just -- it has five parts, and one of them is to accept and approve the permit conditions. And so I wanted to be sure, Commissioner Matthews, you've got answers to the questions that you had. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, I did. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Then in that case I move that we accept staff's recommendation on all five points and proceed with this undertaking. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There's a motion and a second to give direction to staff to go forward with the purchase of the mitigation land and to receive the permits. I presume you already have them. MR. GONZALEZ: We have the water management district. We should get corps any day now. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to give staff direction in accordance with their recommendation on the executive summary. Is there further discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes five to zero. Thank you. Item #882 REPORT TO THE BCC REGARDING THE PROGRESS OF THE LANDFILL SITING CITIZENS ADVISORY COHMITTEE - ACCEPTED Next item is 8(B)(2), a report to the board on landfill siting citizens advisory. MR. RUSSELL: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, David Russell with your solid waste department. This item is a report to the board regarding the progress of the landfill siting Citizens Advisory Committee. One of the members of that committee has a presentation for you this morning to advise you on the status of their activity. We've got a few overheads to show you. The presentation might take about 10 minutes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. MR. RUSSELL: If you have any questions in advance of that, I'd try to answer those. MR. PRIDDY: If you do have questions, please make them easy. Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Russell Priddy, and I am one of the 11 members on the citizen advisory committee and would like to point out or pass on to you that the professional team that you have chosen and hired to lead us and you through this process, in my opinion, is doing an excellent job and moving us right along in this process. Of course, the purpose of this Citizens Advisory Committee was to identify a site for the future landfill and material recovery facility for our county. And I guess for -- as a reminder and for the public, this is a list of the individuals that you all have appointed to this advisory committee, and I will point out that everyone has been working hard. I, myself, was unaware of just what I had volunteered for with -- with this, but we have -- have put in a lot of -- a lot of hours to this point. And what have we accomplished? We have confirmed the site selection process and -- and this is the professional staff's guiding us through this -- this process. We have developed exclusionary criteria, which was some of the easy part of this. We have conducted a countywide screening based on this exclusionary criteria, and you'll see that on a map a little later. We have approved site development rules, which we will cover in just a minute. And evaluative criteria are currently being developed, and we have two more meetings to finalize those. And that's where some of the tougher work has come. The confirm site selection process, develop and map exclusionary criteria, this has been done. And as I say, you'll see this on a map in just a moment. We've identified the candidate areas, and that's basically all the areas that's not in the exclusionary area. The development of -- of evaluative criteria is ongoing and in process. The bulk of that work is done, but we will probably this Wednesday finish up the -- the -- at least the first reading of -- of that criteria. We have scheduled a workshop to apply the weights to this criteria, and that's going to take place December 9th, and we're scheduled from seven o'clock in the morning until seven o'clock in the evening. I, for one, hope that we can manage to -- to get through this a little quicker than 12 hours but, anyway, that's what's been set aside. The site ratings, of course, are pending until we actually develop these sites, and then on-site investigation will take place later on, too. The exclusionary criteria, that's your criteria that prohibits a potential area from further consideration as a candidate area. These are such things as -- as federal, state, and county regulations and requirements, and these were kind of the no-brainer things that we needed to -- to take a look at and put our stamp of -- of approval on. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Priddy, can I ask on that point, at this early stage how are you making a determination whether something is, quote, unquote, permittable or not? MR. PRIDDY: The exclusionary criteria were developed basically based on state or federal statutes that -- that strictly, you know, in black and white prohibited a landfill site. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Proximity as opposed to real estate elevations. MR. PRIDDY: Yeah, or being at the end of -- being at the end of a runway. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I understand. That helps. Thank you. MR. PRIDDY: Yeah, the real easy issues. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The real easy stuff. Okay. MR. PRIDDY: The process itself -- and this is a simplified view as we've taken the entirety of the county and all of the regulations and dumped them into a sieve and shakes out, and that will be the permittable sites. Putting a landfill in -- in a wetland and some of these things, you know, were the -- in the development of exclusionary criteria. And the seven adopted exclusionary criteria are the airport avoidance, and that has a distance associated with it, I think, of like 10,000 feet, unstable areas, national and federal lands, state parks, preserves, within 500 feet of an individual water well, within a thousand feet of a community water well, within 3,000 feet of class 1 surface water, and within area zoned urban residential or incorporated. And as I say, virtually all of this came about from, you know, being written in black and white that you are not going to put a landfill site in that area. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What's unstable areas? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sinkholes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sorry? Sinkholes? That's basically -- I mean -- MR. PRIDDY: You know, up in the mountains that's -- you have what I might refer to as a sinkhole or a valley. They can just go and dump stuff off the cliff and fill it up, and it's natural ground. But we can't take our sinkholes and fill them. From -- from the exclusionary criteria that's been developed, this being a map of Collier County, the -- the area that's blacked out is the known area that the landfill will not be located in. So the candidate sites that can and will emerge will end up somewhere in the white area. And I guess there's a -- at least in my mind, a little bit of a question still left. The area that's involved in the Phoenix swap, that couldn't be mapped or colored in black, because it's not -- not been -- the deeds haven't -- haven't transferred, so they still show up as white. But I think from a practical matter, you could color in the long strip from just below Sunniland down 29 and -- and then the stairstep area, although the team couldn't go do that because of the rules to this point didn't -- didn't allow that. Did you say something about an outline of District 57 CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's sort of what I was saying, yeah. I think when we started on this venture -- God bless Commissioner Constantine -- but I knew it was going to be district 5. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It is now. MR. PRIDDY: The Citizens Advisory Committee has agreed on 13 site development rules. We'll read through these. All sites must be permittable. The disposal area of the site shall not be transsected by roads, streams, or rivers. The ratio of total site to disposal and support area should not exceed 2.0 or 2 times of the disposal area. Disposal and support areas of adjacent sites may not overlap. Buffer areas of adjacent sites may overlap. Disposal areas should have a capacity of five years or more. And, David, you may want to hold up there. I don't know if the commissioners have any particular questions about some of -- some of those. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have one about the five years or more. I would -- I would hope that that's extremely minimal, that we're looking for 25 or 30 or 50. MR. PRIDDY: What that references is is if we have a large irregular-shaped piece of property and you have wetlands in it, maybe that you have one area that -- that is usable for a landfill, that size has to be enough to last at least five years. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That -- that subsection? MR. PRIDDY: Subsection within the landfill area. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My question on the -- on number one it says, "All sites must be permittable." As to what extent, because I don't think there's anywhere in that white area that some form of dredge and fill permit would not be required? There's going to be wetlands and so forth. So by permittable what is the CAC's idea of permittable? MR. PRIDDY: I may have to defer on that to the professionals here. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. PRIDDY: And I think it was not -- not trying to get all wetlands, you know, in there. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Don't put it in the swamp. MR. PRIDDY: Don't put it in the swamp because, you know, the chances of us getting that permitted are slim and -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But if you have 20 or 30 percent wetlands, you know, in other words, you're just looking at a ratio that makes permitability a reasonable approach. Is that a fair assessment? MR. PRIDDY: Yeah, and I'll then defer to the hired guns for further explanation. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. MR. WILKISON: If you would like. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually I'm just trying to get an idea of what the CAC's idea is of permittable. Mr. Priddy has given that to me. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Will there be a map that -- is there a map that's to come that tells us of the white areas of what you think meets at least criteria number one? I'm the most worried about that one obviously. MR. PRIDDY: Yeah, that -- that will come. Unfortunately -- I say unfortunately -- you know, be nice working on this to -- to just go take the county map and the 11 of us pick out places we'd like for it to go and -- but the process has to be defensible in court and -- and, therefore, you know, we can't at this point look at any individual piece of property or -- or site. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I guess what I'm saying is it seems that if you applied category -- criteria number one to the map of all the white areas, there'd be a lot less white. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And there will be. What we're trying to do is develop all the criteria before we start looking at sites so that we're picking sites based on the criteria rather than based on any personal bias or preference. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Based on site. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So it will be, but that's -- will be after -- MR. PRIDDY: Yeah, that's the painful part. We do these things and then can't see what we just did. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Priddy, I got a question regarding -- it's a question that's come up time and time again in trying to relocate our landfill, and that deals with the panther. What -- what is the CAC going to do about trying to mitigate the concern about the panther? MR. PRIDDY: We have some criteria dealing with habitat and also environmental concerns. And I'll -- I'll have to point out the human concerns that we've dealt with we've gotten through quickly. Some of the -- the environmental and habitat concerns are -- are, as you know, a little more difficult and is, you know, taking a little longer. But there -- there will be, I think, at least two criteria that's been developed or will be that deal with habitat, and then there will be some ranking within that, because as you all know, the panther two years ago crossed the university site, and that held -- held that up. Weights will be given to whether habitat is actually utilized by various endangered species or whether, you know, it's just something they passed through one time. So there's some fine tuning that will take place with -- do you want to take one home? Okay. Before we move to the next page of evaluative criteria, any other questions on this? The disposal area and support areas shall not be within 500 feet of state or county roads. A maximum of three disposal areas are allowed within one site, and Commissioner Hac'Kie, this is, again, subareas within the total. A maximum of 50 acres of wetlands may be taken for the development of the disposal area and -- and support facilities. And I think this is one of the criteria that was kind of brought about by that's allowable. And as you pointed out, when we get into that one area there's a lot of wetlands and things out there but, you know, we -- we're using what's allowable by current regulations to -- on that criteria. Nonarterial county-owned roads may be rerouted around the facility. No sites where more than 10 acres of wetlands are taken to develop or where -- on sites where more than 10 acres of wetlands are taken to develop, 3 acres of wetlands will be developed within the buffer area as -- as mitigation to replace that. And, again, that three to one ratio, I think, pops up in a lot of development standards; 500-foot buffer around the disposal area and support facilities; and the landfill height to be 125 to 150 feet. And I think our current landfill is permitted at what: a hundred or a hundred and ten, to give you some idea. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine, that's 108.34. MR. PRIDDY: Any questions on these evaluative criteria? The evaluative criteria developed to date consider the following community concerns: Potable water wells, hauling costs, truck traffic, number of property owners, farm fields and citrus groves, cultural and historical resources, residential buffers, wetland vegetation cover, wetland hydric soils -- for some reason I can't pronounce that word right -- ecosystems and habitat preservations -- I knew they were there -- on -- on-site residences, sensitive receptors, compatible -- compatibility with adjacent land uses, threatened and endangered species, airport avoidance, capital cost, proximity to county boundaries. And I think a lot of the people would -- would like not to locate the landfill too far out of the county, just -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just far enough. MR. PRIDDY: Just far enough. Surface water quality, groundwater quality, rare and unique natural areas, areas of critical state concern, and predatory and scavenger birds, rookery protection. And I would like to deviate just a minute here from the presentation and -- and point out to the commission and to the public between now and the December 9th meeting where we give weights to this is the real opportunity for the community to express to those of us that are going to be applying these weights what is of most concern to them. We need somehow to -- to make sure as -- as many of your constituents as possible, you know, see these criteria and see what we're dealing with and let us know, you know, what on this list is important, because certainly there's some things on this list that are really not important to me, but there are also some things on this list that are very important to me that are not necessarily, you know, important to -- to some of you. And I guess this is where we, you know, in the next ten days really need to get some -- some input from the public. There has been anywhere from one to five or six public speakers -- mainly one public speaker at -- at the meetings. And -- so the public really has not, you know, come out and spoken. And by the time -- by the time these sites and this white pop up off the map, it's going to be too late, you know. They're going to already have been developed. So we need to hear from you and from the public in the next two weeks. I would suggest that each of you maybe give some rankings to these and pass them along to -- to the individual that you appointed from your district, you know, to have some sense of what you feel your constituents' priorities are in this process. MR. KELLER: Where is the meeting going to be? MR. PRIDDY: We'll get to that or can let you know that. Okay. That's kind of what we've done so far, where we're going. We're going to hold a NGT workshop, as I said, on December 9th. The identification of candidate sites will emerge from that. Rating of candidate sites using our criteria and weights will -- will take place in February. And shortly after that we will do on-site investigations. But, again, I would submit to you that the bulk of what's going to lead us to those candidate sites is going to take place over the next two weeks. And until this morning I didn't quite understand what we were going to do for 12 hours on this Saturday in December applying these weights. But here's a little graph of the process that's going -- going to take place. And I won't read word for word. You all have -- have those handouts. Again, we've had very minimal public input and comment, and this is important. Meeting locations have been throughout the county. We've had one in Immokalee. There's one in Marco Island. The bulk of them have been at the Golden Gate Community Center. Our meeting Wednesday night will be at the Veterans -- MR. WILKISON: Veterans Park. MR. PRIDDY: -- Veterans Park, and then I think there's another meeting scheduled out in Immokalee, and then we settle in on the Golden Gate Community Center for the balance of the meetings. These meetings are on Wednesday afternoons at four o'clock, from four to seven, and there's a published public comment time usually around 6:45 for public comment. The dates of these meetings are now up on the screen. We had to add the -- did we add three meetings? MR. WILKISON: Three meetings. MR. PRIDDY: We added three meetings, the 15th, 29th, and December 6th, because we were -- as hard as we were trying -- not getting these criteria developed quickly enough. Okay, and that's my presentation. I'll be happy to attempt any other questions. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Priddy. Are there questions? Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a couple of comments. As you look at the 11 names in the executive summary here, you have 10 people and myself who have committed -- these ten people have committed an extraordinary amount of time. These meetings have all averaged roughly about three hours. Our December 9th marathon will be something to work with. But I think that one of the best parts of it is we have -- if you look at the names, and I think everybody here knows all of them. It's a great mix of people. We have people whose primary concern is environmental concerns. We have some residents whose primary concern is the real life human impact. We have agricultural concerns. We have real dollar concerns, and so it's a very, very good mix. And I feel very comfortable that on that December 9th workshop as we do the weighting of these things that you're going to have a true mix of the community, a true mix of priorities that we'll come out with. February is the date, I believe, we'll have the sites -- some sites selected as far as priority. And then we are going to, along with paid consultants, physically walk the properties and try to get a real feel. Sometimes geological studies and environmental studies don't tell the whole picture, so we'll physically walk each of those, and then it will make its way back to this board with a recommendation by Hay or June. Is it June? MR. WILKISON: That's correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You mean, you're not going to rely on a 1950s soils map to tell you where the wetlands are? MR. WILKISON: For the record, David Wilkison, Wilkison and Associates, Dufresne-Henry team. I'd just like to remind everybody that the next meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee is this Wednesday, November 29th at Veterans Park in North Naples at four o'clock. And the next meeting will be December 6th, which will be in Immokalee at four o'clock, again at the community park right off of Main Street. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The big workshop the 9th is going to be where? MR. WILKISON: It's going to be in Marco Island at the Marriott December 9th, seven o'clock to seven at night. Any further questions? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll check in. MR. DORRILL: I had one question, and you have -- you have no speakers on this particular item -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No speakers. MR. DORRILL: -- either for Mr. Wilkerson or Mr. Russell. In terms of your criteria for development concerns or issues, one of the things you mentioned are hauling distances obviously to get the garbage out there. The major cost of operating landfill includes the ability to buy daily cover, and I wonder if you're also taking into account either proximity to existing permitted fill pits or the ability to have nearby or cost effective fill pits, because you got to buy a lot of dirt every day to bury the garbage, and whether that's included in your -- in your hauling cost criteria. MR. RUSSELL: That -- the economic analysis will come later when we have a short list of sites, because obviously we want to weigh all those dimensions and look at the cost of those sites when we have a short list. MR. DORRILL: That answers my question. MR. PRIDDY: But I would submit to you that that is or can be a criteria, and if hauling costs is important to the bulk of the people of the county that -- that pay the bill, then that needs to be expressed to us so we can apply a little heavier weights to that than, you know, one of -- one of the other criteria. So, yes, it's -- it's in there and -- and being considered. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I, for one, will be getting -- I appointed Mr. Priddy to this committee, and I doubt he'll ever return a phone call from me again. I will be getting my weighted list to Mr. Priddy and, I think what you have just brought up, Mr. Dorrill, is a good point, and if we need to add anything, each to that individually, and get it to our folks, and I'm sure it will come out in the end. MR. PRIDDY: I would also say that the committee has identified what we've shown you here as -- as being the universe of concerns, and -- and that may not, in fact, be the case. If you all know of some other concern that needs to be looked at as a criteria, we probably need to know that before Wednesday night because we need to at least get it -- get it in the mill. We threw a brainstorming session -- you know, came up with that as a universe, but I'm sure there's others out there that, you know, have other ideas. Those need to be fed to us probably no later than start of the meeting on Wednesday so we can get them into the -- the process. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Wilkerson, we have a copy of the packet on file here at the office week by week, don't we, or if we don't, you can get one here? MR. WILKERSON: Yes. One of the things we did is we placed all of the handouts that have gone to the Citizens Advisory Committee and all of the memorandums that have been generated and all documents that have been presented to the committee are in notebooks in public repositories, and those include the eight public libraries in the county and also the county commissioners' office, county manager's office, county clerk, and also there's a copy in the solid waste department -- or actually the natural resources department over in building H here in the county. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And just the -- my point is MR. WILKERSON: And they're updated as -- immediately after the Citizens Advisory Committee meetings that we have bimonthly, trimonthly, whatever it's been. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My point is as each of you look at putting together your weighted priorities, that book may be very helpful showing you what's already in there, what's not. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Sounds very good. You all have done a fine job. Any other questions on the update? I certainly want to thank all of the people involved in this. Mr. Priddy, thank you and the citizens that have formed the committee, Commissioner Constantine, who's headed it up. And you've gone in what looks like in a good direction, and we may actually get there when somebody said we'd never get there. Mr. Russell, do you have more to say? MR. RUSSELL: No. I've got the next item. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, ma'am. I'm required to keep standing here. Item #8B3 DETAILED LANDFILL OPERATING PLANS SUBMITTED BY WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC. OF FLORIDA - APPROVED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If there's no other comment, we'll move on to the next item, which is the detailed landfill operating plans submitted by Waste Management. MR. DORRILL: You do have speakers. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a speaker on this one? MR. RUSSELL: With this item I bring this detailed operating plan to you with staff's recommendation for approval. We do have the Waste Hanagement's landfill general manager here also if you have questions. So I would just open for questions here. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions? Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I had two questions. I'll pose them to you, Mr. Russell, and I believe probably Mr. Bigelow would be more appropriate to answer them. And I want to apologize, Steve. I told you if I had questions, I'd get them to you. Well, I didn't get around to this part of it until early this morning, so my apologies for that. Under the Section 6.2 regarding access and unloading to the active face, we talked a lot about the size of the working face because that, in essence, has a daily odor control element to it. And that also was important because of the ability to use a tarp merely on the working face, the size of that face was important again for odor control. And there's no mention here of really the size of the working face, and I -- that was a point of significant discussion. So I would like to -- to talk about that a little bit. And the second point is under 8.4 cover. I don't see specific mention of the use of C and D materials, but I do note that a statute is referenced, which I think is the minimum guideline for C and D, but I -- again, I would like to make sure that in the operating plan use of C and D is by no way excluded, in fact, encouraged. So those are the two points as I went here that I wanted to have a little discussion on here today just to be totally clear on them. MR. RUSSELL: We did -- in the final draft we did include under 8.4.1 the actual dimensions for the -- for the working face as 50 by 100. We actually incorporated the language that was added into the contract there. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. It's under 8.4, okay, so that's not under 6.2. Okay, I gotcha. 50 by 100. Good answer. All right. So my only remaining question is on cover. There's no specific mention that I read of C and D and it either be encouraged to be used or an option, but there is a mention of 62-701 tack 500. Is that the statute that allows for or sets standards for C and D? MR. RUSSELL: Steve, can you address that question? MR. BIGELOW: For the record I'm Steve Bigelow. I reside at 1937 Empress Court here in Naples, and I serve as the general manager for the landfill. Commissioner, could you give me that regulation number again? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, on page 7 under 8.4.1, initial cover, it references the second sentence beginning at the end of the first line, "A soil cover of 6 inches and alternate geosynthetic material or other material in accordance with 62-701 tack 500 will be applied to the daily cell." What my question is, does 62-701 -- does that include C and D material. MR. BIGELOW: Yes, sir, under alternate. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So I just wanted to make sure that C and D was referenced and not excluded. And since I didn't see it by word, I had no other reference to -- MR. BIGELOW: Yes, sir. For your information, we're using every bit of the C and D material that we can possibly get our hands on right now. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. And I assume that was the case, but not seeing it in here, I wanted to make sure that that was not excluded in any way. MR. BIGELOW: No, sir. MR. RUSSELL: I might add that there is a DEP guideline for the quality of that material and -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. MR. RUSSELL: -- the tests are reported to DEP, and Waste Management does copy us on those results of those tests. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Those are the two questions I had. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Page 9 in here you -- you talk about pest control and trying to keep that at a minimum. Specifically referring to birds, you talk about the use of Avatrol. MR. BIGELOW: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that a bait poison? What exactly is Avatrol? MR. BIGELOW: Well, it is a bait, and it's a -- it's a toxic substance, but it can only be used by the Department of Agriculture. We have not used any of that and do not intend to use it unless the Department of Agriculture specifically approves it and DEP approves it. Also, on bird control, we have not started our bird control program as of this date because we're waiting for the approval of this plan. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does the use -- do you know if the use of Avatrol has any impact on other animals other than birds? MR. BIGELOW: Commissioner, I'm not that familiar with the -- with the -- we've used it successfully at other landfills with -- in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture. In fact, they assisted us in implementing a bird control program over at our landfill in Medley, and that's what we wanted to model this bird control after. But before we could actually initiate the bird control program, I would like to invite members of the Audubon Society to meet with us. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I don't want to discourage the bird control program or anything else. My only concern is someone pointed out to us a few weeks ago that landfills are not necessarily unpopular with our panther habitat, that they wander through from time to time. And if we're concerned with them, I want to be very careful we don't have poison that ends up in the bloodstream of the three panthers that are left. MR. BIGELOW: We are in total agreement with you. We don't want to cause any environmental problems for the wildlife either. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Page 10 under gas control, it says, "The gas collection system will prevent the concentration of methane and other gases from exceeding 25 percent of the lower explosive permit for gases." Do you have any idea now prior to the implementation of this gas system where we're at, how that compares to what we have right now? MR. BIGELOW: We've done bore hole monitoring at the property line on two separate occasions since May 1. We've not detected any -- any gas at the property lines in our bore holes. So the answer is zero. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. And a vacuum will be induced -- as far as minimizing the gas, vacuum will be induced on the header line. It will be located at the south side of the landfill. Will that mean the majority of any odor that we do have will be experienced at the south side of the landfill, or how will that impact our '- MR. BIGELOW: Well, the flare, Commissioner, if you're -- if you are familiar with the landfill, the flare is going to be located just south of cells three and four at the corner of the extreme northwest corner of cell five which is the tree farm. There will be some emissions from the flare, and we're awaiting a air quality permit at this time. I don't think that there will be any odors beyond the property line at this time. We are going to collect the gas from cells three and four and the first phase of cell six. That's our initial gas management plan. And then as we complete cell six in phase two and move into phase three, then we'll have incremental additions to the gas plan. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That first phase will be the 40 -- MR. BIGELOW: First phase is cells three and four that was closed by the county, and then the -- the first phase of cell six. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- on page 11, one, two, three, four, five, sixth paragraph, "Installation of the gas system will occur as needed and for the sections of the landfill are brought up to final grading and closed." In that area you're speaking -- MR. BIGELOW: That's on cell six, phase two and phase three. We can't install the gas system until we complete the filling. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Page 13 you talk about leachate disposal. Will this method -- will that eliminate leachate ponds altogether? MR. BIGELOW: What will eliminate leachate ponds will be the construction of the -- the county's pump station and force main which I reviewed the plans yesterday and intend to give the county comments on that within the next week. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you explain to me what -- I read this, but it doesn't make sense to me, the leachate recirculation, 10.3 on page 14. I just -- I hadn't heard that before. I'm not familiar with that. MR. BIGELOW: The county is currently recirculating leachate in Immokalee. We are continuing to recirculate leachate. That's where you pump it from the -- you take it from the bottom of the landfill and pump it back into the cell and circulate it back through the cell. At this time we don't intend to do any recir -- leachate recirculation. Now, when the pump station's complete, we'll -- I'm a firm believer that you need to pull the liquid from the cell just as quickly as possible and treat it for discharge. The longer leachate generally stays in a cell typically the stronger in concentration it gets. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And just one more question. Page 16, talking about water quality monitoring, it indicates that sampling will be sent to a lab. Who owns that lab? Is that an independent lab? Who gets that results? Obviously you all do, but does the county get those results as well? How does that whole process work? MR. BIGELOW: Well, we do send it to a lab. Most of our analyses is performed by EHL. It's a laboratory that's owned by Waste Management that does all of our laboratory analysis. We typically also use Law occasionally for analysis, and all of the analysis is submitted to the county and DEP at the same time. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess the concern being -- the concern that's been expressed to me is that in effect is Waste Management checking Waste Management, the fox guarding the hen house, so to speak. MR. BIGELOW: Well, the state has accepted the EHL analysis in all of our hundred -- other 150 landfills in the country, and they're doing all of our analysis. This lab is certified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and it has to undergo recertification every -- periodically. I understand your question, but I don't think that there's a problem there. We -- you say -- we use a company called Protect for sampling. Those sample bottles are immediately shipped to our laboratory up in -- MR. RUSSELL: If I might add, we have developed a policy where we will get split samples on site at the time they do their sampling and send those to an independent lab, and we intend that to be an ongoing program -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. MR. RUSSELL: -- will be high to begin with, and we'll monitor the results and reduce that over time, but there will always be a split sampling that occurs. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That will be at random and ongoing as long as the agreement goes on? MR. RUSSELL: Right. We'll always require a split sample at every well at every occurrence, but we will choose which samples we would or would not send to an independent lab for backup. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. MR. BIGELOW: Also, Commissioner, for your information, we asked our subcontractor, Protect, to sample in September. And you took the -- the samples, I think, and analyzed them. I haven't seen the results. So there's a lot of safeguards and double-checking there. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much. MR. BIGELOW: Thank you, Commissioner. Oh, by the way, I've brought with me the first resolution from your community advisory board concerning this matter, and I'd like to present it to you, but I'll just read quickly. It says, Dear Commissioner Matthews, upon review of the landfill operational plan, we'd like to recommend that the operational plan for Naples and Immokalee landfills be approved by the board of commissioners contingent upon the lifts not to exceed 15 vertical feet. And I have a copy for you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Not to what? MR. BIGELOW: Not to exceed 15 vertical feet. I think in the operational plan we said it would be approximately 10 feet, and I discussed that last night with the -- with the community. In fact, they've named themselves the Landfill Operation Community Council as to distinguish themselves from the other community advisory council that you have looking for a new landfill. And we discussed -- we've had -- our counsel has had the operational plan for about three weeks and had the opportunity to review it and discuss it on at least two occasions. And they voted last night to make a recommendation to you to accept the -- the operational plan with this one contingency is that they'd like to see the lifts not to exceed 15 feet in vertical height. That's not a problem, so we put it in here, and I'd like to just present it to you at this time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. I guess Commissioner Constantine brought up the question of -- of the water monitoring, well monitoring. And as I looked through this, I didn't see any agreement to split samples. And I'm wondering if that should be in the operations plan that -- that Waste Management agrees to split samples. I just didn't see it here. I know we can do that, and you're saying that -- that we're doing that. MR. RUSSELL: Our -- our agreement language gives the county the right to be on site at any time and to conduct such tests. And we do have within the solid waste department a written policy on exactly how we will conduct these tests that we do. But this specific document is Waste Management's operating plan that also must be approved by DEP, and it's really specific to what they do on their site. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So our -- our other agreement when Waste Management took over the operation of the landfill require -- requires and allows for the split samples? MR. RUSSELL: Yes. Yes, it does. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay, fine. Commissioner Constantine. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Bigelow, you know among the biggest concerns of the public has been the odor generated by the landfill. You indicated that once the gas management system is in place, the odor shouldn't be detectable beyond the boundaries of the landfill. What time frame can we expect that to be in effect? MR. BIGELOW: Commissioner, at two o'clock I'm having a prebid conference, that is I'm inviting several contractors to join with me to -- to discuss the plans and specifications. And we'll take bids on that in about a week, and then we'll sit down and negotiate with a contractor and hopefully award a contract by the end of the year. I anticipate construction starting in January, and that's contingent upon the Division of Air Quality giving us that permit. if you recall, our agreement says that the gas system will be complete and in place within 120 days of the permit, so the clock actually starts when we get the permit from DEP air quality. And we're ready to go mid January, and I'm hoping to have that operational in June or July. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have a question. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Bigelow, once a cell is closed, how long will it produce gas that's recoverable? MR. BIGELOW: Well, that depends, Commissioner, on a number of factors such as the temperature, the water content, the microbial -- the biological activity within the cell. And what I see out at the Naples landfill is we have basically what I refer to as a biological reactor. We produce a lot of gas. Normally you get your maximum gas production two years at the landfill, and it continues on for some period of time. It's difficult to say what the rate of the production of gas is or how long it will last, but there is an equation that -- this empirical formula that you produce more gas when you put more trash into the cell. So if you want more gas, you put more trash there, and the converse is true as well. I'm sorry I didn't answer your question totally but -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No. As matter of fact, you didn't get close. Two years it will start to diminish. Is that what I heard you say, that it will maximize the gas production in two years and then begin to diminish? MR. BIGELOW: I think your gas -- your gas production will start to maximize in about 2 years, and it can go on sometimes 5, 10, 15 years. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: At that maximum? MR. BIGELOW: At that rate, yes. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. MR. BIGELOW: But then after a while it will begin to fall off. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Don't seem to be any. this report? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. Any other questions? Do we need a motion to receive I think we have a speaker. HR. RUSSELL: Do we have public speakers? HR. DORRILL: One speaker, Hr. Henning. MR. HENNING: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record my name is Tom Henning, president of the Golden Gate Area Civic Association. I -- I seem to miss hours of operation in the operation plan. I didn't -- somehow it's -- you know, correct me if I'm wrong, I didn't see that in there at all. So I think that's highly important to know that they're not going to be working 24 hours a day. MR. RUSSELL: That is controlled by our contract with Waste Management. They are not allowed to operate outside of the hours of seven to five o'clock except under unusual conditions such as a storm. MR. HENNING: A natural disaster. I would like to see it in the operation plan, because I think that is part of the operation is the operation hours in the plan. Also, I'd like to report that this spring and summer the landfill odor is the worst that I've ever smelled in the Golden Gate area. And I can't really say that it's because of Waste Management taking it over and operating it. I really don't know whether there is more gas coming from the cells, whether it's a temporary cover. I can't say, but I would like to see this board have the option to revisit the odor in the area concerning the temporary cover. Mr. Bigelow said that once the gas management system is in place, there will be no odor leaving the area of the landfill. That's great but, you know, what about if it does? Is there something else that we can do to -- to minimize that for the -- for the well-being of the citizens around the area? I think they deserve a quality of life as any other resident in Collier County. So I'd like to, if we could, somehow readdress the issue of the temporary cover. Also, I spoke to Mr. Bigelow just a few minutes ago and -- and I guess the question was raised last night in his Citizens Advisory Committee, and he -- and he said it should not be addressed today, but it's something to think about. On page 19, Section 15, landfill mining, the Waste Management is required to mine cells one and two. You see reclaiming the land, reducing the risk to groundwater pollution, recovering and sale of recyclable materials, recovering dirt fractions for landfill cover material. I think the question needs to be raised sometime recovering or resale of recycled materials, who gets the profit from that? I kind of thought that Collier County still owned the landfill, and that's, you know, their material. So I think that needs to be addressed sometime if -- if not today, sometime in the future. That's all the comments I have. And I want to thank you for your time, and I have a meeting at eleven o'clock. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Henning. Is there -- is there any reason that the hours of operation should or could not be contained within this operations plan? MR. RUSSELL: They could be included. MR. WEIGEL: I'll make a comment to that, if I may, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. MR. WEIGEL: The operating plan is an adjunct to the contract itself, and it's really redundant to -- it can be done to restate what is already provided in the contract, but unless the operating plan actually specifically overrides or changes what is previously stated in the contract, the original contract language controls. And I think what Mr. Russell and Mr. Bigelow are indicating is that the contract controls because that has not been addressed or changed in any form with the operations agreement that's before you now. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: And ultimately because this is an adjunct to the contract -- to answer a prior question you had -- it would be appropriate for this board to -- to act to either approve or approve with changes or make some decision in regard to this -- this document that's before you now. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner Constantine, you had -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, Mr. Henning brought up what if the odor isn't fixed and so on. It seems to me during our initial discussions with Waste Management, the public forum, we talked about having some sort of teeth, some sort of enforcement, and I'm trying to remember exactly what that was. MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. That was -- I recall that was something that we wrestled with, and the idea was that we have some kind of a sniff control board or something of that nature. And I believe that the Community Advisory Council has been created is, in effect, the eyes and ears for the board and for the public and for the neighbors of the landfill. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Eyes, ears and nose? MR. WEIGEL: Yes, sir. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: The olfactory police actually is what they call it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One other question, Mr. Bigelow. You said the agreement said within 120 days of when the permits were issued on -- MR. BIGELOW: I think it's 180, Commissioner. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A hundred and eighty? MR. BIGELOW: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'm trying to remember -- I'm glad we clarified, because I think you said 120 days. I remembered six months from the time of acceptance of this report by the board was what George Varnadoe told us several times, and perhaps that got altered in our final agreement. But it seemed to me we asked over and over how long will this take, and Mr. Varnadoe kept saying six months, six months, six months. And in the final couple of hearings on this Mr. Varnadoe said, well, it will be six months from the acceptance of an operation plan, not six months from when we begin the contract. And now I'm hearing six months from when the permit is issued, and so I'm wondering -- I mean, in essence, we're turning this into a year and a half instead of six months from what Mr. Varnadoe first told us. MR. BIGELOW: Commissioner, if I may address your question and your comment. In Section 2.8, gas management and odor control, it says, "The gas management system criterion shall be operational within six months after the date upon which the contractor receives all permits related thereto." COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But that's not the contract. What I'm wondering is in our contract -- MR. BIGELOW: Yes, sir, I'm reading from -- I'm reading from the agreement dated February 7th. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're not reading from the operations plan for that? MR. BIGELOW: No, sir. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Apparently that slipped by us then when we agreed to it, because that wasn't the discussion I remember, but if that's where we're at, that's where we're at. MR. BIGELOW: Commissioner, as you know, I wasn't here during all the negotiations and discussions and the public hearings, but I do have the documents and the videotapes, and there was a lot of things that were said. I think what Mr. Russell and I have been trying to do is operate from this agreement and to develop an operational plan. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I appreciate that. No easy task trying to do that. MR. BIGELOW: Yes, sir. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Other questions? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion to approve this operating agreement. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. I do have one other question about the odor control, and I accept the fact that you're not going to have the gas management system, which is the source of most of the odor, you say, for six months from your permitted date. But what -- what's available to us, somebody, Mr. Russell, Mr. Bigelow, or Mr. Weigel, if it doesn't work? MR. BIGELOW: Well, if I may, Mr. Russell, let me address this and then -- several months ago we received -- we received visits from the DEP that they had received citizen complaints for odor, and DEP came in every week and evaluated the operations and then wrote us a letter and basically said we find nothing wrong with your operation that is creating odor. But they did ask us to do something, which we did agree. They asked us to institute an odor patrol, and there's about five or six areas in the Golden Gate Estates in the area that we go out twice a day and monitor, and it will vary between 7 and 9 a.m. and 3 and 5 p.m. in the afternoons. What DEP asked us to do was to try to detect whether or not there were odors in these areas, and if we detected odors not to use the tarp on that day, which we have complied with. So not every day do we use the tarp, nor do we use the tarp on Saturdays. And we only use two tarps 50 by 50 or roughly 50 by 100, and that's 5,000 square feet on the working face. And those two tarps are removed the very next morning and then the tarps are replaced again on the second day. But it's never -- it's never in the same location as they were the previous day, because the working face moves as we -- as we work in the landfill. I'm of the opinion that if we quit using the tarps, that the odor problems wouldn't improve. What we had in the -- about the first five months of operations was 75 inches of rainfall. And I think that has contributed significantly to gas production at the landfill this year. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Did you say you're of the opinion that if we quit using the tarps, the odor problem would lessen? MR. BIGELOW: No, it would not. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It would not improve. MR. BIGELOW: It would not make any difference. The tarps are only 50 by 100 square feet. And we're talking about acres and acres of landfill producing gas, Commissioner. So the two tarps are just simply 5,000 square feet, and one acre is 43,560 square feet, so we're talking about acres and acres emitting gas. I mean, we don't use tarps on cells three and four. When you go over to three and four, that's where you find a lot of gas, because they're coming out of the passive gas system that the county installed which we're going to replace. Those gas vents that you put in we're going to take out. We'll plug and abandon those and put in active gas wells. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just need to clarify. We're talking 5,000 square feet, 50 by a hundred square feet which is minimal, but we're talking 5,000 square feet. MR. BIGELOW: Yes, sir. At the end of the day it's 5,000 square feet where we use the tarps. So the other -- the other acres that are producing gas at the existing landfill is not affected by tarp, so that small amount of two tarps is not going to appreciably change the odor. I will say that even though Mr. Hennings says that the odors have been worse this year than he's ever detected them, I don't know because I wasn't here previous to this year. But I have had a number of residents who say it's better, so we're trying. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: First of all, I've lived in Golden Gate for about nine years, and it's a pretty healthy odor a lot of days. They're not simply pockets, little pockets where the odor is. I mean, County Road 951 carries 25,000 -- somebody here from transportation -- 25,000 cars a day or something, and -- and that's probably the strongest point. I suspect we have several thousand people go through the toll booths every day, and as you come through and roll your window down to pay your 75 cents, often that is the location. So these aren't isolated little pockets when we say five or six areas. County Road 951 isn't an isolated pocket. And DEP may have come down, and they may have very well have said you are in compliance, and I have no doubt you are in compliance with whatever state and federal laws are, but that doesn't necessarily mean there is no odor. And whether it's better or worse this year really is moot. I think the fact that we're trying to address it and put a gas management system in is appreciated. But regardless of what DEP says, there -- I mean, there are days where I don't smell a thing, but there are days that I walk out the door of my home, and it is very strong. So to suggest -- I guess I take a little offense when you suggest DEP saying there is no odor problem at all, because there clearly is. MR. BIGELOW: No, sir. I didn't -- I didn't mean to imply there was no odor. DEP reviewed our operations and said that we were not doing anything that would create additional odors. No, the only way to solve the gas system -- gas odor problem is to install the gas system. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think that's the most important point. MR. BIGELOW: And that's where we're moving just as quickly as we possibly can, and hopefully we'll have an announcement that we're breaking ground on that in January. Thank you, sir. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'd like my question answered. If the gas system doesn't work, what's available to us for the odor? I mean, is there anything in the contract other than requiring Waste Management to install the gas management system that we can address the odor problem if it doesn't work? MR. WEIGEL: Well, the contract provides for them to install essentially a state of the art for the -- for the geographical location that it is gas management system that -- that meets -- that meets and obtains all the required permitting, and beyond that they are in compliance, general compliance, with doing what is intended in the contract, and that is to be a good and careful operator of the -- of the premises. I -- I can't recall without looking back in the contract if, in fact, there is a penalty -- that there is a penalty for them for what is, in effect, not a failure of their action but, in fact, that their actions don't bring the relief that's desired. And I think there is a distinction that is there. There is clearly in the contract if there is a failure for them to -- to adhere with the general requirements of the contract, which are rather specific, then they are in a default or breach situation. But when they have complied with all of the material terms of the contract, then they would not be in a technical default or breach. And without further review of the contract, I don't believe there is a penalty that comes as an availability for the operator in that regard. I would have to look again. I can reply to you separately -- MR. RUSSELL: I would -- I would add that there is and has been a third-party engineer review in order to attain the best practice available in -- in the -- in the technology of gas management control. So according to Law Engineering's third-party review of those plans, that what is being installed is the very best possible technology to this problem. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The answer is no? MR. WEIGEL: The answer is no in the sense that they would not be breaching the contract for having attempted and placed what is permitted and allowable for the situation. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I -- you know, I'm aware that we can't protect against all -- all things, and the answer to my question is no, and that -- MR. WEIGEL: Yes, the answer is no. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: After all the explanation, okay, fine. I can deal with that. We have a motion, and we have a second to approve the recommendation to approve the detailed landfill operating plan as submitted. Is there any further discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes five to zero. Thank you, Mr. Bigelow. Thank you, Mr. Russell. Why don't we take a quick break. We'll take a break till five after, and we will be taking a full lunch today beginning at noon. (A short break was held.) Item #8B4 RESOLUTION 95-662 APPROVING THE JOINT PROJECT AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA DOT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE PATHWAY ALONG OAKS BOULEVARD - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Reconvene the Board of County Commission meeting for November 28, 1995. We are at item 8(B)(4). This is the pathway on Oakes Boulevard. Mr. Gonzalez. MR. GONZALEZ: Adolfo Gonzalez with capital projects department. This is -- staff is requesting you approve a joint project agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation for ISTEA funds to construct a sidewalk on Oakes Boulevard from Vanderbilt Beach Road to Oakes Boulevard. Staff recommends approval of the item. We pulled it from the consent to the regular at the request of a homeowner out there that wished to speak today. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have no problem with us getting ISTEA funds and moving forward with this. I do have a concern with the logic of -- and I think I talked with Russ about this back sometime -- but the logic of putting the sidewalk on the west side of the road, because there are maybe a dozen homes up and down the west side of the road. On the east side of the road, there are all the streets where there are potentially 500 homes, and so you have this -- I assume part of the idea of the sidewalk is all the children that live up in that area coming down to Vineyards Elementary and the schools -- it doesn't make much sense to have every single one of them have to cross Oakes Boulevard to get to the sidewalk. And -- and I'm wondering doesn't it make more sense to build the sidewalk on the east side of the road where all the people are. MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, it does. That was -- that was the preferred location, the east side of the road. In fact, we have a hundred-foot right-of-way in that area. The road is not centered in the right-of-way. It's actually more to the east than to the west. There's about 20 feet from the edge of pavement to the east right-of-way line and 60 feet from the west edge of pavement to the west right-of-way line. A couple of concerns we had was there is a swale system on either side of the road. If we were to put the sidewalk on the east side, we'd have to cover the swale. Now, you go from an open swale system to a curb and gutter type system which adds substantially to the cost of the project. The people are on the west. Yes, the kids need to cross on the west side of the street. I mean, bus pickup right now is about half and half, half on the east side, half on the west side. As an example of one that seems to be working well is Logan Boulevard, same thing. Most of the children are on the east side. The sidewalk is on the west side. I don't know if it's for the same reasons, but there were some cost considerations in that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I just have a real concern with the -- and this isn't -- I don't want to get too confused. Maybe what I -- maybe I can simplify this. Do we have an opportunity to review the design or the location even after we've gone ahead with the ISTEA grant as far as side of the road? MR. GONZALEZ: We're at the point now that we need to have the grant application executed by the board chairman before December 8th, or my understanding is we lose the ISTEA funding which is 90 percent of 120,000 we're getting for it. We did have some public workshops earlier on back in March of this year where there were residents from some of the streets along Oakes Boulevard that attended, and we tried to get their input on that. Unfortunately, it was more of a cost consideration. Also, if you put the sidewalk on the east side of the road, it would be closer to the edge of the traveled way, and that has an inherent risk as far as exposing pedestrians to traffic closer -- in closer proximity to it. We're putting it as far away from the road as we can on the west side for that reason, for safety reasons. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I -- I just -- and that still didn't answer my question. I know we need to have the application done by December 15, you say? MR. GONZALEZ: Eighth. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Eighth. Once the application is done, is it too late then to change from the west side to the east side? MR. GONZALEZ: The design is complete. We'd have to redesign it and hopefully try to get additional ISTEA funds if they're available. If we move it to the east, we would probably have to incur all of the cost of moving it to the east such as the additional storm sewer system. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I'm -- I'm just very uncomfortable, because this is primarily a family area. If you're familiar with Oakes Boulevard, it is one long, straight shot. There are no stop signs. Traffic is 60 miles an hour. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I know it well. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And it concerns me. I understand what you're saying. I don't want to spend that much money, a hundred and twenty instead of twelve thousand dollars, but at the same time I don't want a whole pile of little kids wandering across Oakes Boulevard every day either. And so I'm a little apprehensive about voting yea if that's the case. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: When I read this item, one thing occurred to me is that on the east side of the road, I wasn't aware of the difficulty of water management. On the east side of the road you're going to have the sidewalk intersecting road after road after road. And I wonder if, in fact, those conflicts of the kids on bikes crossing that many roads, you know, isn't as bad as having to cross Oakes once or almost as bad as having to cross Oakes once. I just think that may be a consideration. The second is basically if you put it on the west side, we're getting the entire thing for $12,000. If we try and put it on the east side, which we can still do down the road, you know, we -- you know, the ability or the cost to Collier County and the ability to get ISTEA funds -- I'm not saying one precludes the other down the road. I just -- I know we can get this, and there is some benefit to it, whereas if it -- if we say it has to be on the east side, I'm not sure what our success rate is going to be. So I believe -- I understand your concerns. I just '- I'm looking at a comparison of if a child has to cross Oakes Boulevard once or twice, is that in any way similar in level of -- of danger as that child crossing the intersection of however many roads they would have to cross on the east side just comparatively. Maybe Miss Chapman has accident data that shows my -- that those several crossings -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Identified an accident at one of those intersections myself. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. So I'm just saying it may not be all bad on the west side, but those are the two comparisons as having to cross Oakes as having to cross several side streets. So I -- I just kind of throw it out there and shut up. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have a concern of a different nature, Mr. Gonzalez. Was this project leapfrogged over other projects prioritized by the Pathways Advisory Committee? MR. GONZALEZ: I don't know. Hopefully Anita can give you that answer. MS. CHAPMAN: No, this project was not leapfrogged over any other projects. It was prioritized by the PAC and by the HPO in your ISTEA priorities. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. And your name is? MS. CHAPMAN: Anita Chapman. I'm your bicycle and pedestrian coordinator. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So this -- this follows what the HPO has adopted -- MS. CHAPMAN: Yes. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- from the citizens Pathways Advisory Committee? MS. CHAPMAN: That's correct. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And it's not competing with any other project then for these particular ISTEA funds? MS. CHAPMAN: No. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay, great. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other discussion? MR. DORRILL: You do have one speaker. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have one speaker? Why don't we hear from that speaker. MR. WEIGEL: Madam Chairman, as she's coming up, I note that typically our office would review and approve these agreements -- all agreements before they're in the agenda. Our office had reviewed and initialed it, but we were under discussion with the clerk's office in regard to a question they have because this requires an advance of funds by the county pursuant to paragraph 3-A on the first page of the agreement. And the clerk -- Jim Mitchell of the clerk's office is going to be working with Mike Pettit of our office to determine if, in fact, there is any kind of a legal problem in providing the advance as -- as written in the agreement. We hope to have that taken care of shortly. It might require a slight modification of the agreement but really doesn't change the essence or the substance of the agreement. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. MS. EPPS: My concerns are -- my name is Jeanne Epps, and I live on 6511 12th Avenue Northwest. And my concerns are the children crossing a 45-mile-an-hour road that people do 60. Mr. Smith 12 years ago had it lowered to 35 due to concerns of his children, and progressively it's gone back. I counted six dumps yesterday going down to the Vineyards section building. As far as crossing once over, we do have other roads. They all go down. We have a snake farm. He has a lot of traffic down there. There is -- off of 12th is a dog kennel. There's a lot of traffic go down there. Your kids still are crossing where they cross this way (indicated) over in a line over 12th, 10th, so forth. You still have it on the other side with traffic pending. It just -- granted, it's cheaper to go that route, but is it cheaper in the long run when a child is hit and somebody finds out, oh, gee, it could have been on the east side, and they sue the county. I mean -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Miss Epps, I feel like you're talking to me. I'm the only person you're looking at as if I'm an advocate for children getting run over by cars. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Are you? MS. EPPS: I'm not referring to anybody. It's -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, I just -- I have to say that, you know, I was pointing out a possible safety difference. MS. EPPS: I understand that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was the only reason for my comment. I'm not advocating one over the other. MS. EPPS: I'm not pointing you out. I'm just stating that there is a possibility for a lawsuit. Anybody can create a lawsuit. They did it over a coffee spill. But my concern is the children and crossing. I mean, I've heard dump trucks squeal and kids scream, and they're waiting for the bus. And buses stop, the red signs go out, kids are able to cross because all the traffic is stopped. And that's my -- in the future my understanding is Oakes Boulevard will be four-laned, so then you've got kids crossing a four-laned highway. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: When is that four-laning due, Mr. Gonzalez? MR. GONZALEZ: It is not on the 2010 plan. The currently adopted plan, it is shown as a two-lane road. I'm not sure -- Jeff Perry and I were just talking about the 2020 plan. I'm not sure if it's shown as a four-lane road for sometime between now and the year 2020. But it's not even within our capital program within the next ten years. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But Oakes Boulevard north of Immokalee Road is a four-lane road now? MR. GONZALEZ: Oakes Boulevard from Vanderbilt Beach Road to Immokalee Road. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oakes Boulevard from Immokalee Road to North Brook Road is a four-lane road right now, and I believe a traffic light is going up there. MR. GONZALEZ: That would be just the right and left turns at Immokalee Road, but the -- the portion of that road is a two-lane road. The majority of that road is two-lane and -- north of Vanderbilt Beach Road. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No, I'm not talking about north of Vanderbilt Beach Road. I'm talking about north of Immokalee Road. MR. GONZALEZ: I'm sorry. North of Immokalee Road, yes, it is a four-lane section. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: A four-lane section, and there is a stoplight, I understand, going in at Oakes and Immokalee Road. MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, and this project ends at Immokalee Road. It does not continue northward. MS. EPPS: Will there be a traffic light supplied for the kids to travel across to Vineyard? MR. GONZALEZ: The warrant study that you approved this year shows an evaluation for a traffic signal at Immokalee Road and Oakes Boulevard this current year. Also an analysis of the Vanderbilt Beach Road-Oakes Boulevard intersection will be done this year to see if it warrants a traffic signal. No, there is not one planned right now, but it is in this year's plan to analyze whether one is warranted there. MS. EPPS: Putting bike paths in the bus system for Vineyards was to abolish once bike paths go in. You've got little kids riding bikes, and they're crossing -- Vanderbilt's a pretty hectic road. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think we understand the problem very much. MS. EPPS: I'm not against bike paths; they're fine. But I'm just -- my concern is children. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Dorrill pointed out some time ago this school board has a committee on things that you're talking about, children's safety, you know, getting them a crossroads and so forth. Yet we stand here today looking at a single project, and the question isn't is it on the east side or the west side. The question is can it go on the east side, and that's what we need to determine, and if it can, what is that cost. MS. EPPS: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So the -- the signals and the crossing of the road and so forth is not simply a board decision. MS. EPPS: I understand that. My -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So my -- and I just wanted to state that because when Mr. Dotrill brought that up, I was not aware of that. Yet we sit here with no input from the school board on this item, and we're dealing with children and schools. It seems to me we should have some help from the school board on this. My question, Mr. Gonzalez, is on the -- you say we have 20 feet from edge of pavement to right-of-way on the east side. What's our cross-section of the swale there? What's the distance? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Stay there. You're not finished. MR. GONZALEZ: I don't know how wide the swale is. We essentially operate on the east side of the road because it clears our requirements. When we put a bike path adjacent to the edge of a traveled way, we have to have it a certain distance away from it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. MR. GONZALEZ: Less if it's curb and gutter; more if it's a rural section. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And what's that distance if it's a rural section with a swale? MR. GONZALEZ: For a 45-mile-a-hour design speed it's 24 feet from the edge of pavement. There are other criteria for sidewalks and more compressed urban areas, but that is essentially the DOT standard. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And how low would the speed limit have to be for it to be 15 feet away? MR. GONZALEZ: I think the next clear zone width is 18 feet for 30-mile-an-hour design speed, as I recall. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So even if the speed limit were down at 30 miles an hour, we would not have the clear zone on the east side to locate there? MR. GONZALEZ: It could be done. We could put a curb and gutter on that road and some storm sewer and then have it as close as the face of the curb. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. But our ability to pay for that is in question. MR. GONZALEZ: It would increase substantially. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You had more to say, ma'am? We consumed a great deal of your time. I just wanted to make sure that you '- MS. EPPS: All I wanted you to do was consider it, and it's just -- I know it's easy money, and it's cheaper, but in the long run will it really be cheaper? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, the cost may be substantially different further on. Thank you. Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Gonzalez, you said there would be substantial additional cost to do the curb and gutter. Do we know what -- what does substantial mean? Another 10,0007 Another hundred thousand? MR. GONZALEZ: It's about 300,000 for the storm sewer system. The consultant was paid $45,000 for the design, the current design plans. Some additional costs were replacing cross drains at each side street, three hundred fifty, four hundred thousand dollars. Again, it's not just a matter of cost. It's also a matter of safety. Yes, there is a concern of crossing the street, but there's also an equal concern of having pedestrians travel long -- parallel with the traveled way that close to the edge of pavement. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Then I guess it's better to have a sidewalk somewhere than no sidewalk at all and have the kids walking or riding in the street, but I just -- week after week I will say we can't make decisions based on hypotheticals, but I think the point made that if one kid gets hit here crossing onto the other side, then it's not an unlikely scenario knowing the traffic that travels up and down there and knowing the speed at which they travel up and down there. I am extremely uncomfortable. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You know, one thing -- one thing that we could do that I've heard about and Mr. Gonzalez says we're going to do, a warrant study for a light at Vanderbilt Beach Road and Oakes. We -- we could move forward with this project with the pathway on the west side and accept the knowledge that we probably are going to put a light at Oakes and Vanderbilt Beach Road for the -- for the main purpose of the youngsters crossing the road. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to support the recommendation for the sole reason that it is better to have something here than -- than have the kids riding and walking in the street. But I think we need to do exactly what you said, move forward with the traffic light study, and that will help at least on the south end. And, Commissioner Hancock, you mentioned earlier that this doesn't preclude us from looking at east-side things later on down the road, and I would hope that we would do exactly that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, you -- you've reminded us, and Mr. Hancock has also reminded us that the school board has a child safety program for getting children to and from school. And I see the problem here with this pathway on the west side not only a question of the youngsters having to cross Oakes Boulevard, but even after they get to Vanderbilt Beach Road, they've got to cross Vanderbilt Beach Road, which is also 45- to 50-, 55-mile-an-hour speedway sometimes. MR. DORRILL: Well, the first thing we'd have to do is to look at the current zones, and the only reason I say that is because I have some friends that live off of one of those streets, and I know that their children do not go to the Vineyards school. They go to the new elementary school on Immokalee Road -- the name escapes me -- just east of Long Shore Lake on Immokalee Road. I know a lot of those children are being bused to that particular school. The school safety committee consists of the school transportation department, the county transportation department, and the sheriff's department, because they provide the school crossing guards, and I've already made a note to have them evaluate the situation at Vanderbilt. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does this committee or does the school board, to your knowledge, have any funding set aside to address issues where, like I said, we have -- we have the ability to get a sidewalk in place for a very minimal amount of money? It's not the best-case scenario. It's not where we would like to have it. Are there any options or opportunities, to your knowledge, of getting the school board to share in cost, or is that -- I mean, I know traditionally it has not been done, but I'm just curious what the structure is, if there's any assistance we can look for there other than a committee that says, gee, you're right, it would be better on the east side. MR. DORRILL: To my knowledge -- this shouldn't be taken the wrong way. The school has never spent a dime for off-site safety enhancements for any school in the county. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That has always been the rule of road and bridge in the county; is that correct? MR. DORRILL: I guess the interest that I would have would be to ask our staff or the county attorney's office to see whether or not school safety pedestrian enhancements could be an eligible use of their impact fee funds, because I know that -- and they've certainly spent huge sums of money to build and provide capital facilities, and I'd like if -- if you direct us to, to explore whether or not that could be an eligible use of impact fee money. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I am in no way saying the school board has been derelict. But I think this -- and I remember another discussion we had about six months ago when we had Marco; then we had Poinciana. We seem to be making a lot of changes or improvements or additions, and they're really centered around the school kids. And I think that's important. I think we have to do it. But, you know, there's -- a $300,000 difference is pretty substantial and greatly affects our ability to do other projects. So I -- you know, again, it probably can't help this situation, but there's -- there's got to be a better way to address enhancing pedestrian projects for the purpose of improving access for kids to school. And -- and I think we should have partners in that. MR. DORRILL: If you want to incorporate that into your motion, that would give us some real firm policy direction to explore the use of the impact fee angle. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Also, we heard the speaker tell us that it's the school board's intention to stop school busing the children to the Vineyards Elementary School when this pathway is in. Now, I don't know how far up Oakes Boulevard they're talking about. As you say, some of those kids go -- go to the other school. But certainly if the school board's going to save operational money by not busing those children, we might be able to share some of that savings they're going to have in adopting something with this -- with the safety program. MR. DORRILL: Again, we can explore that. I know historically that the school would not allow children to cross an arterial highway or road or major collector road even if they lived less than 2 miles, which is their criteria for being bused. For example, I live in Pine Woods on Airport Road. Because we're on the same side of the road that the school is on, children who live in Pine Woods must either car pool, walk, or ride to work. Children that live directly across Airport Road at World Tennis Center receive free bus service, even though the bus makes a U-turn and goes back in front of Pine Woods, because the school policy will not allow those children to cross Airport Road even though they live less than 2 miles. That's historically been their criteria, but we can ask them whether or not that is still, in fact, true as it would present itself to these children at Vineyards Elementary. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is Oakes a collector or an arterial? MR. GONZALEZ: A collector. MR. DORRILL: Vanderbilt extension is an arterial road and, thus, the same distinction with their criteria. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there further discussion? Is there a motion? MR. GONZALEZ: Madam Chairman, if I may give you just a little bit more information. Your staff currently is working with the county attorney's office to explore whether or not we can use school impact fees to do some additional enhancements such as traffic calming types of things that we can do in conjunction with the sidewalk. That's occurring right now. Again, as an example, you need to keep in mind is the success of the Logan project, same thing, sidewalk on the west, kids on the east, and yet they're traveling up and down that road right now. We can incorporate another sidewalk in the future. If we do show a four-lane Oakes Boulevard in the 2020 plan, we'll certainly incorporate a sidewalk in that as we do with other major collectors. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Do we have a motion? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, considering the options are to have nowhere for the children to go or to have 90 percent of our lesser choice funded, I'll make a motion that we approve the item. However, I would like to add the stipulations -- Mr. Dotrill just mentioned it -- also to keep our door open for exploration of a future bike path on the east side. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I second that motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. Can I ask the motion maker to incorporate in his motion the investigation with the school safety committee as to a shared -- either funding recommendation or something of that nature? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually what Mr. Dotrill was saying wasn't the school safety committee, but a look at whether impact fees can be used for these types of improvements, because the school safety committee doesn't have any funding ability. So they -- again, we would get them saying, yes, it should be on the east, but no ability to -- to share in that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I understand that, but it would be -- I just -- I thought it would be nice to have the school safety committee make a recommendation as to how we should handle the safety issues. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't have any objection to including that and, frankly, I don't think we're going to get a lot of excited response from the school board as far as using school impact fees to do this, but I don't mind including that either. I'll include all of that in the motion. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second amends. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Any further comment? All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes five to zero. Item #8C1 RESOLUTION 95-663 DESIGNATING THE AGRICULTURAL AND LABOR PROGRAM, INC. (ALPI) AS THE COHMUNITY ACTION AGENCY FOR THE RECEIPT AND ADMINISTRATION OF CERTAIN COHMUNITY SERVICE BLOCK GRANT GUNDS - ADOPTED Next item on the agenda is 8(C)(1), recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt a resolution. Mr. Olliff. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Olliff, is there any reason why we should not do this? MR. OLLIFF: None that I'm aware of, sir. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: A motion and a second to adopt a resolution whose number has been reserved, but it deals with designating the Agricultural and Labor Program, Incorporated, as a community action agency. Any further discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes five to zero. MR. OLLIFF: I do need to thank the people from Winter Haven who drove here for this item. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We appreciate the great presentation on this item, very informative, and I wish you good luck in the future. MS. JOHNSON: Thank you very much. We'll be reporting back. Item #8C2 RESOLUTION 95-664 DIRECTING STAFF TO ADVERTISE PROPERTY FOR SALE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PUBLIC GOLF COURSE - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Item 8(C)(2), a recommendation that the Board of Collier County Commissioners advertise property for sale. Mr. Olliff. MR. OLLIFF: Yes, ma'am. For the record, Tom Olliff, your public services administrator. This item is another look at a proposal that you heard several months ago regarding a public golf course in Collier County. Again, to reorient the commission, the property is adjacent to the existing landfill. It is on the northeast corner of County Road 951 and 1-75. The last time the item was presented to the board, the commission directed us to go back and work again with the authority. However, the direction was to look at some financing alternatives that did not involve the county as part of any of the debt service repayments. In looking at those options, we -- we looked at the idea of the county issuing a bond in which it was in no way financially obligated as any of the repayment. However, when we talked to Mr. Giblin -- and I think we included Mr. Giblin, who is the county's bond counsel -- we included his letter of response to our question. He did indicate that even if the project were to fail and the county were not financially responsible, that it probably would have an impact on the county's credit rating because it had issued the bond even if it wasn't a pledge in terms of the debt service. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Whose opinion was that? MR. OLLIFF: Tom Giblin of Giblin, Neighbors. The next step that we looked at -- and, in fact, working with the authority, we found out that the bonds could be issued and obtained for this project through the Industrial Development Authority, and I believe the Golf Course Authority representatives met with the Industrial Development Authority representatives, and I think that is now the preferred method of financing for the project. So it's made the decision for the county commission a lot simpler in this case. It has nothing to do with financing of the project. The decision here today is only whether or not the county wants to sell the property, declare it as surplus. There are two issues that I need to bring to the board's attention. If the board desires to sell the property, it does need to set aside a resolution and declare the property as surplus. There are two ways that it can be sold. And I've just found out after the executive summary was written that the board can sell property directly to a not-for-profit corporation without advertisement. However, there are certain public benefit tests that it must meet in order for that property to be sold in that way without advertisement. And the county attorney's office is a bit uncomfortable in the fact that this is a recreational-type facility, and it may not clearly meet some of those tests. So their recommendation is that we continue to advertise the property for a competitive sale, but as you indicate, that we can narrowly draw the actual advertisement for sale so that the county is looking only for purchasers who are interested in -- in developing a public golf course with certain parameters, whatever those might be. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I interrupt you at that point, Mr. Olliff? MR. OLLIFF: Sure. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because that's my fundamental question. I think this golf course is a wonderful idea. I think it's going to happen, and I want it to, but I'm uncomfortable with offering a piece of public property for sale to one buyer. Why wouldn't we offer -- we should be declaring this property surplus. We should be having it on the market. We talked about that way back in the landfill discussions. But why wouldn't we sell it to the highest bidder? MR. WEIGEL: I think -- I think that's exactly what Mr. Olliff is suggesting, is that it go through the normal advertising process, and it would go to -- it could go to the highest bidder. If the county wished to, however, frame the sale and, therefore, the use of the property -- the contract for sale for a specific use, it could do that. We have to do that very carefully. I want to -- want to make it clear for the record, but -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I guess as much as this is a wonderful -- and, frankly, I'm thrilled to hear there's somebody who's interested in buying this property from the county, and this is all good, but there are a lot of other -- I mean, maybe the ice skating people want to buy it. Maybe the roller rink people want to buy it. I just don't know why -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Skateboard people. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The skateboard -- why would we limit it just to golf. That's my fundamental question, frankly, the only question I have on this agenda item. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me try to answer that for you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: All right. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: A decision to sell this property to the highest bidder is a complete and separate decision from deciding to build a golf course on this particular piece of property. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We did not come up with the idea of building a golf course on this particular piece of property. We were approached by the -- the Collier Golf Authority, whatever the name of it is. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There you go. You got it. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And they -- they initiated the idea of buying this from us for the purpose of building a golf course, which is fine. Now, I agree that we should advertise this property so that if there's someone else out there that wants to pay more for it, they should have that opportunity. But let's advertise it as a golf course, because if it had not been for the idea of building a golf course here, we wouldn't even be considering selling it today at this point. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But you all -- I said we were going to declare it surplus and try to sell it. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But not today. And we've had this -- we've had this offer to build a golf course there. And if these people want to build a golf course, fine. I think we should at least put it out to bid. If there's somebody else that would like to build a golf course and will pay us more money, that's a risk that the Golf Authority has to take. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me try to further the explanation, and that is there is close to 300 acres that will be put up for sale in this action. Realistically a skating rink or any of the examples you mentioned have no need for 300 acres. I think for a property of that size you have a particular recreational use, which would be golf, or you could get into commercial uses and have industrial property or have any number of things. And so it comes down to if you want it to be for recreational purposes, what is a logical use of 300 acres for recreational use. And you're pretty hard pressed to come up with something else that uses that much. So if our purpose is try to make sure this is used in a recreation manner, golf becomes the logical choice. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have a question for Mr. Weigel. If we issue an RFP -- if we declare this land to be excess and issue an RFP and describe the proposal for sale as for use of a public golf course, are we going to restrict the deed then so that it's always a public golf course, or do we lose control of that land when we sell it? MR. WEIGEL: I think that's probably what we will do. I haven't gotten the details worked out entirely myself, but that was why I mentioned we will have to be very careful if the board's direction is for this property, although to be owned by someone other than the county, to be developed for a specific purpose and held and operated for a specific purpose, that will become a part of the sale contract and conceivably part of the transfer document, which is the deed itself. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Wouldn't we be wiser in order to maintain control of the property for the use as a golf course to lease it as opposed to sell it? MR. WEIGEL: I guess that's -- that's still maybe a better question for the province of Mr. Giblin. And he indicated that he did not see a sale and leaseback as potentially benefiting the county. I don't think he was really looking at it in terms of control as he was in terms of the fiscal ability of -- of an entity to purchase the property and secure the bonding and financing that they need if the county stays involved. And, of course, what he was, I think, responding to in his letter was to show that there is a way that the course -- or that the property could be developed for a specific purpose, but not getting the county with any financial risk whatsoever. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. MR. WEIGEL: I can't answer the question -- MR. OLLIFF: I think right now the control that the county has is through its normal zoning process as well, because the zoning today is going to allow only certain uses of which the golf course would be one. Anyone that wants to purchase it at some point -- for instance, if the golf course were to fail -- would have to come in here if it were to be commercial, industrial, anything. I think the concern is that it we impact the neighbor-area residences, would have to come back in here for a fezone to commercial, industrial, PUD, whatever it might be, and that's where your control level is. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think that for my vote the appropriate thing to do would be to offer it for sale for recreational purposes, and then if -- as you say, Commissioner Constantine, it makes perfect sense that a golf course is the one that's the most logical. Maybe, however, there's somebody who wants to joint venture something with the golf course, Golf Authority, maybe. I don't know. I'm just uncomfortable with offering this piece of property for sale essentially to a specified buyer. I'd like to assure that the property's recreational and offer it for sale for that purpose. MR. OLLIFF: For what it's worth, our files do include other not-for-profit corporations that do the same type of project, build public municipal-type golf courses. And if the county -- if the county were to put this property up for sale, we would include an advertisement being sent to those other corporations we know that do that as well. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think an important point -- by no means -- and I think Mr. Weigel has already said this. By no means are we simply putting this up for one buyer. And I think that was Mr. Olliff's point early on, is the county attorney's office is uncomfortable with that. We can't do that. There are other groups who have an interest in this type activity, and we'll see what the bids come back. I think the overall idea in the project is -- is a -- certainly a positive one. It's a giant step forward in several ways. It provides a recreational opportunity in one of the county's fastest growing areas in what is possibly here in Collier County the most popular recreational activity. The great thing is it will -- has created and may very well provide an opportunity for kids and for people who don't otherwise have a chance to get out and play golf because of the cost and the -- the vast majority of ours are private here. In reference to Commissioner Matthews' question about leasing or selling before, I think the nice -- one of the real benefits that no one's mentioned here is that if we sell, that money goes toward what we spent the morning talking about, and that is the next landfill site. We would have that money in pocket for seed money for our next landfill. And I think the -- the pre-1992 commission made an error, which we've all acknowledged at this point, in trying to set this particular site aside for 300 additional -- 340 additional landfill acres. And it's kind of nice to be able to turn that around to not only extend the landfill there, but go 180 degrees and put a positive recreational thing there. So I support this wholeheartedly. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't have a problem with the golf course on this land; don't misunderstand me. I'm looking for a way to control that it's always a golf course. Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Hac'Kie, another element to what you brought up is let's say a skating rink wants to go in, whether it's a not-for-profit or not. A skating rink under our SIC code falls under commercial uses. This property under our Growth Management Plan cannot be rezoned for commercial use. So you have to look at what the growth -- what the land use is under the current Growth Management Plan, what it can become, and that restricts a lot of the uses you may be considering that are truly recreational but by definition become commercial, regardless of ownership and profitability. So by restricting this to golf course, you have to look at what ag or land in this area can become, and it's fairly limited. So I think some of that goes away just by the -- the Growth Management Plan designation for this property. So that's why I don't have any problems with restricting it to golf course, because other than golf course, churches, and houses, there's not a whole heck of a lot else that can go on on this property. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris, you -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, I have one last question on the technicalities here. We are being asked today to declare this property surplus and put it out for bid. Let's say that for some unforeseen reason this never comes about as a golf course. That's very unlikely but, you know, it's possible. What do we do with the property then? We have declared it surplus. Do we have to go back and undeclare it surplus? MR. WEIGEL: That's a good question. I would think that that would probably be the appropriate thing to do if there were a change in direction and desire of the board at some point in the future. And, incidentally, with the request for proposals for purchase that would be crafted and -- and sent out to be solicited, that in no way obligates the board to accept one or -- or any of the responses that come in. You may or may not accept the offers, and that being the case, if you were not to accept any of the offers that -- that were to come back, the property designation by virtue of the resolution that's passed today continues to exist, but the county remains the owner with -- with no problem whatsoever as far as that's concerned. If they wish to -- wish to commit the property to some other use, it would be appropriate, particularly if it's a use that involves change in zoning or change -- or any cooperation with a private entity. It would be appropriate to rescind the resolution that you would adopt today. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So, in fact, it would not create any kind of problem for us? MR. WEIGEL: No. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do we have speakers, Mr. Dorrill? MR. DORRILL: Yeah, we've got about five. Mr. Glass. Dr. Gore, if I could have you ready to go, please, sir. MR. GLASS: Just take a couple minutes, because it's a rather easy subject for me now. Number one, it's our intention if we do -- are the winning bid, and we intended, and we discussed it with him. VOICE: Who is the person speaking? MR. GLASS: Arnold Lee Glass. VOICE: Thank you. MR. GLASS: Anyway, our intention is immediately if we gain control or buy the property, we are deed restricting it in perpetuity as a golf course and also for nature path uses for people at the Conservancy and things like that. There is approximately 300 acres out there, but only about 190 acres are usable for anything, because the rest of it's got environmental concerns, and that's why we're working with the Conservancy, to try and work out a program for a study center and trails for the people and the kids of the county in addition to the golf course. Secondly, we are in a position now with what we've done -- and we've submitted packages to you yesterday. And if you had the opportunity to review them, you'll see that there's no longer any financial obligation in any circumstances whatsoever. We have a letter of credit that's coming for us. Should we win the bid, we'll enact it. And that letter of credit gives us the building funds to do the building, and then we have a band -- or a bond anticipation note that will allow us to go ahead and get our bond. As you know, you've met -- you've heard him before, the representative from Everin Securities, formally Kemper. They have agreed to issue the bond. They have agreed to underwrite it, and they will purchase the bond. So we don't even have to look for somebody to purchase the thing to get it taken out. From that point of view, like they say, it's a slam-dunk operation if we win the bid. Now, we've already expended almost $25,000 on the property already just on the studies and the architecture things. I had a chart back there with the thing on it, but I'll just leave it for you to look at, the plan of the golf course. But other than that, we're in a position where we want to go ahead and get this thing done. Somebody has to do one here for the people, and nobody else has stood up to the plate yet. Jack Breeden and the crew started in '79. You know how frustrated they've been for a long time, so we've finally got a real financial picture. We've got it locked in. We have an underwriter and a purchaser, so the county will benefit from it. And, like I said, our first intention is to deed restrict this land in perpetuity for the use of the golf course and natural open space and nature trails. Does anybody have any questions of me before I step down? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't think so. MR. GLASS: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Dr. Gore and then Mr. Erlichman, if I could have you ready, please. MR. GORE: Well, I can make this fairly quick. I'm just -- just want to ask a question more than anything else, and perhaps Commissioner Constantine can help me with this. I'm just suggesting that perhaps you might want to think about delaying this decision until the landfill siting committee comes up with its final decision. At least as my understanding is, there's still the possibility that the best place for the landfill is right where it is. And if that's the case, that may not be a terribly good public amenity there. That's just a consideration. I certainly don't oppose the golf course or the nature trails or anything like that, but I think it would be more useful if the landfill wasn't there and it was relocated somewhere else. Thank you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll just respond real quick to that. I think that by the criteria, particularly the evaluative criteria that was put up today, proximity to residence, proximity to roads, so on, the likelihood -- and, again, we'll have to see until December 9th what is weighted with what priority. But the likelihood of that coming out as a top priority is probably small. I suppose there is a possibility, but I think it's pretty slim. MR. GORE: One of our -- one of our members is on that advisory council. He just asked me to make that comment. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine, you're going to weight the existing landfill along with the other sites? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, we're not weighting the sites. What we're doing is weighting the criteria. And just by -- if you think back at the criteria that was put up there, the likelihood of the existing site being high then after all that criteria is ranked is pretty slim. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Next speaker? MR. DORRILL: Mr. Erlichman and then Mr. Keller. Madam Chairman, while he's coming forward today, I wanted to advise you you do have a public petition today, and we indicated to the lady we would endeavor to do that before you go to lunch. She indicates that it's very brief. Mr. Erlichman. MR. ERLICHMAN: Gil Erlichman, East Naples, speaking for myself and TAG. I'd first like to compliment the county attorney's office for being very quick and expeditious in getting me an answer to a question that I asked late yesterday afternoon. They called me early this morning and gave me the answer. The question was that I wanted to find out whether the -- this Collier County Golf Authority was registered in the state, and they are. They are a registered corporation. In the beginning of this discussion, Councilman Norris didn't know the exact name of this group, and I don't blame him, because in examining the agenda item in the executive summary, this organization is referred to as Collier County Golf Authority, Incorporated; Collier County Golf Authority; Collier Golf Authority; Collier Golf Authority, Incorporated; and Authority, et cetera, et cetera. So there's no -- says a confusing bunch of names here. I went to the dictionary yesterday and looked up the definition of authority. And authority is legal or rightful power, a right to command or act, dominion, jurisdiction; two, a person, board, or commission with power in a particular field as a port authority or Naples Airport Authority or Collier County Airport Authority; government -- and third division is government, those exercising power or command. I put it to you commissioners that the use of a title authority in a name implies and there is a perception that this is a government agency. Even though the state has registered the name Collier County Golf Authority, I think it's very confusing to the public. This is just a general comment of mine, and I wish you'd consider that. I don't know how the -- the state determines the legal names of a registered corporation. But I think that the use of the term authority should be discontinued if the -- and the organization is not a government agency. My other comment is -- just heard that the previous speaker talking about getting bonds and a bond issue and so forth to get the money to purchase the land. Well, how can you bid on something which the county is considering putting this parcel up for bid? How can you bid on something if you don't have the money in hand to pay for the object or the item? In other words, they are waiting to see if their bid is successful before -- the way I understand it -- before they get the money. Now, is this a not-for-profit organization, which it supposedly is, or according to the state it is, but if it's not for profit, how does a not-for-profit agency go about getting funding by having another -- another corp -- company or another entity issue bonds for that -- for that corporation? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can you handle that? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Our decision today is only whether or not to declare it surplus and allow people to bid on it. When -- whether they bid or not is their prerogative. How they get money or not is their prerogative. We don't really have any control over that. The only decision we're making today is whether to declare it surplus and make it available for bid. There may be some questions as to whether and how they can get money, but that's their worry and not the county's. MR. ERLICHMAN: But in the agenda item, Mr. Constantine, there's a whole discussion of that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll read the recommendation to you in the agenda item, that the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to competitively advertise for the sale of approximately 280 acres of county-owned property for use as a public golf course. MR. ERLICHMAN: Yeah, but read down further. The whole -- I'm talking about both pages of the agenda item, sir. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My point is -- MR. ERLICHMAN: The blue pages. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My point is the decision we are making is simply whether or not to declare it and allow bids. Whomever declare -- whoever makes those bids and how they get their money is not our concern. MR. ERLICHMAN: Well, isn't your decision based upon -- upon the facts that are presented in the -- in the executive summary and the discussion it's -- that you're having here? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Erlichman, we're going to possibly declare this property excess today, and staff is going to advertise that it is for sale. We are going to entertain proposals from as many people who wish to buy it, and we will address those proposals when they come and sell to the highest bidder, whoever that is, if the use is for a public golf course. MR. ERLICHMAN: Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Keller and then Mrs. Barsh. MR. KELLER: George Keller, concerned citizen. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just a moment, Mr. Keller. Time out. She has to change her paper. Go ahead. MR. KELLER: You know what really disturbs me, number one, public golf course, where is the public going here? You know, why are we using this word public? If I start a corporation and I want to start a golf course, I couldn't call mine a public golf course. So let's get rid of the word public. I'm not against a golf course. I played golf for 30 years. I don't know how -- how much we need another golf course in Collier County, but that's not the point. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Keller, it's not a government golf course. It's public as opposed to private. MR. KELLER: Well, let me tell you something. All golf -- a whole bunch of golf courses you read in the paper, and you see ads that they welcome the public to come. All of the golf courses in Collier County aren't restricted just to membership, so that's one thing. So a lot of them are public. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Most are. MR. KELLER: The second thing -- the second thing I want to get across to you, I spoke to some of these people that are on these advisory boards on the dump site. They're not all -- not all concerned and -- and stating that this dump is going to get out of there. This dump may be there for 30 years. Secondly, within the next ten years or five years, the technology on handling waste may be considerably changed from what it is now. Politically I live closer to that dump than the man that spoke here before. I've been there for 18 years, and I never had to complain too much about smell. When they were digging the old dump out and recovering the material, you do get some odor from time to time. But if it's so darned much trouble there as far as odor is concerned, why are they building all of these hotels out there? Why are they building all these restaurants out there? Somebody must be -- have a light head or something that they're putting something -- something and putting their money -- their money into things that is going to be a failure. Secondly, I don't actually think at this particular time -- I appreciate these people like to get going, but I don't appreciate the time that this -- is surplus property at this time. We don't know where we're going to put a dump. We don't know what technology is going to come up in the next three or four years, and we may need that property. And don't think by -- there's no one here that's ever stated to me that that golf course -- that dump is going to be out of there in 10 or 20 years. It's going to be used as long as it's available to be used and until it's full. And so consequently I think you're jumping the gun before you know exactly where we're going to have a dump to sell property that we now own and to sell it cheap. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mrs. Barsh is your final speaker. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mrs. Barsh. Mr. Weigel, did you have a comment? I saw you come to the microphone. MR. WEIGEL: I had a couple comments, if I may. And one is not to confuse that the approximate 300 acres, which the county owns and has under consideration today, is, in fact, still separate and distinct from the landfill that exists out there presently which is an operating landfill. And the operating landfill does have a contract, and the analyses are that it, in fact, can -- can be utilized for a -- a significant number of years in the future with nothing to do with the 300 acres that's under discussion today. the surplus property discussion is really separate from the operational landfill that's out there. The 300 acres under discussion today really have nothing to do with the smell and the odor that's from the operational landfill adjacent to it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, we understand that. Thank you. Hiss Barsh. MS. BARSH: Frances Barsh. I'm a resident and voter of Collier County and also a member of TAG. There are a few questions, but before I start I would like to, again, state that TAG is not against golf or golfers, but there are questions in this particular agenda item. At the end -- on page 2 it says that, As indicated earlier, financing for the project is proposed to be obtained through the local Industrial Development Authority. This method is available as long as the Collier County Golf Authority maintains their 503(C)(1) -- 501(C)(3) status. The rate obtained is estimated to be close, if not the same, as a bond issued by the county but not backed by the county. A 501(C)(3) organization is a nonprofit charity. Nonprofit charities usually do not pay any tax on their holdings, do they? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Not normally. MS. BARSH: So if the county sells the property to a nonprofit corporation, which is a public charity, then this property, this 300 acres, will remain off the tax rolls and be of no benefit to the county. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, it -- let me comment. Let me comment, because 501(C)(3)s sometimes do pay taxes when they operate a business. And if -- if -- MS. BARSH: This is a public charity. It's not a 501(A) (4), a 501(A)(1). It's -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me finish. Let me finish. 501(C)(3)s file a form called a 990. And there is also another form that they file called a 990-TP which they file if they provide a business, and they do pay taxes if that business '- MS. BARSH: That's a private foundation. This is a public charity. They are two different entities under the IRS code. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Battling CPAs here? MS. BARSH: I have been president of a number of foundations, public charities and private foundations. I am quite aware of the IRS code on this. The other question was to the structure of the bidding process, and on page 1 of this agenda item, it says, "This can be narrowly structured should the county wish to entertain only proposals for certain type projects such as a public golf course and still meet the requirements for the competition." This is a very narrow structuring, and actually is this truly then competitive? Is this a truly competitive bid that is going to be offered? What we feel at this time is that the best thing that the county can do is delay declaring this land surplus. For the health, welfare, and safety of the people of the county, it is better to have a waste area available and not give it up until there is another that is in place before this is given up. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, not being a CPA, I might need a little help here. I'm not concerned with -- with their -- the Golf Authority's status relative to the federal IRS, but I am -- I would like an answer on whether or not they would be still liable to pay Collier County ad valorem tax. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why not? MR. WEIGEL: I just don't know the answer to tell you without doing a little further research in that regard. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me make a quick comment. As Mr. Glass -- let me just make a quick comment to that, because Mrs. Barsh said, well, if we sell this, and we still wouldn't have any tax generated from that property -- it's important to point out that we don't now, because the county owns it -- then that land would be of no benefit to the county. Well, if the only thing you consider a benefit to the county is generating ad valorem tax, that's true. But I think having a course -- public golf course that's available to youngsters, that's available to people that don't have money -- as Mr. Keller or someone said, well, there's plenty of golf courses here. It's like 80 percent of them are private. Go try to play at any of these golf courses. You simply can't get in. And so to suggest that there is no benefit to Collier County is inappropriate at best. MS. BARSH: I'd like to respond one second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hiss Barsh '- MS. BARSH: In the last -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hiss Barsh, excuse me, but your time has expired. He's merely responding to what you had to say. MS. BARSH: My time did not expire. I finished -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're not on point, counterpoint. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hiss Barsh '- MS. BARSH: There are over five golf courses that are open to the public, and that was in the last executive summary on this item. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Glass. VOICE: At what rates? MR. GLASS: Just one quick comment. It's true that now you don't collect ad valorem taxes on it because it is a public thing. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We don't now. MR. GLASS: However, we did have a discussion among our board members, and we have made a decision that when we talked with Abe Skinner and find out what kind of taxes would be paid there, that we're going to make a donation on an annual basis to offset some of that stuff to help the county, parks and recreation or wherever it goes. So that's what we had already decided among ourselves. So we're not -- we're not wanting to be a one-way street out there where we're not helping, because we have a lot of youth programs we want to work with and things like that. Basically we're in there to help the community and do a job. And I'm certainly not going to be getting rich off of any golf courses. I've got a company I have enough trouble keeping track of as it is. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Are there other speakers? MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's the last speaker? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'll make a couple points, then I'd like to make a motion. Mrs. Barsh mentions there are at least five public golf courses. Let me give you an example of one of them. Lely Flamingo is a public golf course. In season you pay $105 to play one round of golf in Lely Flamingo -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's why I don't play -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- which is why I don't play Lely Flamingo, and to suggest that those public courses are readily available, simply is not true. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mrs. Barsh, no, please have a seat. MS. BARSH: I just want to say -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're not going -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mrs. Barsh -- MS. BARSH: I just want to say -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Bailiff, would you please. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good grief. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And a couple of other comments. Mr. Keller said he didn't want us to jump the gun. And I appreciate his comments, because we do need to be careful. But I think as far as this morning's presentation of the Citizens Advisory Committee on the landfill and where we're going, we are hardly jumping the gun. We have put in hours and hours and hours and have a lot more to go between now and June. But as Mr. Weigel so aptly pointed out, there is a differential between the 300 acres, which this board has already voted we are not going to expand the landfill to, and the existing landfill site, which in a worst-case scenario has nearly 25 years life in it. So I don't think those are appropriate. I'm going to make a motion we approve the item keeping in mind -- and I'm going to state the recommendations so it's clear what we're doing, that the Board of County Commissioners -- my motion is the BCC direct staff to competitively advertise for the sale of the approximately 280 acres of county-owned property and that we direct that advertisement be leaning toward a public golf course. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do we first have to include in there, Mr. Olliff, a resolution that the property is surplus? MR. OLLIFF: I don't know if it needs to be first, but it does need to be included in the motion that a resolution be reserved to declare it surplus. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that the county declares the property surplus. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to second the motion just because I've come full circle on the public golf course use being appropriate. Well, I -- well, I second the motion. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Pass the syrup. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. Is there further discussion? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I had questions, Mr. Norris. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there further discussion? There being none, all those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes five to zero. PUBLIC COHMENT - MS. MURPHY ON EDUCATIONAL SEHINAR UPDATE Does this board object if we move forward to the public comment portion? We have one speaker with a short item, and then we'll break for lunch. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Those are five-minute items anyway. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. MR. DORRILL: Virginia Morton is president of the Collier County Council of PTAs. She'd like about three minutes of your time. Good morning, Miss Morton. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, ma'am. MS. MORTON: I just recently attended the Florida PTA convention in Destin, Florida, on November 18th and 19th. And myself and Mr. Russ Hueller represented Collier County with 400 other delegates. And at this time we had several platform items presented, and we approved five, one of which was entitled investments in children, and I'd like to read that, please. Whereas, the most important factor which will determine the future quality of the lives of the people -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excuse me, Ms. Morton. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a lot of noise in the background. Can we -- Mr. Breeden, we'd like to hear this. Thank you. MR. BREEDEN: I'm sorry. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Sorry. MS. MORTON: Whereas, the most important factor which will determine the quality -- determine the future quality of the life of the people of Florida is the quality of opportunities available to Florida's children; and Whereas, Florida is one of the wealthief states but has a relatively low cost of living; and Whereas, the state tax burden on the people of Florida is one of the lowest in the nation; and Whereas, Florida's investment in children is less than nearly every other state and is far less than any state of comparable wealth; and Whereas, the Florida PTA has repeatedly urged the Florida legislature to act in a responsible manner to insure the well-being of Florida's children; and Whereas, each legislator acts in the manner she or he believes carries out the wishes of his or her constituents; and Whereas, the citizens are full -- when citizens are fully informed, they're more likely to support investments in children; and Whereas, the impact of Florida's penurious action has been high infant mortality, high teen pregnancy rates, high school dropout rates, reductions in the quality of the education system; and Whereas, the PTAs in Florida are widely respected for their leadership Therefore, let it be resolved the Florida PTA urges its associations to educate their members and their communities and to communicate to their respective representatives through letter writing, faxes, personal visits, and phone calls regarding the harmful effect on Florida's children of financial decisions made by Florida citizens and the legislators during the 1990s. I'd just like to add something myself here. This is my first county commission meeting, although I've lived in Collier County for 23 years. And I think, although money is important, I think the attitude of the citizens and the leaders of the community have a lot to do with the quality of life. And I was quite impressed today with your concern for the children of Collier County, and I thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. If there's no further comment, let's recess for lunch. We'll be back at twenty after one. (A lunch break was held between 12:18 p.m. to 1:00 p.m.) Item #SD1 CONTRACT TO CONSTRUCT THE ADDITION TO THE TAX COLLECTOR'S BUILDING (C-i) AWARDED TO WILLIAM J. VARIAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF $187,000 CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Reconvene the Board of County Commission meeting for November the 28, 1995. We are at item 8(D)(1), a recommendation with the Board of County Commissioners, kind of a -- award a contract. Mr. Camp. MR. CAMP: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Skip Camp, your facilities management director. This agenda item is approval of a construction phase of the tax collector's addition. It consists of an award to the lowest quote and approval of the budget amendment as addressed in the summary. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Carlton is comfortable with this as well? MR. CAMP: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we approve staff's recommendation on the item. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve staff's recommendation on the item. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes four to zero, Commissioner Mac'Kie being absent. Item #BE1 YEAR-END REPORT ON REVENUES FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995 - PRESENTED Next item on the agenda is 8(E)(1), year-end report on revenues from fiscal '95. Mr. Smykowski. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Good after -- Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Michael Smykowski, acting budget director. We've got a year-end report on revenues at this point comparing what our forecast revenues were during the budget process to what was actually received for our principal intergovernmental revenues which are sales and gas taxes and revenue sharing, the principal enterprise fund revenues, impact fees, and ad valorem funds. And this is important because our estimated carry-forward revenues that we budgeted in FY '96 as well as the bulk of the -- what we have budgeted for each of these individual revenue sources were based upon what we anticipated receiving in FY '95, and at this point I'm happy to report that in most cases the actual revenues received when compared to the forecast revenues were positive which is certainly a good sign. In the general fund, we received slightly more in sales tax than anticipated. In terms of the gas taxes, there were some slight negative variances, but the magnitude is really insignificant. The largest one was about $45,000. Most of those were within 1 percent of our forecast. The -- In terms of the enterprise revenues compared to forecast, ambulance fees as we had indicated in our previous revenue reports were slightly behind, and that was a function of our -- the billing problems that were encountered this year, and we anticipate making that revenue up in FY '96, just being a function of timing as the cash receivables are converted into cash. In fact, in a discussion with Mr. Yonkosky, already 25 percent of that shortfall between forecast and actual was made up in October alone. So that appears to be well on the way toward recouping that cash that we did not receive in FY '95. Ad valorem proceeds were basically pretty much right on target. We did slightly better than the 96 1/2 percent that we typically receive. So that's a function of Mr. Carlton's efforts. (Commissioner Mac'Kie entered the boardroom.) MR. SHYKOWSKI: And impact fees in general remained strong throughout the year as well as building permit fees. So -- There were actually large variances there. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions? Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a comment. I'm sure all of us are thinking the same thing, but the final paragraph, fiscal impact, it says, over all the actual revenues received in fiscal year '95 were, with minor exceptions, equal to or greater than amounts forecast during the fiscal year '96 budget process. This next line is a part that I want to emphasize. Therefore, this will provide additional revenues available for appropriation in '96 or to be carried forward in fiscal year'97. Hope COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll take B. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hopefully we have had hammered into us that we do face a potential crisis going into our -- potential concern anyway -- going into fiscal year '97, and so I hope just because we're holding a little extra cash doesn't mean we feel a need to spend it and -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just the opposite. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- that we will carry that over. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We spent a chunk of it last week. MR. SHYKOWSKI: I'm -- I'm not one to let people run to the vault very quickly. I think Mr. Dotrill will attest to that. that -- that is fine by me. Believe me. In fact, I'm currently working on the update to that to see where we stand in anticipation of our FY '97 budget policy discussions, but I can tell you preliminarily we will be facing some major issues in FY '97. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Secondary comment. You've been doing this roughly a year -- actually, over -- well over a year now. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Two in February. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And still acting. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And just my compliments because I know you're -- I think he's still carrying the acting title. But my compliments. You and your staff do a bang-up job on this. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Thank you. I appreciate that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Don't studies on Broadway get the role after a certain period of time? MR. DORRILL: That's, in fact, what's been contemplated here. So don't be surprised. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Smykowski, it looks like you did a very good job of forecasting last year with the exception of building permits and their associated impact fees then. Was that a surprise, or did you just under -- Did you underbudget that on purpose or -- or '- MR. SHYKOWSKI: No. We tried to be conservative there and -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, it appears that you were quite conservative, but that's okay. It's better than being -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: Right. It's -- It's principally a function -- The impact fees are kind of hit or miss when you have these large commercial permits that hit. When they do hit, all is well. If you budget them and they don't come in, all is not well. That's -- It's almost as simple as that. Although I can tell you that just from a historical perspective, that was actually, you know, 400,000 less than the prior -- prior years' receipts for, like, road impact fees. And Mr. Archibald currently too are negotiating road impact fee credits up front which may impact, you know, future years' collections. So we try not to budget out to the -- to the far extreme. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I appreciate you on that instance -- Since we have the least control over that, I appreciate you budgeting that in a conservative fashion and encourage you to do that in the future. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other comments? We have received a report, discussed it, and thank you for the fine job you've done. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Well, that's -- that's good news, at least at this point in terms of what we have budgeted for FY'96 would be reasonable based on what our actual cash collections were in the previous years. So that's a good sign. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Item #8E3 RESOLUTION 95-665 REGARDING REVISED GUIDELINES FOR TOURIST DEVELOPHENT CATEGORY C GRANTS AS RECOHMENDED BY THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL - ADOPTED Next item on the agenda is 8(E)(3). This is to review the guidelines for category C funding. Miss Gansel. MS. GANSEL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Jean Gansel from the budget office. I brought this item to you last week, and there were a couple of questions that you had concerning the Tourist Development Council's recommendations for revising category C. We did discuss these at our meeting last night. I would be glad to discuss them, or Mr. Freni from the Tourist Development Council is here to answer any questions that you might have with regard to the revised guidelines. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why don't you proceed. MS. GANSEL: Okay. Or -- Do you want me to go ahead or Mr. Freni? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. Why don't you go ahead. MS. GANSEL: Okay. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Freni is registered as well. MS. GANSEL: Okay. Some of the issues that you had brought up, one of them being the rollover of funds from category C at the end of the fiscal year that would go to category B that -- The concerns, as I understand it, that the board had is they would like to have the flexibility of having those funds -- they would be able to roll over to category B or category A. We discussed that last night. The council was very much in favor of having funds roll over, that they would be allowed to roll over to category B, but they did understand that the potential may come up where category A may have a greater need for those funds. The way that they recommended at that point was that the ordinance be amended to allow the funds at the end of the fiscal year from category C be rolled to A or B, but if they rolled to A, it would be after the board declared that a local disaster occurred to where they would need the -- the funding in category A. They felt as though category A was sufficiently funded at this point from the reports that they had received. Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MS. GANSEL: And, Commissioner Matthews, if you remember something differently or -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. What I'm '- MS. GANSEL: -- add something since we were there -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What I'm hearing is -- is what we voted on, that the funds would be permitted to not -- automatic -- MS. GANSEL: Right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- to roll to either category B or category A if there was a locally declared disaster by the BCC. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hay I ask a question on that point? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I -- I question that -- that only if there's a disaster. I'd just like to have the ability to place the funds where the existing board feels is appropriate, that they can go to A or to B, wherever the board feels appropriate. I -- I don't like that local disaster language. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's where I see the greatest potential for a hitch. If we get a -- something less than a no-name storm but let's say it erodes the beachhead past what our anticipated maintenance schedule is to maintain the beach at a given level, that may not be a disaster per se. We may not have within our abilities to call it a disaster, and by putting the word "disaster" in there saying we have to declare a disaster, we -- we can't do that at will. So my concern, there again, is I -- I think the -- We're probably saying the same thing, that on a given year, I don't think anyone wants the board just to arbitrarily say let's put it in A instead of C, unless there's a reason but by de -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Local need. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. Well, but defining that reason simply as the direct result of a disaster I think is nattower than -- than my definition of "need" may be. So I can't support that as -- as a part of just saying only in case of declared disaster. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Trust me, it was a compromise motion. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand. I think the intent on both sides is the same thing. There's -- You know, the -- the hoteliers are saying, you know, we can always use it in advertising. It always benefits the hotels, you know. So we'd like it to be there. And we're saying, well, wait a second, you know, the other side may need it too. So just the word "disaster" or having to officially declare a disaster I have a problem with. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I agree wholeheartedly with your comment, and I think what we're forgetting or what's being left out of the conversation is that there are other alternatives other than simply a beach or advertising more for the hotels. And that's one of the things that bothers me most about this, is we haven't explored any of those and -- How much is gathered annually in category C? MS. GANSEL: In category C, about 600,000. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: About 600,000. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And -- And the -- MS. GANSEL: Maybe a little more. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- suggestion is that all unspent category C funds at the end of every year would be rolled over? MS. GANSEL: The -- Any funds that are collected after this amendment would be made. So we still have a million six -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All right. MS. GANSEL: -- that is sitting there. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But other -- other than that -- so this year '- MS. GANSEL: Right. The new -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- if we have 600,000 and -- and we haven't used up all that million six yet, if somebody -- if we spend next year, have a great big event, someone comes in with something wonderful we all love and it's one and a half million dollars and they use that, there's still 700,000 left, so six of that would roll over? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. Could. MS. GANSEL: That may roll over. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: May. MS. GANSEL: It would be a recommendation from the Tourist Development Council and approval of the Board of County Commissioners to have those funds roll over. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. I guess my concern is -- and maybe that will address some of it if it's good, but it just seems to me there are a lot of options here. I don't want to close the door on events that come up, and if it ends up we don't see anything on the horizon so that year we go ahead and roll the 600,000 and four months later someone comes forward with something that's in excess of that, we don't even have the option anymore. There isn't -- There isn't a mechanism included, I can see, to roll it back to category C again, and so I'm afraid we'll close the door. Just because in two and a half years we haven't had a large special event type item or a series of special event items doesn't mean they won't come and -- and I just fear if we close that door, we get ourselves in a little trouble. And it's a little more comfort if we have the option, but, again, we don't have the ability to roll it back. Once it's through, it's gone. MS. GANSEL: Well, that's true. It -- It -- I would think since it's permissive, you would be allowed -- a recommendation could be to roll part -- part of the funding that was unexpended at the end of the year. I don't know if that makes you feel more comfortable. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'd just also like to see what some other alternatives are other than -- and God bless the hotels here. They provide a great base for our economy, but if -- if there may be some other alternative than just putting all the money into advertising for the hotel and tourism industry. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think I'm going to take a little -- a little more conservative tack on this. When I was a kid and you get your allowance and your -- your parents always have the saying, you know, your money's burning a hole in your pocket. You can't stand for it to be there and not have somewhere to go. The voters approved this tax with a certain division, a certain split for categories A, B, and C, the voters, not us. What we, in essence, are now saying by approving this is, thank you for approving a split, but, you know, we're -- we're going to decide at the end of the year that it can go wherever we want it to go. The voters didn't approve 2 percent to be spent at the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners. They approved 2 percent with a specific split. And the more we talk about this -- and I think we are -- are trying to stand in the -- the shoes of the hoteliers and say, yes, we want to work with you; yes, we understand the importance of advertising, but we have to remind ourselves that this is something put in place by the voters of Collier County, not by this board, and I think we are beginning to overstep our bounds in how we allocate those funds for expenditures. I am going to -- Unless I hear something dramatic -- I reserve the right to be wrong -- I'm -- I'm starting to think we're getting far afield from what the voters approved, and that's giving me a degree of discomfort, and I'm really, really not anxious to do that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One of the -- and I mentioned this earlier. About a year ago, TDC brought forward something similar, and I made a similar argument in that one of the reasons voters vote against almost everything government creates now is because they don't trust the government will do what they say, and this may seem like a minor change to the hoteliers, to others, but it is a change to what the voters voted on. And, again, if you make this change now and five years from now you make another change and ten years from now you end up with something completely different than what was approved by the public. So I agree wholeheartedly. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There was another -- MS. GANSEL: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- piece that we had talked to also. MS. GANSEL: The other issue is where we had -- the recommendation was to eliminate both profit -- that it had to be non-profit organizations as well as the match. And, as I understood the board, one of their thoughts was that we -- for profit-making organizations, we would still require the match. This was brought up to the Tourist Development Council, and they voted to recommend that change. We did discuss, Commissioner Constantine, where you had wanted the reduced match to have an opportunity to see what would happen since we haven't had a full year's cycle, but I think this was, again, a little bit of a compromise that the recommendation was for profit-making organizations to retain the match, for non-profit organizations not to require the match. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My only concern if there is no match required, then every non-pro -- it suddenly becomes free money, and every non-profit can come in and suggest any number of ideas and have to put up no backing of their own. I mean, it's just -- it's strictly an idea. It doesn't matter if it -- You know, I mean, it has to make it through the TDC and make it through here but -- And, again, even if it's reduced from the 50 percent match, I would like to see something of substance have to be put up by the group just as a good faith, and -- and I realize a lot of non-profits don't have a lot of money to do that and this makes an opportunity for them but at least something for good faith other than just, gee, got a great idea. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I really find it very difficult to argue with the proposition that we need to -- to keep our covenant with the voters on this -- this deal. On the other hand, though, we have a structure here which is not functioning properly, and that's a problem. Category C is -- is just not being used, and the money is -- is going to continue to build up in that fund if we don't do something different. And whether that is a major alteration of what's available to be used as category C or to do something else with those funds once they get in excess of a certain dollar amount or something to that effect, I'm not sure. But if we say on the one hand that we are going to keep our covenant with the voters and not do anything about it, then we're faced with the problem of we're collecting tax money that is not going to be used. So what are we going to do about that? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I just want a quick say. I'm not saying not do anything about it. I -- I like some of the suggestions that are being made here, but Commissioner Constantine mentioned a week or two weeks ago that we made changes to category C and really haven't seen if that tree will bear fruit, and so I -- I agree. We need to -- Category C is -- is broke. It's not operating the way we anticipated, and I -- I would like to change some things in category C. My -- My concern was the reallocation of funds from one percentage or one category to another as going -- as being adverse to what the voters approved. That's the only element I stand in opposition to. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't mind making category C more user-friendly so that it -- it serves its purpose. I just don't want to abandon it, then at the end of every year roll the money out of it and say, oh, well, it didn't work. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't support that either. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And -- And -- So I -- I like the idea of for-profit companies being able to participate as long as they're putting up the matching funds because that's not -- that's not bad. That's not a bad thing, in my mind, as long as there is the benefit to our local economy and off-season tourism. The only question I have -- and I'd just like to get some feedback from you all is, do we want -- even if it's a small amount, do we want not-for-profits to have some responsibility, or is it just free money? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, believe me, the question-and-answer process they go through, it's not free. Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I was going to say just in -- in discussion on that point, my re -- my feeling is let's give it a try with no match because when they come before the TDC, when they make application to the TDC, they have to have an event planned. They have to have a marketing plan, and that plan has to show how they're going to carry out the event. Now, if what a not -- what a not-for-profit is going to do is hire a company to come in and handle the event, then we're not talking a not-for-profit running the event. I liken this to just as a recent fundraiser we had in the Red Cross. All of our work was done with volunteers. Now, this wouldn't qualify you for TDC, but I'm saying we organized it. Our volunteers ran it so we could maximize the return to -- to the Red Cross. So if a not-for-profit is going to come in and they want to bring in -- like recently, the Coconuts reunion. You know, if they want to do that in the summer, you know, and to raise money for the organization and they show that they're going to provide volunteers, I think the TDC and this board would be favorable. However, if their marketing plan shows that we're going to hire a company to hold the event, I think that's going to come under a fair level of scrutiny. So I'd like to see we give the not-for-profits the edge of no matching funds, but I think it's understood that their marketing plan needs to show that they, in fact, are coordinating and running and participating in the event and not just asking for money and turning it over to another set of hands. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know if this may get to -- Maybe this just is in the review process we need to do it, but we could put a rider on there, or we could just review administrative costs. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Why don't we -- Mr. -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, they have a marketing plan. They -- They -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Other than Commissioner Matthews sitting on the TDC, Mr. Freni does also, and maybe through that he can address what you're talking about and what the -- his feelings and -- and may represent some other TDC members on that review process may be. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Those were the two issues we discussed last night. You said Mr. Freni's registered? MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Freni. MR. FRENI: Madam Chairman, fellow Commissioners, Joe Freni, Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, member of TDC and also worked on the subcommittee that attempted to respond to your request earlier and changed the guidelines so that they would be more user-friendly. If I can just back up for a second, in terms of the first issue about the rollover, I have served on two different TDCs, the original TDC that was formed after a certain hiatus of not having a TDC, and at that time it was my idea with Myra Daniels to try to come up with a Spellino-type (phonetic) event which really started the whole thing on the event issue. Since that time -- and we followed the event requests -- there hasn't really been an event other than Ms. Daniel's attempt to put the three unnamed entertainers together that has ever come to us for a request larger than a million dollars. Most of them are in the 100, 200, $300,000 range and probably are realistic in that area. So we genuinely believe that with this recommendation of the rollover, we can continue to accommodate legitimate requests for anyone who brings to us a -- an event of the nature in which we originally decide -- discussed an event concept. We feel that there isn't really going to be any difficulty in having funds available to be able to acknowledge and recognize and support an event going forward, even with the rollover concept. And, by the way, having it go to A or B with -- unconditionally was -- was my feeling too. I -- I feel that that's fine, and if that's what you would prefer to do without any declaring of local disaster or whatever, I think we can -- I think the board -- the TDC would certainly agree with that. The -- The other part of an event of a magnitude that we would be considering would be that it would be developed in stages so that normally if you had, say, a half a million dollars in the -- in the C -- category C account -- and I don't ever -- ever anticipate that there would be anything less than that. Probably it would be in the range of 700,000. An event of that nature would probably take longer than a year to pull off. So you'd be able to capitalize on the funds that were in the -- the existing fiscal year that the request came in plus anticipate the -- the funds from the forthcoming year so that you could combine those two years and be able to do that. We saw no fear at all in discouraging or eliminating the opportunity for any major event to be presented to us and still yet have the rollover. The -- The final point is that what has happened is that many requests for us are coming to us now and are just not quite passing the test, if you will, in the sense that they are not able to legitimately show us that they can bring outside attendance into the area, and that's essentially what we would want to see in an event. There have been a couple that have been very successful. And we, in fact, last night approved a second grant to the -- to the bowling tournament because we have been convinced that that actually has generated room nights. So that's why we came to you with that recommendation. As far as the profit, non-profit, we feel comfortable in whatever you feel comfortable with. We always believed in matching funds. We were trying to accommodate what we thought was your request and saying at least put it on profit -- for-profit organizations. If you prefer to have it for non-profit, some sort of factor or formula, we're fine with that as well. The -- The fourth paragraph in the original guidelines call for matching funds for any organization. So whatever you would prefer to do or feel comfortable with that, we're certainly amenable to that. But back to the rollover, we -- we'd like to find some accommodation so that even if you decide to say in the second fiscal year half of that accrued amount for the first year could be rolled into B, something of that nature, we would -- we would -- the industry and also the TDC feels comfortable with allowing it to happen, and we do not think we would discourage anyone from bringing any major, important event before the TDC or the commissioners that could not be supported. I do want to suggest too -- Commissioner Hancock, I agree with you 100 percent about the voters and what they said. Let's also remember that they -- they were very distinct in voting down a spring training center during that election. I'm open to any -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not sure what that has to do with me. MR. FRENI: Well, you said that you wanted to abide by what the voters had stated in the election. I just want to remind you that during that referendum there was also a vote about having a spring training center to use bed tax money, and the voters voted that down. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Don't put baseball on next week's agenda. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. All right. MR. FRENI: They're out there, and we know it so we just COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Whatever that means, okay. MR. FRENI: Any que -- I'm happy to answer any -- any other questions. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any questions? I don't -- I don't -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have one for Hiss Gansel. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I do just want to say, I'm not planning a spring training facility. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine, you have a question? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. I was just going to make a motion on the item if that's appropriate at this time. MR. FRENI: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Freni, thank you. Commissioner Norris has a question for Miss Gansel. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Category C applicants still required to repay their grant through -- is it tied to profits once they've paid expenses? Then any overage pays back their grant? MS. GANSEL: That's correct. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: And then they can -- If they go above that, then they keep whatever they have? MS. GANSEL: Exactly. Right. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. And that's not changed by the proposals -- MS. GANSEL: No. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: -- that we have here today? MS. GANSEL: That is still included in there. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to make a motion we approve the two changes, allowing for-profit groups to take a chance and try to go after a piece of the pie and also that no match -- particularly after Commissioner Hancock's comments -- no match be required for the not-for-profit, and we'll see how that works out. I'm going to not include in my motion -- I will not include the rollover item because I do think it goes against what the voters said in 1992. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to second the motion and -- based on, we haven't done everything we can to fix category C yet. Once we have, Mr. Freni's comments become more -- more pertinent and accurate at that point, and -- and there may be a time to do that. I just don't think the time is now. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can I -- Can I ask the motionmaker if that -- if the match on profit is intended to be a 50 percent cash match? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That was the recommendation from the TDC. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That was the recommendation from the TDC, yes. We have a motion and a second. Is there further discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes five to zero. Thank you, Miss Gansel. MS. GANSEL: Could I just ask, do you need to adopt a resolution to amend the guidelines, or does that motion do that? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Weigel, do we need to reserve a resolution number? MS. ASHTON: There was a resolution in the package for adoption of the guidelines, so there should be a resolution reserved. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, there is. I see it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My motion certainly intended to include that. If you need me to restate it -- MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. That's fine. I think you've done it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The second agrees. MS. GANSEL: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Item #12B1 ORDINANCE 95-68 RE PETITION PUD-95-5 MICHAEL R. FERNANDEZ, AICP, OF AGNOLI, BARBER & BRUNDAGE, INC., REPRESENTING MICHAEL J. VOLPE, TRUSTEE, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "A"-ST TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS "AIRPORT PLAZA" FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF 25,000 SQUARE FEET OF COHMERCIAL FLOOR SPACE AND 30 DWELLING UNITS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD AND HAZEL ROAD - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES Next item on the agenda -- We're moving to the afternoon agenda, item 12(B)(1). There was only the one public comment? MR. DORRILL: Today. Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. Thank you. Item 12(B)(1), petition PUD-95-5. Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Ron Nino for the current planning section. This PUD, as you recall -- This petition was continued to this meeting for lack of information as to the real owners, the beneficiaries of the trust. I believe you have that information in your packet at the present time. Let me recap what this petition is all about. This petition, if approved, would allow 25,000 square feet of commercial development, generally within the C-3 zoning classification and would allow 30 dwelling units. Both of those land uses and their intensity and density is consistent with the provisions of the future land use element, Growth Management Plan. Let me explain the surrounding conditions, if you will. We're dealing with -- The subject tract is a parcel of land south of Hazel Road, east of Airport, and also west of Hazel Road where it makes its southern -- southeastern turn here. The property to the north, of course, is the -- is zoned commercial. A car sales agency is now under active development on the north side of Hazel Road and extends all the way to the end of Hazel Road where it makes its turn north and south. Bettye, you looked at that property recently. You'll see that it -- it's going to be lit up like a Christmas tree. To the north -- To the north generally between Gail Boulevard and Radio Road, we have a large area of industrial zoning. The Westview Plaza is essentially an industrial zoning district, RSF-3, Summerwood PUD with multi-family-type development. Then you have this estates area lying in the middle between Gail Boulevard and North Road. South of North Road you have -- contiguous to the property, you have RHF-6 zoning and continued strip zoning on Airport Road. I think you need to appreciate that even though there are primarily single-family houses in this RHF-6 zoning district, that there's nothing to preclude someone from acquiring certain vacant lots and existing housing, tearing it down, and building apartment housing or multi-family-type structures. And, of course, to the west is the Naples Airport. (indicating) One of the issues we need to address responsibly -- responsibly is planners in making the recommendation to you is that of compatibility. In our opinion, given the future land use recommendations for this area, the zoning that's before you is, indeed, compatible with its surrounding environments. I would have you, again, appreciate that E estates zoning within the urban-designated area for a practical point of view has to be looked at in the same manner as we look at agricultural zoning. It's an interim zoning to some other urban zoning district in the sense that anybody who comes before you with agricultural or E estates zoning within the urban-designated area presumably is entitled to some rezoning action that would increase the density. This issue was reviewed by other staff members for consistency with the traffic circulation elements and natural features element, open space elements, and we can assure you that that consistency analysis suggests that this petition as structured in this PUD document is consistent with all elements of the Growth Management Plan. The Planning Commission heard this petition. Unanimously, I believe, eight to zero recommended approval of the subject petition to you. If you have any questions, Iwd be happy to answer them. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. MR. NINO: Mr. Fernandez is here, and I believe he has a presentation to make. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Nino, I recognize that in technical terms E estates has to be treated as, quote, "interim zoning," but realistically isnwt it fair to say someone whows built their home on that property, maybe put 100 or 150 or in some cases some of those homes 250 or $300,000 into their home probably donwt consider it interim? MR. NINO: Probably not. I certainly would agree with you; however, we all have to recognize the fact that properties tend to sell and that everything is for sale at the right price, and if you owned five or six acres of land in that area, you or perhaps your heirs may decide that they want to maximize their possibilities. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand. Help me go through. Iwm looking at the cons on page two of our packet and page three of our packet, and youwve said in staffws opinion and apparently in the Planning Commissionws opinion, this is consistent -- the request is consistent with our Growth Management Plan and -- and with the surrounding properties. Letws talk about the intensity of the subject property and how that applies. I just want to run through these one at a time. Therews only four of them -- three of them. MR. NINO: You mean the commercial? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: From a technical standpoint, yeah. The intensity of the proposed project, how does that impact the surrounding residential? MR. NINO: The comer -- The -- The Growth Management Plan provides for in-fill commercial and establishes criteria for that, one of which fronts on an arterial road, 25,000 square feet maximum and general -- and -- and -- and the issue of compatibility. We certainly think that frontage on Airport Road, given its surrounding environments, demands or suggests that thatws not the optimum location for housing units. I donlt think anybody in this room would want to live on Airport Road. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So while it may be perceived as the -- that intense use may be perceived, it does meet -- MR. NINO: It meets -- Correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. MR. NINO: Correct. The residential component of the Growth Management Plan provides under the density rating system for four dwelling units per acre for land sold juxtaposed. This petition is consistent with that density. Mr. Fernandez, I think, is going to argue that not only is it consistent with that, but technically they're entitled to greater density than that. That position is not accepted by staff. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Technically you're allowed to ask for greater density than that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just run -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That would be my interpretation. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- run through the other two and -- and these are both traffic-oriented. Residents of the area primarily use Hazel for ingress and egress. This is likely to have some impact on their ingress and egress to their own neighborhood? MR. NINO: That is one -- one access. There are other accesses to the neighborhood, of course. It's off of Radio Road. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that a full median opening onto Airport at the south end of the project? The south end -- MR. NINO: The south end of the project? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. The south end of the commercial portion. Do they have -- MR. NINO: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- a full median opening -- MR. NINO: There's a break -- Yes. That's where the traffic light would be. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That might help take some of the __ MR. NINO: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- pressure off of Hazel. MR. NINO: Yes. And, of course, we have access to the neighborhood from Donna Street -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: From what street? MR. NINO: -- as well -- as well as Airport at Hazel. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- And the final item on MR. NINO: If you were to ask me what the split is, I couldn't tell you whether the majority of those -- that -- that neighborhood uses the Hazel Street exit or -- the Hazel Street road or the Donna Street road. I couldn't tell you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just knowing how our urban makeup is and where businesses are, I'm going to hazard a guess that it's Hazel onto Airport. But my question was, it is likely that this will impact the amount of traffic on Hazel if only for a short period but -- MR. NINO: Certainly. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- it will impact ingress and egress. MR. NINO: It certainly will. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All right. The final item on here -- You mention, could potentially heighten occasion for area-wide flooding. Did the homes in the Hazel Road area experience -- Obviously this year is about as severe as it's going to get. Did they experience flooding problems? MR. NINO: Not -- Not -- Not to my knowledge. No, they didn't. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So one could logically assume if their difficulty this year was minimal, that if in future years if this were to go forward, that it was maximized, that this project might be to blame? MR. NINO: I would be of that opinion, but I think we're always -- we're always constrained to advise you that the more the area fills in, the more impervious area, unless we do something about increasing the capacity of drainage appurtenances throughout the county, we always run that risk of causing some interim flooding conditions. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What do we have for drainage plans for this property? And maybe, Mike, you're going to need to answer this. But what do we anticipate for drainage plans to minimize or avoid that? MR. NINO: This pro -- This property drains in two directions. It drains directly north underneath Hazel into a drainage appurtenance. It then runs west underneath Airport Road into a drainage easement. It also runs to the south into the Rock Creek area, both of which have been reviewed by our people and that -- no one feels that there is a significant -- there is a drainage problem at all. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why don't we hear from Mr. Fernandez for the petitioner. MR. FERNANDEZ: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Michael Fernandez for the petitioner. First of all, I'd like to apologize on behalf of our client for not providing the disclosure of the individuals that were represented by Michael Volpe, trustee, which as you know now on the record is Jackie and John Remington. This development is a mixed-use development with commercial along Airport Road and residential to the rear. The -- As Mr. Nino stated, the portion that's on the -- adjacent to Airport Road qualifies under commercial in-fill and is allowed 25 -- up to 25,000 square feet. This site -- On this site that equates to 6,500 square feet per acre which is extremely low-density commercial development in relationship to general accepted standards. The site enjoys access now -- would enjoy access once it's developed, from Airport Road at the intersection of North Road and Airport Road which is a signalized intersection. It is expected that most of the traffic that uses the commercial property will be accessing the property through this vantage. The other access is off to Hazel, talking to transportation that there's a likelihood that in the future the full median access on Airport Road from Hazel will be closed and that people will have to take -- That will become a right-in, right-out. That's due, in part, to the number of accidents that occur along Airport Road in general and the lack of depth of the median. So they'll be relying more heavily on U-turns and light signalization. This property is unique in that it does have a natural feature that runs between the commercial and the residential portion of the project. The residential portion of the project will enjoy a buffer from the commercial of a conservation area which is part of the Rock Creek system and has significant vegetation, including mangroves. This will provide better than what one would expect normal buffers between commercial and residential development. We have provided, though, the opportunity for a pedestrian walk between the commercial and the residential portion. This would exist at an area that has been identified as the previous location for a water management structure, and there are still remnants of that structure there that would allow us to cross. Any other development in that conservation area in all likelihood cannot be permitted through other -- the governing agencies. Also relative to the water management issue that was recalled -- that was inquired to, the commercial property will discharge over into a structure across Hazel that -- which then goes across the street. The residential property will flow to the south. There's an existing ditch system there that will be enclosed, and this water goes into the Rock Creek system and goes south -- or to the -- to the west. In actuality, the -- the water management system over this property will be better than the existing system that's there now which is none and will be a structured system that will allow it to continue to flow on. Regulations require that there's no additional discharge greater than pre-existing conditions. So this site as proposed to be developed will not enhance the water management problems of the community that's adjacent to it, and Mr. Brundage from our office is here to address any additional issues in regard to the water management for the site. Relative to the petition itself on the residential, we're looking at a density of four units per acre. This petition could have easily come in to you under the provisions of in-fill residential which would allow us a density bonus of three units which would have given us a total density potential of seven units per acre. However, doing our preliminary analysis for the client, it was realized that the ability for us to realize that kind of density was not reasonable without affecting the kind of product that may want to be on this site; therefore, we did not request that review under that provision, and we're simply asking for the four units per acre. In relationship to compatibility, we did a quick graphic, and the area immediately south is zoned RMF-6 which allows six units per acre. The density that we're seeking on this piece of property for the residential is at four units per acre. And the E estates, although many of the lots there are substantially bigger at this time, is zoned for one unit per acre plus the ability to put a guest house, effectuating a density of two units per acre on average. I submit to you that this is a nice gradient of change between the potential six units per acre and the potential of two units per acre with our project being nicely centered at four. Certainly this is much greater -- a much better situation than across the street where we simply have commercial directly abutting res -- low-density residential with simply a road that's in between. So I would suggest to you that this provides a very desirable gradient between the residential of the south and to the east. And also providing a natural buffer is, as I said, the conservation area between our proposed low-density commercial and the residential portion of the site itself. The number of units that are proposed for the residential development equates to a total of 30 units. We're not talking here, you know, a 100-acre project with 400 units. We're not talking a significant development. We're talking about a very small in-fill development project in a developed community that hasn't yet matured. As Mr. Nino suggested to you, these areas are likely to mature in the future, and you will likely see increased density. However -- at which the Growth Management Plan allows up to the four units per acre over both the estates area and the area south of that. However, in the interim, as I said, what we have proposed is a sensitive gradient from six units to four to two. In addition to that, I would like to tell you that since our last meeting, we have previously had many conversations with some of the residents in the area. We've listened to their concerns. We've made two significant changes to our document. One is we've lowered the height to 35 feet which is the same height that's potentially available to the residents of south -- to the south. RHF-6 allows heights of 35 feet and also to the estates -- also allows heights of 35 feet. So compatible relative to height of structure, we're saying that we're going to be on an equal par to them. visually we don't see this as an additional impact. In addition to that, we increased the buffer system along North Road which is this portion that extends from Hazel which fronts toward the residential portion. If you drive down North Road, many of those residences on the -- the estates area essentially have a vegetation hedge that is maintained between three and six feet with scattered trees. What we have proposed is a similar system of vegetation to be maintained at four feet with trees. So we've significantly increased the buffer that would be required which is a type D buffer under the county general requirements. So from that standpoint we've enhanced the -- the effects of the project. In addition to that, there were a couple of individuals that have homes directly across the street that had concerns about the driveway locations. We have spoken to them, and we've committed to them to communicate once we get this project under way and know better where those entrances and exits are to review those locations in relationship to their driveway, and we've communicated with that. Ken Hay, Junior, who has a house immediately across one of the access points isn't here today, but he's one of the gentlemen that we spoke to and made that commitment to, and we further make that commitment to anybody else that's living immediately in the area. Talking to transportation staff, the locations of our ingress and egress are going to be extremely limited by standards established by the county. So we expect to have some minor flexibility which we hope to be able to accommodate concerns that our immediate neighbors would have. In addition to that, of course, we are required to have a type D buffer along the south edge, and we've talked already. The conservation acreage acts as the buffer toward the commercial itself. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may, Mr. Fernandez, on that point of ingress and egress, again, I -- I noted that the two proposed access points on your PUD master plan -- the one nearest the corner -- I mean, are two access points necessary? MR. FERNANDEZ: In -- In our original study, we determined that that would be very desirable. In other words, to -- because of the unique configuration of the property that, yes, that was necessary to develop what we had proposed. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So you -- and, in essence, avoiding an internal loop road which would be required if you had one access point? MR. FERNANDEZ: Potentially we're -- it -- it may be the case. We haven't finalized it. We haven't been able to finalize our plans either to the point where we can talk to transportation and look about the limitations. What we've shown here are the potential locations as best we can determine without going through the traffic analysis that will be required at SDP submittal, and I'd submit to you that's probably the best time to review that kind of -- those kind of issues. So that -- The traffic impacts of a commercial really is going to be towards Airport-Pulling Road. We don't see that is going to add traffic to Hazel Road. And the traffic generated by 30 units on a small piece of property within the much larger area that utilizes this development -- As you can see on the aerial photograph, there is a great many homes that are located south of North Boulevard. This site -- and what we're requesting is potential density on it -- is just a small fraction of the overall traffic network in that area. So this is not adding significant impacts at all to that site. If you have any other questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Also Mr. Barksdale is here. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before you go on, a last comment. If you live in that -- You just referenced the neighborhood that's below there, Coconut and Flamingo Estates and those areas. If -- If I live in Coconut, how would I access this property? MR. FERNANDEZ: I believe Mr. Nino was referencing that there's an access point over here that basically allows any of these people in this area to filter and come out toward that. There's also another access point here that would essentially allow you to access along this edge and, again, come up to North Road. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just correct you. There's one access point back there to get -- one single access point and -- MR. FERNANDEZ: I don't know the date of this aerial. I'm just noticing right now that there's two. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- There -- There's one way to get across there right now, and if -- if -- if you live anywhere in -- If you're in Flamingo, you might go out there. But if you're in -- anywhere in Coconut, you would have to come down off Guava, head West, head North, head -- It would be a complete circle before you go. So your point of referencing that those people are impacting the traffic coming off Hazel is inaccurate. It's -- Those -- The people that live in the Coconut area absolutely positively are not using Hazel to get to Airport Road. It would be three-quarters of a mile out of their way with about seven stop signs on the way. MR. FERNANDEZ: I -- I don't have first-hand knowledge. I'll take your word for it. I would tell you, though, that the traffic study that was developed indicates that it's producing less than two and a half percent of the -- that this development would produce less than two and a half percent of the trips that would be on that roadway. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The other thing -- and this is just expressing my own frustration. But anytime someone mentions something misleading four or five times, it always tends to raise a red flag for me and -- and your suggestion that it's a transition from six to four to two I think is very misleading because you can look at that aerial map there, and I don't think we could probably pick one of those properties to the north out that has two units per acre right now. Now, I know you said, gosh, theoretically, down the road somewhere, could be, hypothetically, but the fact is, most of those are on two and a half acres or more, and they are a single home. So we're really looking at a density of maybe a half or .4 per acre realistically. Some of that could increase at some point but -- you know, theoretically Grey Oaks could come back and fill up some day to four units per acre, but it's probably not going to happen. MR. FERNANDEZ: I would submit to you that although those densities there are not there now, again, pattern development would suggest there would be a redevelopment of some of those properties. Some of those lots, as you're saying right now, essentially have a single-family residence up to 12 -- on 12 acres. So what I was suggesting to you though -- Iwm not trying to be misleading -- is that the potential there -- just like to the south right now, that area is probably somewhere between three and a half and four units per acre, but that potential there has to be -- has -- is to go up to six units per acre. So what Iwm suggesting to you that the zoning would be consistent from the standpoint that is going from six to four to two, and thatws all, not that the present conditions have that kind of density. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. We have public speakers, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: You have one. Mr. Hunt. COMMISSIONER MACwKIE: If someone else wants to speak -- it looks like they do -- you register up here with the county attorney. MS. OwHALLORAN: I -- I already registered. OwHalloran. MR. DORRILL: Yes, we do have two. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have two. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Hunt and then -- Are Ms. -- MS. OIHALLORAN: OIHalloran. MR. DORRILL: Youill follow Mr. Hunt. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Mr. Hunt, youlre first. MR. HUNT: Yes. My name is Gary Hunt. I live right across the street from where the 30 units are going to be. I just want to say, for the record, that I had 16 inches of water in my living room floor, and before it went any higher, it drained over into this property that they want to build the units on. So -- Also I want to say, if you use a little common sense, they only -- with setback requirements, they only have, like, three acres of land there. They canlt build on the water, and I just thought the 30 units on three acres of land with parking for 60 cars ought to be quite a -- quite a car lot there. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Hunt. MR. DORRILL: Ms. OIHalloran. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Hunt, could I ask you a question? MR. HUNT: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You had 16 inches of water in your home? MR. HUNT: In my living room floor. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: How long was your water high in your area? MR. HUNT: Twenty-four hours. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Twenty-four hours. MR. HUNT: And it drained all into their property right there. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. MS. OIHALLORAN: Hi. I appreciate you folks taking the time to listen to us. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Could you state your name? MS. OIHALLORAN: My name is Margaret OIHalloran, for the record. I donlt know -- Obviously some of you folks have had the chance to come to this neighborhood which is a really beautiful spot, and itls unique in Naples, and we were very fortunate 11 years ago when we moved here to find a spot in -- in this neighborhood, and you wonlt find really anyplace like it in this area any longer, and it seems a shame to me to allow that kind of radical change when all of us are hoping to maintain some of what Florida used to originally be like. It's a perfect spot for families. The road itself is about a mile long, so you're talking 5,200 feet approximately, and this site that they're looking at has maybe 200 feet on -- on North Road. The entire of North Road has approximately 20 homes on it, and so this project with 30 units -- and we don't know if they're condominiums, homes, duplexes, what it is that it entails. I did call Mr. Fernandez, and he wasn't forthcoming with that information, but that would more than double the population in a very concentrated spot on this -- on this length of road. To address what Mr. Nino says and -- and what Gary already told you, there was indeed flooding, my home the same thing. We were up to our knees inside the house, and outside the house just across from where this project takes place there were literally fish this large floating alongside of the road. So the idea that there wasn't flooding just isn't the case at all. There definitely was. And the -- the additional buildings of 30 units with cars and -- and parking spaces isn't going to further impact the flooding potential is ridiculous. Of course it's going to. It has to. Also, for me, I'm the mother of a young child, and the idea that -- that you're extensively going to be doubling the traffic in this area from 20 homes with potentially two cars to an additional 30 units with the addition of two cars, more or less, per unit, that's 60 vehicles entering and exiting in a concentrated spot that's on a curve. That curve is already dangerous, and there's also a small easement, water easement, that -- that vehicles have already driven as they go around that curve into those easements. So if you're doubling the -- the population both vehicular and -- and individuals on the road, it's going to impact it. It has to impact it. And to say that it's not going to impact it, to me, you know, isn't telling you the truth. There are many people that weren't able to attend this meeting. There are people that are physicians, teachers, policemen and women that -- that would have liked to have been here, and I know some of them wrote you letters. Some of them have called your office to let you know that these are their concerns. They weren't able to be here. They weren't able to take the time off from work to be here. Unlike Mr. Fernandez, they're not paid to be here and they -- they can't take the time off from work. So we have folks like you hopefully that are going to protect their homes and their interests in this. We -- We don't have any argument with the commercial aspect of things. That's onto Airport Road. That's how it's going to be. But as far as changing this from -- from one unit per acre to four units per acre, if it has any way to maintain it single-family, none of us have any problems with that. This is a great neighborhood. It's a perfect place for single-family homes, but it's not a perfect place for 30 units of -- of what kind of character we don't know. And I did call Mr. Fernandez and asked him about that, and he wasn't forthcoming. Is it rental? Who -- Who -- Who are, you know, the market that they're aiming these for? We don't know. Nobody's addressed us in -- in that fashion. So I appreciate your time, and I -- I don't suppose I can answer any questions for you but -- Go ahead. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: If I could, you said that when you had water in your house, that it drained into this property. MS. O'HALLORAN: Directly. I mean, it was flowing at a fast -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Where was the water coming from? Back east of it? MS. O'HALLORAN: The -- The Coconut Creek, yes. Well, really more -- more north. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: More '- MS. O'HALLORAN: Yeah. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- north and to the east '- MS. O'HALLORAN: Yeah. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- and it was moving across your property -- MS. O'HALLORAN: Directly. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- and across this other property. MS. O'HALLORAN: Exactly. Exactly. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It was not -- Was it moving down in that conservation easement area that they '- MS. O'HALLORAN: Well, if I -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Use that hand-held microphone, please. MS. O'HALLORAN: Am I on? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Push it up. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. You're on. MS. O'HALLORAN: Okay. Our home is right here. Their conservation area -- which, by the way, is protected by law. It's a mangrove. They're not doing us any favors. I mean, this is -- this is law that's protecting that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, we understand that. MS. O'HALLORAN: But that -- that area would be right here. My home is right here, and it was flowing directly across the street into here. So this entire area was being filled. Does that -- Does that answer that? (indicating) COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, it does. MS. O'HALLORAN: One other thing while I'm at the map here, which reminded me what Mr. Fernandez was saying about this development here. We weren't notified as far as the -- a Mercedes-Benz dealership putting in all these lighting fixtures. Had we known, we would have been here bothering you again, I'm sure. But they were forced to put in an area at the rear of their facility when originally they knocked down everything. They were forced to go back in and put in a nature conservancy area here. So there is, indeed, quite a large buffer now between the Mercedes-Benz dealership and these homes so -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MS. O'HALLORAN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And the point I was getting at was that the -- concerning the flooding. The water is not moving from that property to your house but just the opposite and -- and through the conservation easement which is not going to change. MS. O'HALLORAN: Right. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And so to me -- I mean, there are considerations here obviously when you're going to build apartments -- MS. O'HALLORAN: Right. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- next to single-family homes, but that water flooding I don't think is the issue here because it -- from what you've told us, it's going the other way, not coming to your house. MS. O'HALLORAN: Well, what -- what your -- what your gentleman over here, Mr. Nino, was saying was that there was no flooding and that -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that's fine '- MS. O'HALLORAN: -- and that -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- and we're not going to argue '- MS. O'HALLORAN: Right. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- about who said what. I'm-- You said '- MS. O'HALLORAN: Right. But what I'm -- what I'm-- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You know, you told me where the water was going '- MS. O'HALLORAN: Right. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- and I'm pointing out to you that that's the way it's supposed to go and that it's -- that that conservation easement is helping your property, and it's not going to change, and that's the problem. MS. O'HALLORAN: And that's wonderful, but what I would also like to state is that the area it was flowing into was where they're planning to develop. It wasn't just into the conservation easement. Their area was completely under water. So once that area is then filled with parking lots, homes, commercial areas, and the -- and the parking area for the commercial, that area presumably is going to be elevated, and so water that would have flown into there and taken some of the burden away from our immediate neighborhood isn't going to be able to flow into that direction anymore. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just -- You can't restrict the use of another person's property because of your flooding problem. MS. O'HALLORAN: No. I understand that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So something -- something some day somehow is going to be built there '- MS. O'HALLORAN: No. No. No. I understand that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and the result to your property in all likelihood '- MS. O'HALLORAN: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- will be the same impediment '- MS. O'HALLORAN: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- whether it's single-family homes '- MS. O'HALLORAN: Right. Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- or whether it's condominiums. MS. O'HALLORAN: Right. At least though -- At least from our standpoint and from the neighborhood standpoint, if anything could be done to attempt to maintain this neighborhood in the integrity that it's in presently, which would be single-family, we'd all embrace that. We'd love to see more single-family homes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand. I'm just saying the -- the answer to your flooding question is probably going to be the same whether it's single-family or multi-family '- MS. O'HALLORAN: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- because the water is not going to be accepted by that property either way. MS. O'HALLORAN: Well -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's going to have to go into the conservation easement the way it's intended to. MS. O'HALLORAN: Right. I'm sure -- I'm sure you -- you would know more -- more than I would on that. But just -- just on an outsider's viewpoint, the idea of a parking lot that -- to handle the amount of vehicles the 30 units would take as opposed to -- How many would it be? It would be about four units -- would be considerably less. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed. I understand. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. MS. O'HALLORAN: Thank you very much for your time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think we have one more question for you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Actually, I'm okay. I just want to -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- respond to a couple of thoughts and -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- share some comments. Commissioner Norris, I guess I've got to disagree a little in that I understand obviously the water is flowing through, but I think this past year -- Places off County Barn, for example, when -- They were low-lying-built homes, so they experienced some flooding when we had the heavy rain, but the problem was with -- when the drainage had nowhere to go because of further development beyond those properties, then that rainwater stood there in their homes for two and three weeks, and I think what we need to be careful to avoid is, if there's 90 inches of rain, you may have a flood, but we don't want it to sit there for three weeks either. At least now it has a place to go. My worry is, as the lady said at the end, if we have a parking lot, there's nowhere for the water hitting that property to drain except into that sand conservation easement as opposed to into the ground, and you may have some backup, and so I wish as part of any development we had a better plan for drainage and flooding than we apparently do. Mr. Nino, I've got a couple of concerns of things you mentioned. It concerns me when you say, gosh, there's no history of flooding, and we have two residents here saying -- MR. NINO: I -- I didn't say there wasn't any flooding. I said I wasn't aware of any flooding and obviously -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If they didn't -- If they didn't report it the emergency management office, the county has no way of -- MR. NINO: How is staff supposed to know what parts of Collier County flooded in the last -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that would be the right answer. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- The -- There was one other -- a couple of other items, actually. The -- You said the Planning Commission voted unanimously, and the written thing here says seven to one. I'm whiching -- I'm wondering which is accurate. MR. NINO: I stand corrected if the staff said seven to One. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you have any idea what the objection from that one was? MR. NINO: No, I don't. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No idea? I'm seeing nodding heads over there. And I guess I'm a little uncomfortable with the thought -- Some of the explanations here don't seem to be accurate and factual, and I'm a little uncomfortable with -- that there is -- It's suggested that there are no traffic impacts on the neighborhood when you've got -- Mr. Fernandez has said it could be two units per acre at some point, but realistically you've got at -- at best half a unit per acre over there, and to suggest now you're going to put 60 people on three acres across the street and -- and that that's not going to have a traffic impact, I have a hard time grasping that. MR. NINO: I don't think I said there wouldn't be a traffic impact. Any -- Any -- Hike may have said it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I may be confused who said what. MR. NINO: Any development obviously is going to make a demand on the public street system to respond to that development. I would suggest to you that public streets are there for the use of existing property owners and for the development of currently vacant land. A local street has the capacity to carry significant volumes of traffic. If you were to ask Mr. Archibald, he'd probably tell you that a local street could carry 9,000 average daily trips. We know that that local street is nowhere near that condition. So the -- the question is, yes, is there an impact. But is the impact one that is undue that will cause severe harm to the public health, safety, and welfare? Not by -- Not by traditional standards of measurement. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I may be mistaken, but I think Mr. Archibald would tell us neighborhood traffic is probably closer around 3,500 than 9,000 but I guess -- Is there an impact? Yes. And I realize streets are there for -- to handle traffic, but I'm wondering if 60 people going into three acres is a little more than we had -- usually anticipate and if the impact on this particular street and this particular area is consistent with what's there now, and I'm not sure that it is. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Just one quick response. Commissioner Constantine, you made the analogy of the development out on County Barn Road and subsequent development blocking the water flow. That was precisely my point. This conservation easement is the water flow, and it is not to be disturbed, and there will be no disruption of the water flow. And to -- to make the case that -- that whatever impervious structure is put on that piece of property is going to have a major effect on the 50 to 100 square miles of water that drains through that area, I mean, is just -- you know, it's just not going to carry. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Nino -- MR. NINO: Yes, Commissioner. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- directly to the south of the proposed residential area, what's our density there? MR. NINO: Current density? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Current density. I know it's zoned RSF-4, but I'm looking at the -- MR. NINO: It's -- It's zoned RSF -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm looking at these lots and -- MR. NINO: To the south, did you say? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. To the south. MR. NINO: It's zoned RHF-6. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: RHF-6. MR. NINO: And the lots are -- The lots look like they're pretty small lots, and they're single-family. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's not any open space down there. MR. NINO: There's not any open space. If all the lots were filled in in this kind of environment, given the size of those lots -- they look like they're less than 6,000 square feet -- that could accommodate six dwelling units per acre on the basis of single-family dwellings. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Here's -- Here's what I'm getting at. The reason we're having discussions, I think, on the number of units or number of people -- and let's stick to units because that's consistent from one to the other -- the number of units on this parcel is because the density is being calculated with the inclusion of a significant amount of conservation area. Now, when you have a 2,000-acre PUD and you're allowed four units an acre, you know, you average it out over the entire piece. Okay. Here we have two uses. We have commercial and residential, and we have a conservation area in the middle. The conservation area, in essence, could be divided to be part on one, part on the other, all on one, all on the other. It appears that the petitioner has included the majority of the conservation area into the residential area to assist in -- in increasing the allowable density which I don't argue. It happens all the time. I -- I understand that. But what we're ending up with is four acres of land with a net density in excess of seven -- I think seven and a half, 7.6 units an acre. Okay. So what I'm trying to look at is if we're truly going to be transitional, the numbers could be transitional, but what physically gets put on the ground may not be. In other words, if we're going from what is physically six units an acre to what is physically one or two units an acre, we need to have physically somewhere in between the two. Okay. So what we're getting is something that physically will exceed what is to the south, and that I think is where most of this board is having some level of concern. MR. FERNANDEZ: If I may address that, I think we're mixing oranges and apples because -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't think we are, Mr. Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: If you'll allow me to proceed, the idea is that you're talking about density. Density is one issue. When you're talking about physical, you've got to come back and look at mass. And when you talk about mass, you're talking about small homes on one end that occupy so much room. On the other side, you've got larger homes. Ours would probably be medium-sized homes. You're talking about impacts and compatibility. What you're talk -- want to talk about is adequate buffering which I suggest to you that we have; two, that the building heights are going to be compatible, and we've had standards that would allow that to happen between -- because they're all consistent. So I would suggest to you that the impact between the impacts that we suggested, the setbacks we've suggested, that compatibility is there. When you talk about density, that is looking at an abstract number, and in that sense we are compatible in that there's a gradient between the two existing and -- not existing but existing in -- in zoning districts. In actual development, yes, that is not the case right now, but, again, there is that potential for redevelopment in the future. In fact, any one of these larger parcels could come back and subdivide. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Fernandez, I'm going to interrupt you because before you so eloquently decided for me where I was heading with that statement -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The point is, I understand density. I understand if we're in the planning stages of three different pieces of property what transition is, but that's not the case here. I understand redevelopment. Sure, someone can come in, buy a bunch of properties to the south, knock them down, and build something else down there. Okay. But the people who live there don't see that as a real possibility day to day. Now, what I was going to ask before you interrupted is to talk about buffering, okay, to talk about what have we done, what have you done to, in essence, compensate for an increased net density over what is to the south of you. In other words, what mitigating things have you installed to show me that the people living around this see this as a transition and not as an increase. The folks who live off Hazel, there is no question, what goes on this property is going to be in all likelihood somewhat more intense than what they are living with right now. The question this board has to decide is how in -- how much more intense is acceptable, and the way to do that is to get a mental picture of what will be there so we can stand in their shoes and do the best we can to make that decision. So what I would like to get into is, what kind of buffering and screening are we talking about, because you're not going to convince me that a net density of 7.6 acres is going to physically be less than anything around it. It simply is not true, but what have you done to make it appear that way. MR. FERNANDEZ: Very good. To mitigate, if you will. The -- Again, as I said, the frontage along North Road or Hazel Road, that angular portion between the two, what we've done is increased the buffer requirement which would normally be a type D buffer which would have a two front -- two-foot hedge. We've increased that to maintain a four -- minimally maintain a four-foot hedge which would be consistent with the visual aspects of other development of those homes, the single-family homes on the north side of North Road. We've also increased the spacing and planting requirements of the trees. So visually there's a buffer there that essentially when you're walking along the side mitigates that massing of -- that's going to be behind there. On the -- On the side, of course, toward the commercial, we have the existing natural feature which we're not really concerned about right now. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. We're not worried about that right now. MR. FERNANDEZ: If you're looking toward the south, what we have is a type D buffer. I would suggest to you, if we need to do something more than that, that we would do something similar to what we're providing on North Road which is, again, put a hedge up if that needs to be there as a mitigating factor between the two, that same type of hedge with trees. That should present to the community something that looks more like a cjuster of larger homes as opposed to a density -- a net density on the remaining piece of 7.6 or however that math works out. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Let's talk about those trees in real terms. Spacing and height, what are we talking about? Now, we're talking about the ones that face Hazel. MR. NINO: Commissioners, page 55 of your -- of your packet -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I know, but the two folks that live across Hazel -- MR. NINO: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- probably don't have the packet in front of them. MR. NINO: I'm sorry. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's okay, Ron. I appreciate that. I'm just asking Mr. Fernandez -- you know, let's talk about what physically is going to be there that's -- that's in the documents so we can all get a real clear picture. MR. FERNANDEZ: The trees are going to be spaced at no more than 25 feet on center. These are trees that would be -- What do you call it? Not pine trees and not palm trees. These are fully vegetated trees. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Some form of canopy like a live oak. MR. FERNANDEZ: Canopy tree. That's the word I was looking for. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Eight to ten feet at planting? MR. FERNANDEZ: Eight to ten feet at planting. In addition, at planting, that hedge would be at two feet. Within one year, it would be at four feet. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: The other -- The other suggestion, of course, is that when you look at the traffic patterns, it's very unlikely, as you may have surmised -- The traffic -- residential traffic from this development will be heading east on North Road because there aren't any significant attractors at the end of the road. So that the cars coming from this development are not going in front of -- and I'm sensitive to this and the fact that -- For instance, River Reach has an apartment complex, and everybody that lives there goes down River Reach Drive which produces a significant impact on the individual homes. This development is at the end of the line next to the commercial, and so its trips generally will not be going eastward but will be going away from the residential area so that the trips on -- on that roadway will be going away from, not toward and impacting those single-family homes, unless there's a -- an attractor I don't -- I'm not aware of and -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do we have -- MR. FERNANDEZ: -- that's possible. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you have a physical traffic count on North Road? MR. FERNANDEZ: No, I don't. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'm just asking. MR. FERNANDEZ: But the -- I believe that the -- It was suggested -- I think the analysis showed that it was less than two and a half percent additional traffic load. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. I was just curious about just physical. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You think? You think? You don't know? MR. FERNANDEZ: I don't have that before me. No, I don't. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What makes this tough is that a lot of times when we're dealing with projects of this size, we're talking to, in essence, the builder or the end user, and they'll -- I remember there was a project off Bailey Lane that, you know, they -- they were able to come in and talk about the types of buildings and the type of -- So we were able to get a very clear picture. In here we don't have what's going to happen there. All we have is talk of density and buffers, and I think there's a big question mark there as to -- you know -- MR. FERNANDEZ: The one thing that will happen is that if this project needs to go through -- it will go through subdivision if it's units to be sold as far as if they're condominiums or a mixture of single-family and multi-family. Through that process, the subdivision process, you'll be reviewing actually buffers and then lot area, setbacks of the individual units and so forth. So that at that time, that type of material would be presented to you similar in -- in -- in -- in informational resource to what was presented to you in that small Bailey Lane development. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me interrupt. Mr. Dorrill, do we have other public speakers? MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm going to close the public hearing. MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Barksdale is here. He has some personal knowledge about the water management in that area, and he might be able to clue you in on some of the history behind that area. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A couple of questions before we get to that. You mentioned if it's condos or if it's single-family homes or a mixed use. You're not sure at this point what you'll be doing specifically on the property? MR. FERNANDEZ: I guess it has been determined now. It wasn't previously. I didn't have this knowledge, and that is condominiums so that -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So it will not be single-family homes? MR. FERNANDEZ: It will not be single-family. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Because one of the references you made a few minutes ago when Commissioner Hancock was talking about real use or real density, existing use -- you said the homes to the south which are at six per acre roughly, there are -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You said those are small homes. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yeah. They're probably -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You pointed out -- MR. FERNANDEZ: -- four units. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, they're probably four. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yeah. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: They're allowed to go up to six. My guess right now is that they're somewhere closer to four which is what we're -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That makes me even more comfortable. But, anyway, your point was, those were small homes, and you said those properties to the north and east are primarily larger homes. MR. FERNANDEZ: That's correct. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And you said these are going to be medium homes. Apparently that's not accurate if they're all going to be condos. MR. FERNANDEZ: I -- I meant that -- homes in a generic sense, not in the specific sense. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So they would be medium-sized condos. I guess it -- it just kind of feels like you're playing a little loose and fast here with the facts, and you're throwing things out, whatever sounds appropriate to that question but -- I mean, there are going to be condominiums there which mean will be one larger building or two larger buildings or three larger buildings. It's going to be a three-story building, is my understanding, of -- you know, with parking lots to take care of how many ever people live in those condominiums, and that is a far cry from medium-sized homes which you in that context were comparing to single-family homes on one side of them and single-family homes on the other. So while you may not have been headed in the direction Commissioner Hancock was, you were headed in the direction his point was taking me. And that is, in real terms, in real use, there is a bump in the road. There's -- If it's at four per acre south of you and realistically right now half or better but let's say one per acre north of you and you're spiking to 7.6, then that is a bump in the road. So I'd be much more comfortable seeing that number dropped because I don't see it as compatible with the properties on each side. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have a question. The -- The petitioner is not planning to do the building on this but to sell it to someone who will do the development of the property; is that correct? MR. FERNANDEZ: The petitioner may -- may very well do the end development. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Right now -- MR. FERNANDEZ: The current plan is -- I -- The current plan is that may very well do the end development. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Hay very well, but at this moment this is speculative and not a specific proposal? MR. FERNANDEZ: There's no guarantee that we can give you that at this time. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Barksdale, the plan right now is for them to do the building? Obviously anything is subject to change, but that's the current plan? MR. BARKSDALE: Yes. For the record, Cliff Barksdale. I'm representing the owners of the property. Yes, it is our current plan that we would do the buildings and that they would be limited to two-story, four-unit apartment buildings. Some of the plans that we have reviewed and looked at, they're very similar to medium-sized homes, not large homes, but medium-sized homes. And, of course, we're not wanting to be a burr in the neighborhood's side there. My son lives in the same area. He has a house in that same area. Going back to the flooding, the real problem with -- with the flooding in the area is Rock Creek continues across Hazel to the east where -- if I may go over here. As you can see, the -- the preserve area and Rock Creek crossing Airport and going on to the bay. As you come through here, at this location is the -- are two culvert pipes underneath Hazel. Now, those pipes have been a burr in the county's side for a long, long time. When -- I can remember that we had flooding 15 years ago in that same area, and those pipes were the problem. They used to get clogged. We'd go down and unclog them, and they would give you pretty quick relief because of the proximity to the bay, that the water would disappear rather quickly, and I think they indicated that the flooding was only about 24 hours in that area. But that's the problem that needs to be fixed, is the pipes underneath the road there to increase the flow, and at some point they will be increased, and it will increase the flow. But, of course, as development has occurred over the years, there have been a number of homes constructed out through here and north of it which has increased flows in that area; and, therefore, the problem, when you have the real heavy rains, has become exacerbated over the years. So it handles -- handles now currently most of the rains. But when you get one like we had this past year or one of those real heavy rainfalls, yes, there's some temporary flooding in there. But with some improvements, I think that could benefit the people in the area and not continue to be flooded. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner MAc'Kie, you have a question? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, actually, I guess it's just more in the way of a comment. I think a lot of our discussion has been focused on Mr. Fernandez's representations and -- and maybe overzealous or however you'd want to characterize them, misleading, but -- but that the petition on its face seems to me to have a great deal of merit. It's -- The things that I've had more trouble with have been more what I've heard coming out of Mr. Fernandez's mouth this afternoon than what I saw on the piece of paper. So it was sort of a comment to -- Let's come back to the petition and look at it and -- and not listen so much to what's been said and -- and look instead of what's on the paper. I -- I just sense that there's a problem going on here that doesn't involve the actual land uses. MR. BARKSDALE: All right. And we -- we would be willing to commit, for the record, and change the PUD to -- to show it for two stories, four-unit buildings and agree to the additional buffering along the south -- south side of the property that we talked about. In fact, we've already talked about putting a great -- a great buffer along the south side because if you go around behind the furniture store and drive down that little street, the scene's not very pretty from this property as you look south, not very pretty at all. In fact, we would want to buffer that area out -- out quite well. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many four-unit buildings do you anticipate? MR. BARKSDALE: Probably four and then maybe one two-unit -- I'm sorry -- seven and one two-unit. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Now, you -- You had me very happy. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: We like four. Four was good. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Four was a good number. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there a level at which the project can maintain feasibility but you might lose one of those buildings or two of those buildings? MR. BARKSDALE: That's a tough one to answer right at the moment. Yes, we've looked at some numbers and the -- I'd say at the moment, the very minimum that -- that we could do to meet the market that we see would be 28 units. It would be seven four-unit buildings. That's why I had the four -- I mean, I said four. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Flipped. MR. BARKSDALE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sure. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One final question. You mentioned when you were referencing Rock Creek -- and it's -- it's all flow-through -- that you think after some of this work is done, perhaps flood control can be enhanced. MR. BARKSDALE: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are you willing to commit to make that happen as part of this project? MR. BARKSDALE: Gee. I -- I think we could -- I think we could participate on -- on a -- you know, on a -- on a shared basis, but I think for us to solve all of the problems that have existed there for years -- none of our water crosses through those pipes -- I think would be asking a good bit, but I think that we -- we would assist in the process. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe we could divvy it up prorata according to -- Every unit could have -- every owner could divvy it up equally. MR. BARKSDALE: Yes. That -- That would be -- be possible. Again, we -- we would receive none of the benefits from it, is my point, because it's relieving the problem up -- upstream of us, and we wouldn't be receiving any of the benefits. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me. But it seems to me I heard somebody earlier saying water was flowing across all of the property. So if those pipes are not enlarged, you're going to have a parking lot full of water if we get rain like we did this summer. MR. BARKSDALE: Once whenever you get those rains, it's possible, yes. But I think once that -- that our property is improved and our water management system is put in to provide our own on-site retention and so forth with a defined swale along -- between, you know, our parking lots and so forth and the roadway which would intercept the roadway water, that water then would not go on our property but would go right straight into the -- into the creek property, so it wouldn't come in on a parking lot. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's what we thought at Longshore Lake this summer too. MR. BARKSDALE: Well, the best of plans, but nature sometimes has a way of -- of fooling us all. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other comments? Commissioner Hancock. MS. STUDENT: I need to -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm -- I'm sorry. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Barksdale, when you talk about four-unit buildings and seven buildings, is there another project or development that -- you know, obviously someone who may have plans to develop a piece of property has a vision for what it may -- may become. Is there another project or development that the character or the scale is similar to what you envision here so we can get a -- kind of a -- I know that you -- that doesn't commit you to build it. I -- I'm just looking for your -- you know, what you hope this to -- to become. MR. BARKSDALE: We -- We hope that the buildings will be a very residential-looking appearance like single-family homes except it will have garages with separate entrances into the homes with garages attached built right into them. I can't give you a specific example, but I have reviewed numerous plans in trying to get ideas, and the one that we finally like is a two-story, four-unit building, and it's not a flat roof like a rental -- you know, like a lot of the cheap rentals. It has a pitch roof, and they're very nice units. As I said, we don't want it to be the -- create a bad neighbor there. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Miss Student, you need to get something on the record? MS. STUDENT: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I just want to state that this is an -- a quasi-judicial hearing, and I heard comments that there were perhaps letters received. So I need to have each member of the board state for the record any letters or telephone communications that they may have received or site visits with regard to the project. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I -- I have no recollection myself of receiving any letters, phone calls, and I did not visit the site. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've received letters and have had some telephone calls but certainly am going to make my decision based on the information presented at the hearing today. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I received correspondence. I did indicate that I would make those letters a part of the record so that they would be considered today. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I also was copied on, I believe, correspondence to your -- to your office, and I've had a discussion with Mr. Barksdale yesterday on some of the buffering aspects and so forth of the project but, again, will make a decision based on the material presented here today. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I had also received a small amount of correspondence and had spoken with Mr. Barksdale today, and I will make my decision based on the information that we have heard in this hearing. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have to correct my -- my statement. I did receive letters, and they were responded to, and I will be making my decision, whatever it is. I don't know yet. So it will be based on whatever we come up with. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Barksdale, two -- two co -- two questions here, and if you can address these, then maybe I can support a project. If you can make the following commitments for me -- one, that you or people you're representing, or the unit owners eventually, will participate prorata or that every homeowner -- or unit in this case -- but every homeowner, regardless of which side of the road they live on, pays an equal share toward dealing appropriately with flooding concerns. MR. BARKSDALE: Changing the pipes and -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are you comfortable with that? MR. BARKSDALE: Prorata share, yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- That every homeowner pays an equal share. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: An equal share -- I mean, that could be one dollar each. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm saying that if -- if the homeowners of this area look to repipe, that every homeowner will pay an equal thing. So if you live on one side of the road and I live on the other side of the road, we're still all paying $20 each or $10 each. MR. BARKSDALE: Homeowner would be units or vacant prop -- What if there's some vacant lots in -- in that other area? Would they share also? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If there's a vacant property owner, sure. I would anticipate that. That's acceptable to you? MR. BARKSDALE: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the second one is to lower the project to 24 units so you'd have six, four -- six buildings of four units as opposed to seven buildings of four units. MR. BARKSDALE: I need to think about that one a little bit. Could -- Could you go ahead with the other? COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure. Those are the only two. MR. BARKSDALE: Oh, I thought you had a couple more. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Wasn't it two-story? MR. BARKSDALE: Yeah. I -- I committed to the two-story. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Four -- Four -- I'm sorry. Four units per building. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just in case you're counting votes, I don't have problems with the seven. I don't think six solves the problem. I don't think it makes a significant enough change, and -- and I would like to get a little more clarification. I think the idea of sharing the cost of replacing those pipes is a really good one because there is some common sense benefit to you whether it's engineer -- engineering or not, but I don't have a problem with seven buildings, but I do have a problem -- I mean -- but I do want to see the unit owners help pay for replacement of those pipes if that's something that could be figured out a little more specifically. And, Mr. Weigel, I wonder if you would make some suggestion about how we might do that. MR. DORRILL: Your -- Your most -- If I -- If I may, your most recent policy directive concerning homeowner- or community-initiated drainage projects would either manifest itself through some sort of assessment district which we have done recently or some sort of cooperative agreement where homeowners approach you with cash in hand where they have apportioned out in some fair share basis or, as Mr. Constantine said, some per-unit basis or equivalency where they come to us with cash, and then we do work sort of under agreement but paid on an advance basis with cash that they've raised themselves, and -- and you've been doing one or the other of those sort of mechanisms. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Does -- Does the community that we're contemplating, Commissioner Constantine -- or whomever would be appropriate to answer -- contributing to these pipe replacement include more than these particular units? Does it also include these neighbors? How big is this? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. That's why I said both sides of the road because obviously they -- MR. DORRILL: There is a -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- they benefit as well. MR. DORRILL: There is a homeowner's association over there because we've dealt with them in the past, and I understood Mr. Barksdale's commitment to you is that they would automatically participate if there was any initiative on the other side of the road to try to improve the drainage. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And my intent and the intent of my question was not to put the burden wholly on you but to -- the other folks who would benefit would -- would -- MR. BARKSDALE: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- share as well. MR. BARKSDALE: We would -- We would agree to participate in that on -- on a prorata basis as established by the county and however -- however you -- the assessment. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I want to -- I want to be clear. I don't want to be vague with the term "prorata," and I was saying an equal share per unit. Everybody chips in. So if I live on one side of the road and the cost per household is ten bucks and you live on the other side of the road and the cost per household is ten bucks, everybody divvies it up equally. MR. BARKSDALE: Plus the vacant lots, of course. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. Plus the vacant property. So you're com -- You're okay with that? MR. BARKSDALE: I'm okay with that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is that in the form of a motion? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. I didn't get an answer back yet on the 24 -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: On the six buildings. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- six buildings instead of seven. MR. BARKSDALE: You've -- You've put me on the spot. Boy. You're -- You're -- It -- It -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you have a counter offer? MR. BARKSDALE: You're getting me both ways. You're -- My expenses have gone up, and then my ability to get some income has -- has gone down so -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Am I the only person who thinks seven buildings is okay? I mean, it seems like a fair question. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't think that's a fair question to ask until Mr. Barksdale's had a chance to respond. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, God. I think just the opposite. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Barksdale, would you pre -- He's figuring it out. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you say yes, I'll make a motion. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Nino, in order to answer a question -- it was either Mr. Hancock or Mr. Constantine asked for a similar type of project. What's the name of the community that is on Bailey Lane that is just west of Wilson, Miller and the -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Cottages. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The Cottages. MR. NINO: The Cottages. MR. DORRILL: Is that a similar type of PUD? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Those are two-unit. MR. NINO: That's -- That's at four dwelling units per acre. MR. DORRILL: What -- What's the density there per acre? MR. NINO: Four dwelling units per acre, and they're -- they're basically duplexes though. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They're two units per building. MR. NINO: They're two units. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Two-story building. MR. NINO: There are a couple of single-family units in there, but they're at four dwelling units per acre. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two units and single-family. Other than that, it's exactly the same. MR. NINO: More comparable, though, would probably be The Shores on Fourth Street in Bonita Shores -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: He looks like he's got an answer. MR. NINO: -- Bonita Springs. About four or five -- four or five -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What is the name of that project? MR. NINO: The Shores on Fourth Street -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In Bonita Springs. MR. NINO: -- in Bonita Shores. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. NINO: Right in the middle of a single-family area. MR. BARKSDALE: Oh, dear! I hate to take your time trying to decide here, but that's a toughy. I agree to 26. I can do that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we approve the item and with lower density from -- with lowered number of units from 30 to 26 and that -- with Mr. Barksdale's commitment that every homeowner, again both sides of the street and property owner, pay an equal share toward the fix of -- or toward the proactive measures on water use and flooding. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Clarification on the motion. This also limits the maximum number of units per building to four and the maximum height to 35 feet? MR. BARKSDALE: Yeah. The -- The thirty -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And it will be -- MR. BARKSDALE: The 35 was already -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The 35 was already in there? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And you agree they'll be two-story? MR. BARKSDALE: Yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Two-story. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So 26 units, two-story buildings, four units per building, and participation in the change-out of the pipes. MR. BARKSDALE: MAximum of four units per building. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Participation in -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And we already have the statements on the record regarding increased buffering, and with that, I'll second the motion. MR. NINO: Chairman, I need to ask a question. I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, Mr. Nino. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You might want to hurry because Mr. Barksdale is getting a blood transfusion. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No more. MR. NINO: Is this a precondition to initiation of any development? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, the change-out of the pipes, you mean? MR. NINO: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. DORRILL: I understood it to be based on a petition from the community through either one of the two mechanisms that are mentioned. MR. BARKSDALE: Because our -- our development -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So no. MR. BARKSDALE: -- would not have any impact -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll say no. I'll say that assuming that the property owners want to go ahead with that, then -- but let's make that initiated within the community. UNKNOWN VOICE: I'm sorry. Could you repeat that? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The question was, is the replacement of the drainage pipe a precondition for development, and I wanted to make sure that you all were on board with that. So it would -- That -- I would -- I said that would be a community action initiated by the community in concert with that. UNKNOWN VOICE: Can I ask one other question? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. The public -- UNKNOWN VOICE: Just -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. No. Please. MR. HUNT: Changing the pipes wonlt help. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Folks -- Folks, Iim sorry, but the public comment has -- has been closed. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The public -- UNKNOWN VOICE: Yes, but the flood was before we found out -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Malam, you cannot speak just from the audience. It will get crazy in here. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A good workout today. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. This is a workout today. We have a motion -- We have a motion on the -- on the floor, and itls been seconded. Are we okay with the motion, Mr. Nino? MR. NINO: Yes. Fine. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You understand what it -- what it is? MR. NINO: Yes, I do. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And, Mr. Barksdale, youlre okay with the motion? MR. BARKSDALE: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Iim going to call the question. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. MR. BARKSDALE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, I -- I have a request. Based on the agenda today, I didnlt anticipate being here, even at this hour, and Iive made a commitment this -- this afternoon at 4:00. I now have my assistant calling to find out if that could be changed, if someone could fill in for me, at least to buy me some time. But there is an item on the agenda in my district that has been one of considerable discussion regarding the Royal Cove special sewer assessment. If I could ask if -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many of these are we going to need four votes on? Thatls the only question. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. Thatls what I wanted to ask because I am going to have to leave in the near -- within the next hour regardless. So how many require four votes? And the Royal Cove because itls in my district, because Iive worked on it, I -- it should be a fairly quick item. I think welve got a good solution there. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I do too. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The next item requires four votes. MR. WEIGEL: Every fezone requires four votes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: The variances or just -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: We have four variances. Are they four votes? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I guess -- Let's go ahead and continue until I get word from my assistant whether or not I -- I can buy some more time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We'll try to '- MS. STUDENT: Madam Chairman, for the record, a variance requires just a simple majority of three votes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: A simple -- Okay. So we have -- We have one item remaining then that requires four votes, and that is petition R-95-6. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And, Commissioner Hancock, also isn't that submetering in your district? Isn't that -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. Yes, it is. Yes, it is. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I mean, it's countywide, but the applicant's in your district. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's see how much we can get through. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Let's try to -- Let's see how fast we can go -- we'll try to take them in order -- to accommodate Commissioner Hancock's schedule. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I thank you. I apologize for the inconvenience. Item #12B2 ORDINANCE 95-69 RE PETITION R-95-6, DAYTON L. JOHNSON REPRESENTING DAYTON L. AND EILEEN R. JOHNSON REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "A-ACSC/ST" - RURAL AGRICULTURAL WITH AN AREA OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN AND SPECIAL TREATMENT OVERLAY TO RSF-1 - RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DITRICT- FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT PLANTATION ISLAND - ADOPTED HR. NINO: Ron Nino, for the record -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hr. Nino. MR. NINO: -- presenting petition R-95-6 which deals with the proposal to fezone 1.2 acres of land in the area known as Plantation Island to the RSF-3 district from its current zoning district designation of A agricultural with an ST overlay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I can't believe that happens. MR. NINO: The -- Plantation Island is -- is an island of urban-designated land in the middle of a big blob of green on the map; and, therefore -- therefore, one would expect that agricultural zoning in such an area would receive some consideration for an urban designation. Not too long ago -- About a year ago, as a matter of fact, Sam Golding was the petitioner. We rezoned property immediately contiguous to the subject site to the mobile home cate -- classification. This matter went to the Planning Commission and was unanimously recommended for approval to the RSF-1 zoning district, and that was based on a considerable amount of objections that came forward from residents of the Plantation Isle mobile home area, and I believe you have copies of that correspondence in your executive summary. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Nino, this has been changed to a request for RSF-1 so that somebody can build one unit on this 1 -- 1.2-acre lot? MR. NINO: No. It hasn't been changed. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: It has not. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Has not been changed. MR. NINO: The Planning Commission has recommended to you that in your decision-making that you approve it not for the RSF-3 classification but for the RSF-1 classification. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And it's a single owner right now? MR. NINO: I beg your pardon? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's a single owner right now? MR. NINO: It's a single owner. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: They want to build a house for themselves and the kids. MR. NINO: Correct. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And to get the kids on there, it has to be RSF-3? MR. NINO: No. The RSF -- The -- The -- The -- The petitioner when -- when asked the question if they would accept RSF-1 indicated that they could live with RSF-1 after having been told that that allows them to also build a guest house. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill -- MR. NINO: The representative of Mr. Dayton Johnson is here who lives in the -- in Collier County -- Mr. Johnson lives in Wisconsin -- should you have any questions to ask of Mr. Holden who is a personal friend of Mr. Johnson's. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Mr. Dorrill, you had something you wanted to interject? MR. DORRILL: Just no speakers. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No speakers. Okay. Do we need to hear anything from Mr. Holden? I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: At -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: At what zoning? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: At RSF-i? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: At RSF-i? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: RSF-1. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve the item at RSF-1. If there's no further discussion, all those in favor, please say aye. Motion passes five to zero. Item #12C5 ORDINANCE 95-70 AMENDING ORDINANCE 86-67, PERMITTING THE PRACTICE OF SUB-HETERING WITHIN THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT - ADOPTED Next item on the agenda then would be the -- You want to do Royal Cove or the submetering first? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Royal Cove? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: submetering. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Which is first on the agenda? Submetering. Submetering? I guess Let's move over to item 12(C)(5), reconsideration of proposed amendments to Ordinance 86-67. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: When I see easels, I get worried. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Bringing in stuff. MR. CONRECODE: I didn't bring any easels. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you, Tom. MR. CONRECODE: For the record, Tom Conrecode from public works. Commissioners, this item before you today is the reconsideration of proposed amendments to your Ordinance 86-67 to allow the permitting -- permitting the practice of submetering within the Collier County Water and Sewer District. If you'll recall, on June 6 of 1995, the board heard a public petition from Cronacher Development, requested that the board approve the practice of submetering. The board then directed staff to prepare the necessary amendments and return it to the board for consideration. On August 15 then the board heard additional verbal information from the petitioners as well as some discussion from staff and asked that that verbal information be provided in written form. That has been provided and is attached as Exhibit 2 in your agenda packet. In addition, the amended or proposed amended Ordinance 86-67 is shown as Exhibit 1 in your package. And subject to a presentation of the petitioner and any questions of staff, that concludes my presentation. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions of staff? The petitioner? Mr. Goodlette, you're representing them? MR. GOODLETTE: Yes, I am, Madam Chairman. Dudley Goodlette with the law firm of Cummings and Lockwood representing the petitioner and -- Now, by the "petitioner," I mean Cronacher Development Corporation who is a petitioner in the -- in the public petition as this originally came to you in June as outlined in your agenda materials. Let me just -- Let me digress, particularly in view of Commissioner Hancock's tight time frame. I can -- I can make every effort to compress our presentation. We have met with each of you individually, have discussed the changes, and where we find this ordinance -- proposed ordinance, amending Ordinance 86-67 before you today. Let me just merely indicate that other -- other -- there are other people who are available on our team, if you will, who can answer questions, Kevin Coleman, one of my partners at Cummings and Lockwood; Jeff Davidson at Wilkison and Associates; Howard Hilhouser who is with Wastewater -- I'm sorry -- Water Meter Metering Systems; and Roy Cronacher, of course, of Cronacher Development Corporation; and Hilt -- Mort Gilford, an attorney who is also working with us in conjunction with this matter. There are really basically, if I may, Madam Chairman and members of the commission, three issues that you identified back on August the 15th when we last appeared before you on this matter. Those issues were conservation that you sought more comfort on; what I call meter cop issue -- that is, making sure that what we were doing here, if it was to be done, was not going to -- to require an inordinate allocation of your staff's time and efforts. And the third thing -- and I think important. The third thing is what I would call tenant or occupant or consumer protection. And so that -- that is the way in which I'd like to make the presentation to you, if I may, this -- this afternoon, Madam Chairman. Let -- Let me say in that regard first and foremost that we -- we sincerely appreciate the cooperation that we have received from -- from Mr. Conrecode and Mr. Newman in the public works department in -- in advancing this proposed ordinance to you today and to find in the form that you find it in in your packets. Also to Mr. Weigel and Mr. Pettit and the county attorney staff, we've worked very closely with them over the course of the last several months, actually, to -- to improve substantially, significantly improve the ordinance and what we're asking you to do. And I guess I would by inference suggest to you that -- and apologize, frankly, to you personally, not for my client, but for myself, that I -- I think that when we were here before you in August, I did not present this as well as it should have been presented. But I'm very comfortable with it now as I have indicated to each -- to you privately during our discussions and -- and I think that this ordinance is in the best interest and approving these amendments is in the best interest of the -- of the citizens of Collier County who would be governed by it. First of all, let me just touch briefly on the subject of the -- of -- of conservation because that is -- it was when we last appeared before you an important subject, and it remains today an important subject. We have presented to you about six weeks ago with a packet of information, most of which is in your agenda materials today, that outlines certain case studies and I think validates the conservation measures that we have previously presented to you and -- and -- and I would suggest to you that -- that -- that there -- that there are meaningful -- there are reasons why meaningful conservation will occur if this ordinance is approved and the accountability standards that are -- that are -- that are outlined in it are adopted. In that regard -- And -- And I think I've mentioned to you that the South Florida Water Management District is -- has been working with us very closely to ensure that the ordinance that's presented to you is consistent with what they think, frankly, is -- is a model ordinance on this subject of -- of submetering. And -- and unfortunately due to a family illness, Bruce Adams who is the conservation coordinator with the South Florida Water Management District is unable to appear today. I have received, however, from him yesterday -- When his wife was taken ill and he advised me that he would not be available, I received a fax transmittal of a letter outlining what he would have said had he been here, and I would just like to make that letter together with a part of your record, and I would like to have a copy of it submitted to each of you, if I may. I've also given a copy to Mr. Conrecode. And -- And I won't -- I won't read that into the record as long as it's part of the record, but -- but I -- I would like to come back and -- and emphasize a portion of it in my conclusion, if I may. Another person who has signed up to speak and whose sign-up I have is Dr. Jim Gore on the subject, and with your permission, Madam Chairman, I'd like to ask him to come and address the board because the issue he wants to talk to you about is conservation, and then I would like to come back and -- and conclude with the meter cop and tenant protection issues if that's all right with the chairman. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. GOODLETTE: Thank you. DR. GORE: For the record, Jim Gore with the Conservancy. When we discussed this issue before, we talked about whether or not there really was conservation, water conservation, or water savings going on with submetering, and behaviorally I argued that that's possible. You now have several case studies from the State of Florida which indicates that on average there's a savings of about 100,000 gallons per unit per year, at least based on other studies in Florida. I tried to make some sense out of 100,000 gallons per unit per year. In Collier County there are approximately 7,000 units that could be submetered. That comes up to seven billion gallons a year if they were all submetered. I don't think that it's going to be too much of a stretch of the imagination to argue that availability of water in Collier County is going to be an issue for a long time. We wouldn't be looking at things like additional surface water storage or the proposed aquifer storage and recovery facility on Henderson Creek right now if it wasn't an issue, and that's what I'd like to turn to. Right now that proposed ASR facility when it comes into production is looking at about withdrawing about ten million gallons a day during the wet season, injecting it into that aquifer, and then redistributing that during the dry season down to Marco Island. That amounts to about 300 million gallons per month times, say, five or six months for a -- a -- a wet season. That's between one and a half and 1.8 billion gallons per year. So just the savings from submetering, even if only a quarter -- excuse me, even if only a quarter of the units in Collier County were submetered, that would be an equivalent savings in water to the entire ASR facility. So it is a significant amount of water savings done by submetering, and it's something that should be considered as -- as another step towards conserving and making more freshwater available in Collier County. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, I'm confident Mr. Goodlette could put on several people today that are going to issue the merits of this. I, as one member of this board, have had several discussions with Mr. Goodlette, Mr. Coleman, and others as well as our staff, meeting with them several times. The assurances I've received from both and the comfort level I've received from both have led me to believe that this is -- can be positive if it's implemented. You know, I want to hear from the public comment, but for me, what Mr. Goodlette's experts have to say is probably only going to reinforce what he and I have discussed on other occasions. So with the exception of -- You know, for -- for my two cents, with the exception of people, maybe hear from the public to comment, I'm -- you know, I think those that are -- are -- are -- are for are sold and those that are again are again and -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's get the speakers. MR. GOODLETTE: Mr. -- Mr. Hancock, I asked your -- your manager, and he indicated that there were no other members of the public who were signed up to speak on this issue. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There are no others? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess I'm just curious how the rest of the board is -- is leaning on this matter. MR. DORRILL: If I could, there is one important item that I would at least like for Mr. Conrecode and/or Mr. Goodlette to discuss. The last time this came up and the -- the novelty of this particular request deals -- and I don't want to diminish the conservation aspect -- deals with what I would call the rent control or what Mr. Goodlette refers to as the consumer protection. The board seemed to be quite concerned about the potential for -- not hidden, but not fully disclosed cost and the fact that a young couple or a retired couple who is paying five or $600 a month for a -- a standard apartment fully realized that not only are they going to be responsible for their -- their rent every month, but they're going to get a utility bill just like a single-family homeowner. So I -- If you could very briefly relate as to how the ordinance protects or provides for consumer protection without this county commission getting into the rent control business which is not something you want to do. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Goodlette has a -- a -- MR. GOODLETTE: Madam Chairman, if I may -- and -- and -- and with anticipation of those good questions being asked, we have prepared -- and -- and these are contained in your ordinance. What I'm showing you is language that is extracted from pages basically five through seven of -- in your agenda materials of the ordinance in front of you. And what the ordinance provides for is full disclosure of the ability to charge each unit for the actual water usage in both of the following forms. Number one, oral representations at the time of lease negotiation, and before the parties sign the lease it must be disclosed; and, furthermore, a provision for conspicuously printed provision in the lease agreement that we have amended at the request of one of the members of the commission to require the tenants actually initial. So that the issue of full disclosure we think is -- is more than adequately provided for in the ordinance. And, again, compliments to your staff because the prior draft did not contain that information, and this one does. And -- And -- And furthermore, just two other areas very briefly, Commissioner Hancock, and in deference to your schedule, landlord's duties upon the tenant's dispute of a water bill, these are the things that are required in your ordinance. If there is any dispute at all, the landlord must have the -- must reread the master meter and/or submeter to verify its accuracy, to test meters for flow accuracy, and replace meter registration if inaccurate. That must be done. They must provide to the tenant documentation of the current and past billings. They must arrange meetings with the tenant to discuss billing practices. So all of those we believe are safeguards to ensure that if any dispute arises, the te -- the -- the landlord is obligated to do those things, and your ordinance spells out those, and those are just a few. Those are -- and those are the ones we wanted to highlight on the board if we could that could be -- could be visible. And then these -- And perhaps more important -- and I think to the issue of your manager, what can the landlord not do. First of all, the Public Service Commission has jurisdiction here, and I think Mr. Pettit, the assistant county attorney, may want to address that. But we have written verification from Charles Hill who is the head of the waste -- the water and wastewater department of the Public Service Commission verifying that the Public Service Commission does have jurisdiction statutorily because each property that would -- would endeavor to submeter must apply for an exemption and on an annual basis must verify that they are not charging one penny more for the water than they -- than they are paying for the water. So that the cost of the -- of installing the submeter, the cost of reading the submeter, none of that by law can be passed on to the tenant. And, in fact, it's in your ordinance that it cannot be passed on to the tenant. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On that point, cannot be passed on to the tenant as a part of the water bill. MR. GOODLETTE: Period. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Period. MR. GOODLETTE: That's correct. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: However, I've got to assume that those costs that the landlord absorbs he needs to get back somehow. So it will probably then go into rent. I mean, obviously the rent is negotiable, and they can make that choice. But to suggest that none of these charges will be borne by the tenant -- the landlord is not doing this out of the goodness of his heart. So at some point somehow, even if it doesn't appear on the water bill, the tenant is going to pick up the tab. MR. GOODLETTE: Mr. Cronacher can address that. I'd suggest to you as we -- as we've said -- mentioned to each of you privately, that is simply not the case. In -- In this instance what the -- In order to -- to -- That's a market-driven issue, what the rent is going to be in each individual apartment. And -- And I think that the concern that the manager has pointed out is as long as the -- the -- the rent is -- If someone wants to pay 400 -- and can afford to pay $450 a month rent, the -- the important issue here before you today is if in addition to that rent they're going to be required to pay water separately, that must be disclosed. That's the disclosure issue. Whether or not they are able to pass on the cost of submeters in the form of any additional rent is a market-driven issue and -- and -- and I would suggest to you it's our client's position that -- that they will not pass that on, cannot, because the market won't bear that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would you pull up the disclosure card again? MR. GOODLETTE: Yes, indeed. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What happens if it says, for example -- Excuse my squinting. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The disclosure is the -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There you go. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- next one. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's -- That's why I can't read it. It's -- That's not the disclosure one. MR. GOODLETTE: Sorry about that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- Say they -- they do not orally represent it at the time of lease negotiation. What's the penalty if -- if a tenant comes back and says, gosh -- MR. GOODLETTE: They -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- I didn't realize this and -- and -- you know, they had initialled half a dozen things when they signed but -- MR. GOODLETTE: Mr. Pettit may want to answer that. He's the -- the attorney who has worked with us in drafting the ordinance. They simply can't charge the bill for the -- for the -- for the water. They simply can't charge for it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But the tenant would also have had to initialled a statement in their lease that said, I'll be charged separately for water. MR. GOODLETTE: Or they can't do it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Or -- or it can't happen. MR. GOODLETTE: And -- And, again, that's -- that's a summary of the salient provisions that we feel are -- have been incorporated and -- and means by which this ordinance has significantly improved since it was last presented to you. MR. PETTIT: Commissioner Constantine, Hike Pettit from the county attorney's office. I would direct your attention to page three, paragraph two of the ordinance that's proposed in your -- in your package, and I think one fair reading of the ordinance is that there can't be any recovery of costs in rent or otherwise. Now, I will concede there may be an enforceability issue there. We can't necessarily know why somebody has raised the rent, but it's clear that -- that -- that the recovery of the administrative costs for this practice is prohibited by the ordinance. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As part of the water bill. MR. PETTIT: And as part of the water bill. It can't be recovered either way. With respect to -- I want to -- I want to make a couple of other points. Mr. Goodlette has raised the issue of the Public Service Commission, and I have read the letter from the Public Service Commission. I will advise you that Lee County allows this practice, and what they advise folks that want to do it is they have to comply with the Public Service Commission rules. I believe that the Public Service Commission's reading that they have jurisdiction over it is plausible. I'm not sure I'm prepared to agree with it at this time, but it does provide since -- The developer at least feels that they have to comply with the Public Service Commission, an overlay of regulation, if you will. Two other points Mr. Goodlette touched on -- MR. GOODLETTE: Hay I touch on that just for the moment? In addition to our suggesting the Public Service Commission has jurisdiction, we have in add -- we have built in those additional safeguards in your ordinance as well, however, with respect to passing on those costs. MR. PETTIT: That's -- That's generally correct. Two other points. On page four of the proposed ordinance in the package, the phrase "initialled by the tenant," and that would appear after -- in line five in the first paragraph on page four. That phrase is actually not in the ordinance that's before you in your package. That was a suggestion I just learned about the other -- yesterday. And so if the ordinance is to be adopted, we would want to make clear on the record that if we're going to include that language, it needs to be included at -- at line five. UNKNOWN VOICE: We've made that change. And, Hike, you might want to make that part of the record. MR. PETTIT: One other point. Lines 15 through 18 initially on page three contained what I would call a Sunset provision which essentially created only a limited opportunity for landlords to follow this practice, and that was initially put into the ordinance to address a potential concern about the effect this ordinance might have on impact fees and those -- That -- That concern has been allayed, and I believe it's the position of public works that that -- those lines should be deleted. And so if the ordinance is adopted, at page three, lines 15 through 18, we would want to delete the statement of a landlord may only install submeters within 90 days after the effective date of the ordinance. MR. GOODLETTE: Hike, I'm -- I'm sorry. The -- The manager is distributing those erratas with those -- the -- the deletions of -- of that sentence that you just mentioned as well as the -- with tenant initials on the other provision you mentioned. I just failed to -- to hand you a copy of those changes. I'm sorry. MR. PETTIT: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions? There are no speakers? MR. DORRILL: No -- No other speakers. No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to make a motion we approve this. I think it's where Collier County ought to be, on the cutting edge of -- of drafting ordinances that are water conservation that protect tenants and the consumer protection and -- and that are going to be used, frankly, as a model ordinance in other jurisdictions, and I think it's just where Collier County ought to be. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to second the motion, but not because we're on the cutting edge, but because this is done in so many other places that -- you know, I -- I became more and more comfortable the more I looked at this and how many communities have actually done it in the same format and the fact that our utilities department had looked at it and installed the same safeguards in this ordinance that currently exist to our customers. That gave me a level of comfort I needed to -- to support it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. Is there further discussion? Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not going to support it, and I'll tell you why. The water conservation aspect is very admirable, and I appreciate what you're trying to do there, but it does put new burdens on the tenant. It opens the door for any number of bad scenarios. And really the only recourse a tenant has is to go through the legal system, and if you're being overcharged ten or $15 a month, the money you'd have to spend to get that corrected would take a couple of years' savings to make up. I mean, to hire an attorney or to go through the legal process to try to pursue some overcharge isn't worth the money. So I think in the long run the tenant stands with very little protection there. So I admire the conservation effort wholeheartedly. I know some of the individuals involved in this particular -- or the thought that initiated this one, and I don't know that they would do anything wrong, but we also know that everybody out there isn't that way. And the only other thought is that when this first came up, I know we had a number of phone calls and letters and people here the first time around who were very much opposed to it who will be affected by it, and I think that those are the folks we need to take into consideration first. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm also going to consider the letters I got in support of it. I received letters from residents of Arbour Walk who were supportive. And, in fact, they've been signing leases with submetering clauses in it for an extensive period of time already. So I -- I understand your concern. It's just the fact that it has a track record -- record of success without the abuses that you mentioned in other communities has been shown to me and helps me support it, but I understand your concerns. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I just want to sort of jump off the track here and go a different direction. I'm just going to object to the -- to the way that this has been presented to us as some sort of an altruistic gesture of saving the world and saving conservation of water and all those -- those items and indicating that there's no possibility of recovering this money through rent increases or anything like that when obviously it's obvious to everyone that people who -- who operate rental apartments are in the business to make money. They're not out there to -- to provide housing for those poor unfortunate people that would otherwise not have it. And while -- while I think it's -- it's a good idea to go ahead and do this, I'm just merely objecting to the -- to the -- to the premise that, you know, this board of commissioners up here can't see through the fact that -- that there is a profit motive in here as well as -- as the water conservation motive. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: So your assumption is that we poor, dumb, and blind don't recognize that the whole reason this has been brought forward is because there is a bottom-line savings to the owners and operators of apartments? If you are, in my case you're wrong. I know why they brought it forward. But does it have side benefits? Yes. Has it been done in other communities successfully? Yes. Will it provide water conservation? Yes. So it helps them, and it helps their bottom line. I don't have a problem with it. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: My only objection is to it being presented as if that's not the case. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, yeah. And if I fell for that, I would -- I would agree but -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I'm -- I'm going to support the motion, and I'd look at the market-driven rent. And if -- if Arbour Walk -- They brought it forward, so I'll -- I'll use their name. If they advertise their -- their rent at $450 and clearly disclose that they're going to have another utility bill, then the tenter is comparing that with rent that includes it, and they're going to look at the total picture and decide what they can afford. So it -- it just makes sense to me. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And those are market issues, and that's fine. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They're market issues, yeah. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But just don't present it as something else. That's all I'm saying. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And I disagree with that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I'm going to say one thing. I -- I'm the one who said, please go away and come back with water conservation numbers, because they gave us these sort of theories before that this is a -- this will really be good for the environment too. So I -- I -- Part of that was in response to my request. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm ready to vote. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm ready to vote too. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Everyone's made a statement. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm ready to vote. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll call the question. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes four to one with Commissioner Constantine being in the opposition. Item #12C6 PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE ROYAL COVE SEWER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT TO APPROVE PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND TENTATIVE APPORTIONATE COST - OPTION 2 AS PRESENTED BY STAFF - APPROVED. RESOLUTION 95-666/CWS-95-10 ELIMINATING ROYAL COVE FROM THE DISTRICT AND RESOLUTION 95-667/CWS-95-11 APPROVING PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, TENTATIVE APPORTIONATE COST AND RECORDING OF SAME - ADOPTED Next item on the agenda is a public hearing for the Royal Cove sewer special assessment district. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, in the interest of -- of time -- and I don't know how many questions the board will have, and I will not try and steamroll those questions, but I'm going to try and make a summary of Mr. Clemons' presentation for him because we have probably spent more time together in the last two weeks than he would like. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll trim my question list down from 30 to 12. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Down to 12. I appreciate that. When we last looked at this, I think there was a general agreement across the board that the folks in Royal Cove were not really affected by Mr. Vetter's shutdown of his plant, but yet they were going to be forced to hook up to a sewer system that they at this time don't need. I think that caused some -- some level of discomfort for everyone. Our staff has worked very hard at -- at basically coming up with a way in which they can address the problems in Royal Cove two. They can solve the problems in Royal Cove two for the long term without making folks in Royal Cove, the front end, have to buy into a system they don't need. What was presented in our staff report is basically if we did it the traditional way, Royal Cove would pay more per front foot than Royal Cove two, and they don't have a problem. What Mr. Clemons has done is gone back and worked everything into Royal Cove two, put in financing options of 20 years which is the typical in some -- in the sewer areas that we've done way back in Naples Park and in East Naples and the cost comparison provided on what they currently pay to Mr. Vetter's system, and what they'll have to pay is what he just handed you, and what we see is a minimal difference and -- you know, I think this isolates the problem and the solution to Royal Cove two and that's -- MR. CLEMONS: If you look -- If you look to the second page of what we handed you, that would be the second option which is just Royal Cove, unit two. Tim Clemons, for the record, by the way. What we've done is assume a six-year interest rate on the assessment, and we've got some options to present to you today in that regard. We've assumed full financing of the sewer impact fees, and we've shown the monthly billing based on 5,000 gallons a month of water usage which is what the Department of Revenue has told me is an average usage up there. That takes that to that left-hand column total you see at the bottom. Okay. Now, that -- that number would be less if they do not impact -- if they do not finance their impact fees. It will go down if they do finance their impact fees after that's paid off. So that monthly payment over time for Royal Cove, unit two, would decrease, and it will continue to come down as the assessment gets paid off. The front page shows you the first alternative we looked at which included the entire project, and it's the same breakdown of numbers for both Royal Cove and then Royal Cove, unit two. And having looked at it, as Commissioner Hancock said, it's our opinion that we move ahead with the project only dealing with the affected Royal Cove, unit two, and the parties in the back. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So your recommendation is option two? MR. CLEMONS: Yes, ma'am. At this point it is. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And it does represent really almost, you know, initially a $38 increase per month for the folks in Royal two -- Royal Cove two over what they're paying now which is a lot more than anyone wants. But the flip side is that Mr. Vetter would have raised his fees to pay for his DEP fines above the 60 that was already being charged. We'll probably end up, in essence, talking about a $25 difference here per month? MR. CLEMONS: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And with that, what goes away is the problem of the smell due to lack of maintenance, the problem of the backup in the system and sewer -- sewage flowing down the street which has occurred in the past. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's a permanent fix. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's a permanent fix. MR. CLEMONS: It is. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So, yes, the folks in Royal Cove two are paying more initially -- MR. CLEMONS: Initially. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- but in the long run, they're paying roughly 25 or $30 more a month to fix a problem for the long term. MR. CLEMONS: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And with that, I can't assess people in Royal Cove who don't have a problem. So from my standpoint, I am certainly favorable to option two. MR. DORRILL: We do have some speakers, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We do have speakers? MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. CLEHONS: We also have the engineer here, Madam Chairman, if you have any questions for them on how they arrived at some of the work they did. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Why don't we hear from the public speakers. MR. DORRILL: Very well. Ms. Palmet, are you still with COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many do we have, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: We have three. And then, Mr. Kessler, if I could have you stand by, please, sir. MS. PALHER: For the record, I'm Linda Palmet. I'm one of the residents/owners of phase one, the Royal Cove, and you've solved most of our problems. I think we were holding our breath for -- since nine o'clock this morning to hear these -- what you just came up with. We didn't see any of these papers, but that's okay with us. The only concern I have is, is there any expense to us at this point with tearing up our properties in the phase one end of the street. And, also, if people from the phase one want to connect into this system, your option two, are they going to have the ability or not. And then if they do, let's say five years from now, ten years from now, what kind of a fee are they going to be charged for it? At this point -- Like, in my case, it will cost me about $9,000 if I had to go onto this now, including all the impact fees and -- and what I need to do with my septic tank at this time. Would it be 15,000 five years from now or whatever? Has that been taken into account with this option two? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Your first question, there will be disruption of your street when the line is put in to get to Royal Cove two, but the street will be restored as a part of the overall project cost. MS. PALHER: The -- The question is on the culverts and -- and such. We have culverts and grass, cement culverts. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It all is restored to original condition -- MR. CLEHONS: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- immediately following construction. MR. CLEHONS: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The second question is, would you be able just to hook up. The answer is no. Either Royal -- Either phase one is done as a system or it's not done at all. So the way in which you get it done is you get 50 percent plus one of your residents to petition this board to assess yourselves to hook in. The benefit is, the line will already be in place. Okay? What you'll have to install is the gravity feed system to get to it and maybe a pump station. MR. CLEHONS: The pump station that is going to be installed will be able to service everybody -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. CLEHONS: -- if that ever comes to it. So the -- the answer to her third question is, the cost for the unit one people or the Royal Cove people would probably or will be less than as shown today. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MS. PALHER: Okay. And do we need to pay for any of the restoration of our properties? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. MS. PALHER: Okay. I have no further questions. MR. DORRILL: And, in fact, for the benefit of those residents that are in Royal Cove, the county will take a videotape of the front of everyone's home, driveway, culvert so that in the event if there's any dispute in terms of your pre-existing condition, whether it's Bahia sod or Floratam sod or concrete drive or Hibiscus plants adjacent to -- We've learned our lesson on that, and we now videotape every project, and your property will be restored to its preconstruction condition. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next speaker. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Kessler, and then your final speaker is a Mr. Hoffman. MR. KESSLER: Walter Kessler, 26 Royal Cove Drive. I'm very much pleased with the way it's been turning out here, and I did talk to one little old lady. She's probably a lot older than my 76 years, and she was living on a fixed income, and she said that the sewer would cost her more than she paid for her house 30 -- 30 years ago. Another thing about this gravity line, if -- if you put in another gravity line, would you be going towards 41 or down to the -- the pumping station? MR. CLEHONS: Down towards the pumping station. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But if we go with option two today, that's not going to happen. MR. CLEHONS: That is not going to happen today. MR. KESSLER: But you're going on the north side with your pressure line up to the end of the street on 41 and then pumping into the Wiggins Pass Road pump -- Wiggins Pass Road -- MR. CLEHONS: Force main. MR. KESSLER: Force main? MR. CLEMONS: Yes, sir. MR. KESSLER: Okay. Well, thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Hoffman. MR. HOFFHAN: The only thing -- My -- My name is Harry Hoffman, and I live at 27 Royal Cove Drive, and I also have a lot at 37 Royal Cove Drive, and I'm satisfied with what you're going to do now. I'd also like to point out that we had 92 inches of rain on that street this year, and that was about 40 inches over, and I'm told that a hurricane usually gives you five to ten inches. So we had the equivalent of four hurricanes strike that street, and my septic system held up fine. That's all I have to say. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. That's the last speaker? MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, motion to approve option two as presented by staff. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve option two as presented by staff. Any further discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes five to zero. MR. WEIGEL: Madam Chairman, for the formality of the -- of the hearing today, I would ask that two more actions be taken based upon the board's decision that it just made, and that would be that the board adopt two resolutions; therefore, two resolution numbers should be saved for this agenda item. The first resolution would be to amend and supersede the initiating resolution which this board adopted previously eliminating Royal Cove from the district, and that leaves Royal Cove two within the district. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So moved. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to remove Royal Cove from the assessment district. Any further discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes five to zero. Is there another one we need -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's go. MR. WEIGEL: And also the second resolution was to approve the plans, specs -- specifications, estimated costs, and the tentative apportionment assessment roll for Royal Cove, unit two, and approve the recording of that roll. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So moved. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to MR. WEIGEL: I can restate that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. That's okay. I'm just going to say -- to adopt what our county attorney has instructed. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any further discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Clemons -- MR. WEIGEL: And the record -- the record should reflect that this is -- both resolutions have been adopted by the Board of County Commissioners sitting as the County Water and Sewer District. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Clemons, thank you for all your work. And I thank the board for your indulgence this afternoon, and I must go. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Have a good game. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Have a good game. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I wish I were playing. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's basketball. We know. (Commissioner Hancock exited the board room.) Item #12C1 RESOLUTION 95-668 SETTING FORTH THE INTENT TO USE THE UNIFORM METHOD OF COLLECTING NON-AD VALOREH ASSESSMENTS FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY MAINTENANCE, WATER MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE, BEAUTIFICATION OF RECREAITONAL FACILITIES AND MEDIAN AREAS, AND MAINTENANCE OF CONSERVATION OR PRESERVE AREAS - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda -- Let's go back and pick up at 8(C)(1), a recommendation of Board of County Commissioners adopt a resolution for non-ad valorem assessments. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 12(C)(1)? You said 8(C)(1). CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm sorry. 12(C)(1). MR. WARD: Thank you, Madam Chairman. For your record, Jim Ward, Pelican Bay services. The resolution you have before you today essentially allows the division to use the uniform method for the collection of its non-ad valorem assessments within the community. It doesn't bind you to the use of the method nor does it set any assessment rates for the Pelican Bay community in the ensuing fiscal year, and it is in order and recommended for your consideration. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have speakers? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: This is only affecting Pelican Bay, I assume; right? MR. DORRILL: It's a routine and required provision and done annually, and there are no speakers. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And why just for Pelican Bay and not for other similar -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Because they're the only ones requesting it today, I guess. MR. DORRILL: Which is exactly correct. It is available to any other MSTD. They tend and prefer and historically have used this method in order to raise the money to handle stormwater issues. MR. WARD: Most of your MSTDs use an ad valorem tax. We use a non-ad valorem assessment which they prefer. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. I got it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There are no speakers? MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Close the public hearing. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: that's a -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMHISSIONER NORRIS: COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMHISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion to approve. Motion to approve. We have two motions. I guess Second. -- motion and a second. I'll -- You had three. I'll second. We have three? Yeah. I didn't -- We have a motion and a second to approve the item as presented. Any further discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes four to zero, Commissioner -- Item #12C2 ORDINANCE 95-71 REQUESTING APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 95-50 TO CORRECT A SCRIVENER'S ERROR RELATIVE TO LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS FOR AREAS BEING REZONED BY SAID ORDINANCE FOR PROPERTY INCLUDED IN THE PELICAN HARSH PUD - ADOPTED COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, this next item is just a correction of a scrivener's error. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is that correct, Mr. -- MR. NINO: Yes, it is. Ron Nino, for the record. Yes, this is a scrivener's error. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do we have speakers, Mr. Dorrill? MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve item 12(C)(2). Any further discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes four to zero. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They're in the four o'clock rush. Item #12C3 ORDINANCE 95-72/HWS-95-3 REGARDING REVISED RATES FOR THE MARCO WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES OVER A TWO YEAR PERIOD WITH 38e THIS YEAR AND 30e NEXT YEAR CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item is item 12(C)(3), discuss tentative rate increases and hear public comment for the Marco Water and Sewer District. Mr. Conrecode. MR. CONRECODE: Commissioners, for the record, Tom Conrecode from your public works division. This is to discuss a tentative rate increase and hear any public comment regarding your revised rates for the Marco Water and Sewer District. The Marco Water and Sewer District does not treat wastewater. Instead, they sell through a bulk sewage agreement to Southern States Utilities. Since 1989 Southern States Utilities has had four separate rate increases that the district has absorbed. That has increased the cost of -- of selling that bulk sewage from a dollar ninety-four per thousand to three eighty-five per thousand. This item attempts to correct those costs absorptions over that period of time. Your utilities -- former utilities division staff had prepared a rate analysis, and it's been reviewed and confirmed by the clerk's finance department with a recommendation for a sixty -- 68 percent rate increase to overcome the 98 percent rate increase that we've absorbed from Southern States Utilities. That 68 percent rate increase will result in $198,000 annually in additional revenues for the district. And subject to your public comment or questions for me, staff recommends that particular rate increase. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Speakers? MR. DORRILL: One. Dr. Biles. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Dr. Biles. DR. BILES: Yes. Fay Biles, for the record, president of the Marco Island Taxpayers Association, and I'm speaking on behalf of our members who are on the sewer system and are affected by this increase. First of all, we understand perfectly why an increase in sewer rates is necessary. Tom was very, very cooperative in -- in providing us with an expense revenue spreadsheet, the analysis spreadsheet, and the figures show financial figures from annual budget reports and projections for future years which I want to refer to later. We realize that SSU has raised rates to the county 98 percent since 1991 and that reserve funds were available to absorb those increases and, therefore, not pass on those increases to the customers. That was much appreciated; however, we do feel that 68 percent is too large an increase in one fell swoop for one year. We recommend that if it could be done over a two-year period, that that would sit a lot better than a 68 percent increase. And too, should customers be paying for reserves now that are geared to the future increases which is on your spreadsheet, and should we -- customers be penalized for the past billing errors and refunds that have been accumulated over that -- that period. Also, in looking at the spreadsheet, it appears to us that perhaps the increases for the future seems to be predicated on the failure that maybe we're not going to win that case against SSU, and we feel very confident that we're going to win that case over SSU, and there are a lot of implications for a bulk sewer and so forth in that case. And so we would please recommend that if we could do this over a two-year period instead of a one-year 68 percent blast would sure be helpful to our customers. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Dr. Biles. If we were to do that, how much greater would the reserves be depleted? Would they deplete to a point that is not healthy? MR. CONRECODE: The -- The estimate for FY '96 is estimated at a $218,000 hit to reserves. It wouldn't deplete reserves, but it would be a pretty substantial hit. We could, however, in the case of the rate study go with the two-stepped or two-tiered approach to the rate increase with the second one subject to whatever the outcome of the challenge to SSU's rate regulation is. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And what percentages would those two steps be? MR. CONRECODE: I'd recommend almost a split. I haven't done that analysis. I've talked to Miss Biles today. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 34 and 34. MR. CONRECODE: 34, 34; 38, 30, some sort of a split like that. Without going back through and redoing the rate analysis, I can't tell you exactly. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I understand. Are there other speakers, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask Mr. Conrecode one question. The -- SSU has raised rates to us four times in four years. If we make a split on these rates, what's -- you know, we're still probably going to face another rate increase from them. MR. CONRECODE: In all likelihood we will. It's just -- I -- I think what we're looking at is reducing the immediate impact to the customers over a two-year period as opposed to a one-year period and waiting to see what the outcome of the current rate request is. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Right. Well, I would just suggest that we if -- if that's the course that we're going to take here today, that we make sure that the customers understand that very likely another rate increase coming along the line, and even though we're -- we're amenable to splitting it today, the split may not be as even as it -- as it appears today when we see our next rate increase. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's entirely possible. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's a fair concern because knowing SSU's track record, if we split this and we have one now and one next year, we could very well have another increase necessary two years from now, and boom, boom, boom, you have three years in a row. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: That's my point. I don't want -- I -- I -- I just want to make people aware that this -- this is not going to be the end of it in all likelihood. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. The public hearing is closed. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion that we -- we go ahead and adopt the rate increase but do it over a two-year period with 38 percent this year and 30 percent next year. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion. Is there a second? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. Is there further discussion? You've got discussion, or were you going to second? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. I -- I was going to second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll call the question. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes four to zero. Thank you. Item #13A1 RESOLUTION 95-669 RE PETITION V-95-17, WAYNE A. FRITCH OF W.A.F. HOMES, INC. REQUESTING A 5.2 FOOT AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK TO 24.8 FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON LOT 25, BERKSHIRE LAKES, UNIT 7 - ADOPTED COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, this next one is an after-the-fact variance. I know we've been kind of tough on them, but I -- I did read -- it's mentioned two or three times in the executive summary that it is not the applicant's fault. And with that in mind, I'm not sure we should be penalizing the applicant. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, let's hear from Mr. Bellows more about what's going on. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. Basically Commissioner Constantine is right. This is a petition that's an after-the-fact variance from the front yard requirement of 30 feet -- 24 feet, eight inches -- 24.8 feet. The building permit was accepted with the wrong setback. It went through. The tie beam was poured on August 24 with permission of the building department to protect the walls in case of a hurricane. Staff has recommended approval. The Collier County Planning Commission recommended approval on November 2. If you have any other questions, I'd be happy to answer them. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions? Speakers? I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve the item as presented. Any further discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes four to zero. Item #13A2 PETITION SV-95-6, THOMAS B. HART OF HIHPHREY 7 KNOTT, P.A., REPRESENTING SAME JOHNSON REQUESTING A 75 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 150 FOOT ROAD FRONTAGE FOR A POLE SIGN TO 75 FEET FOR A MULTI-TENANT BUILDING LOCATED AT 3600 TAHIAMI TRAIL EAST - ADOPTED Next item on the agenda is petition SV-95-6, a sign variance. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Chahram Badamtchian from planning staff. This is a sign variance for the Flex Bon Paint store on the -- on the East Trail. They have 75 foot of road frontage, and they want a pole sign. The code requires 150 foot of road frontage. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We've been here before, haven't we? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We've been here before just down the street. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Not this one, no. That was -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well -- But the same issue. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: -- Discount Auto Parts. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The same issue. Not the same petition. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They had 120 foot of road frontage, and the board denied the variance. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I -- I want to see us bringing this area up to higher standards, certainly not lowering the standards. I have obviously no interest in this one. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have speakers, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: Yes, you do. The petitioner is here. Mr. Hart. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Hart. MR. HART: Thank you. Good afternoon, Commissioners. I appreciate your indulgence in -- in this item. This -- This is not the same property that you visited before. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. No, but it's the same -- MR. HART: And, in fact, I don't believe it's very close because I -- and I -- Let me -- Let me correct myself. I'm Thomas Hart with the law firm of Humphrey and Knott, and I'm here on behalf of Johnson Paints, Inc., which you probably know better as Flex Bon Paint. Mr. Johnson is with me, the owner of the property. The reason I say that this can't be very close to what you looked at before is because I have a map of the area and -- and I would like to present that to you. But our property is -- within a three-quarter mile area is -- is centered, and -- and you can see that none of these properties would have the same problem. All of the surrounding properties have the -- have sufficient frontage on U.S. 41 to have a pole sign. And -- And if I could begin -- If I could pass that around -- MR. DORRILL: Certainly. MR. HART: I'll make the presentation while we're doing that. You know, this is a home-grown business, Johnson Paints. You probably know of them. They're factory. There are 17 stores in Southwest Florida, 100 employees. They are requesting of you that they be allowed to have the same kind of pole sign, not -- not a billboard, but a pole sign as their neighbors. And I have some photographs I want to provide you as well in a moment to show you that -- that all they want is -- is a sign similar to the two properties or three properties beside them and the three on the other side of them and the ones across the street from them. This site is -- is on the East Trail about two miles from here. It's -- It's across the street basically from the Perkins Restaurant, and it's between Lakewood Boulevard and Cata -- Catalina Drive. The problem with the site is that it was originally platted at -- These lots were originally platted as 75 -- excuse me -- 50-foot lots. They were purchased in quantities, and all the other properties have larger sites. This one is a 75-foot-wide site. We need 150 obviously under the -- under the regulations in Collier County. There is one property that appeared -- and we questioned this -- appears on that map to be a hundred-foot site which would be similarly situated; however, that property is owned by the adjacent parcel, the -- the furniture store next door. It's one door away from our property. And -- And so they have enough property, and they, in fact, have a pole sign which I'll show you a picture of in just a moment. The lot -- and the reason that -- that this I believe qualifies for a variance is because of the inherent qualities, the inherent circumstances in this particular property. The lot is 75 feet of road frontage, 360 feet of depth. The -- The building was built in 1983, and it's built right in the center. So it's got about 14 parking spaces in the front. It's got about 14 parking spaces in the back. But the building is back about 100 feet from the road. There are four mature trees in the front yard. You -- You cannot see the front of this building as you're approaching it on -- on U.S. 41. At this area, U.S. 41 is four-laned. It's divided. It's wide open. Accessibility is great. The problem is you just can't see this particular site, and that's the only one in the area that has this problem. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: May I ask you if -- MR. HART: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Over here. MR. HART: Oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I know you sometimes can't tell where it's coming from with the speakers. Did any of those conditions exist when your client bought that property? MR. HART: They did exist; however, there was a sign on the property when we bought it that itemized all the tenants. What happened was, after we bought it, code enforcement came along and said, well, the sign was -- was inappropriate. It was a pole sign, and I'll show it to you. So now we're without a sign. We have a sign on the building. Don't misunderstand me. We have a sign on the building. We just don't have a sign that allows our customers to see us as they're approaching. They're complaining. This is a multi-occupancy building, four occupancies. We have one tenant who has the same problem. Her customers -- It's Affordable Housing Finance Company. Her customers are saying the same thing. We can't rent the other two sites, the other two parts of our building because they say you don't have good visibility. You don't have -- You have access. You just don't have good visibility. We think that -- Let me, if I could, pass these photographs also, and they will show you this particular area within this particular three-quarter mile section of 41. We think that we could solve a lot of problems. We could -- We could continue to utilize this building. We could not have a vacant building in that area. We could achieve some equity if -- if we could obtain this variance. We would not be asking for any sign larger or different in style from what's already there. Our neighbors have these type of signs on all sides. This isn't going to -- isn't going to support a flood gate -- open the floodgates of signs because this is in a -- in a unique area. It's a unique lot, unique shape of the building. We have the tree problem, and all we want to do is replace that old pole sign which is no longer within the code with a taller pole sign that would allow better visibility and meet all the requirements other than this 150-foot-lot-width requirement. You know, I -- I deal with variances, and -- and I know the legal basis, and I understand your situation and your criteria. This is one of the few that I can truthfully say the -- the basis for the variance is inherent in the property. The property is narrow. The property has been built up around so we cannot expand to get the -- to get the necessary width. The property has -- has this natural vegetation. It's not natural. We -- Somebody planted it back in 1983, but they're mature trees and -- and we just -- we can't deal with getting good view, good visibility for folks who want to come and -- and be there. And I think there's another benefit to the county -- and having gone through some comprehensive plan litigation recently, I know that this is important. If this site won't work -- and, frankly, it doesn't work right now -- then we have to go and get another site that's bigger and wider and this site could easily wind up being a vacant property. This -- Granting this variance doesn't hurt anybody, but what it does do is allow for in-fill of a property that's already there, that's been there for 12 years or 13 years, and allows it to be viable, allows your -- your businesses to be viable, and we would just appreciate your support of that request. Could I -- Maybe I could point out a few things on those photographs. Everybody's now had a chance to see them. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I'm wondering what the photograph of the mailbox is for. MR. HART: Very quickly, the mailboxes are just the photograph of the building to show you the multiple occupancy. I just was looking for a way to make that clear. The more important photographs were the first two, and -- and you both -- You saw them from both directions. The sign that says "Flex Bon" out in the front is not there today. It was there for the time of the picture to show you where the site is. It's a temporary sign. It can't be -- It can't be left there. It's gone. The sign that's right beside it is the red and white, the old pole sign that I was referring to that was there when we bought the building, and that's the sign that all it has on it is an address because that didn't meet the requirements. That's the sign that we would replace with the pole sign that we would ask you to approve. I wanted to point out the neighbors. The True Value store right next door had the same type of pole sign. The neighbor just -- that's out of the picture has a similar type of sign. It's a -- I believe it's a furniture store. The neighbors on the far side is -- is the funeral home. They have a sign. And the next one down is the Rex Electronics, and they have a similar sign. And -- And so all we're asking you for is the -- the ability to have the same kind of -- of sign that our neighbors have and to be able to compete properly in the neighborhood, and we do appreciate -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I certainly appreciate the fact you have 17 stores in Southwest Florida and employ 100 people, and anytime we can encourage economic development, we want to do that. But I guess I have to disagree with your comment that it won't hurt anyone to put up the sign here, and it may not in this specific case, but we have any number of locations around the county that have 75-foot or 100 -- less than 150-foot lots. And I think along Golden Gate Parkway, a great example, we have a whole strip of things that have been recently changed to commercial, and there are actually four or five parcels, all the owners working cooperatively to make that happen. But if we were to allow signs every 75 feet on each one of those four or five, you'd have an absolute mess, and -- and we can very easily take on the Daytona Beach look which is not something we probably aspire for. So we have to be careful. It's not just this individual thing. It's trying to maintain that everywhere. And while I admire the business and -- and what all you're doing with that and I acknowledge there may be a problem with visibility, it doesn't -- doesn't meet county code, and I'm not sure there's a -- that you've demonstrated a hardship here, particularly with your client having just purchased the property two years ago, and the sign ordinance has been -- has had this aspect of it since 1991, I believe. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: 1991. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's certainly something that you had a responsibility to be aware of at the time of purchase. MR. HART: Commissioner, I certainly respect your opinion and -- and your decision. I just would again point out that this doesn't open the floodgates. This isn't the same property that -- that would be applicable to every other place in Collier County. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- it -- it might. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It might, and -- and you did make a very good presentation, and -- and I think all of us can empathize with the particular problems concerning this -- this exact piece of property. But, you know, a lot of properties can come up here and say, well, we're only 75 feet and we have -- in addition to the 75-feet frontage, we -- we have this problem and that problem and so forth. And it has been our policy -- and as recently as just a few weeks ago we denied a similar property that's just off of the map that you sent us, and I don't -- You know, like I say, while we empathize with -- with the peculiarities of this property, personally I'm not willing to -- to grant the variance on this one. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill says there are no public speakers. I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'll make a motion that we decline. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll base that on special circum -- Special conditions and circumstances do not exist, that it would not be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the code and that -- I lost the other one. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's enough. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's plenty, I think. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to deny the petition for the reasons stated. Any further discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes four to zero. Item #13A3 RESOLUTION 95-670 RE PETITION V-95-23, RANSOM C. REED REPRESENTING ALFRED P. AND JANE K. QUILICI, REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF TWO INTERIOR WALLS FROM THE REQUIRED ONE AND TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A UTILITY/STORAGE AREA NOT TO EXCEED 225 SQUARE FEET FROM THE 120 SQUARE FEET ALLOWED IN SECTION 2.2.11.2.2 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS UNIT 523, IMPERIAL WILDERNESS CONDOHINIUH, SECTION THREE - ADOPTED Next item on the agenda is petition V-95-23, request for a variance. MR. REISCHL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Fred Reischl, planning services. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before we go on, those -- those things that were presented to us in the last public hearing, those need to be part of the public record, don't they? He's wandering off with those. MR. WEIGEL: Well -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Photographs and -- MR. WEIGEL: If he -- Only if he wants them to be a part of the record -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: -- for purposes of any further activity. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much. MR. DORRILL: Excuse me. Mr. Hart. Mr. Hart. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Hart. MR. HART: Yes. MR. DORRILL: Did you hear that last question? Were you desirous of making your exhibits part of the record this afternoon? If -- If so, we need them. If -- If not, you're free to take them. MR. HART: Yes. Yes, I would like to do that. MR. DORRILL: Thank you very much. MR. HART: I'll just leave them. MR. DORRILL: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sorry about that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Go ahead. MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl with planning services. This request for interior renovations on a park model travel trailer beyond the specifications that are required by the Land Development Code in order to improve wheelchair accessibility in concert with the Americans Disabilities Act. Staff recommends approval. The Planning Commission recommended approval with -- In addition to the staff's stipulation, they'd also recommended that staff look towards amending the Land Development Code to allow administrative approval of handicap alterations of this type in the future, and the Planning Commission also recommended that the commission refund Mr. Quilici his application fee. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like all of those, particularly the part about staff being able to -- to say we can comply with federal law without having to go to the board. MR. REISCHL: Well, actually -- COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Good grief. MR. REISCHL: Not -- Not to contradict, but they're not applying -- They don't have to apply the ADA to this because it's a private residence. They want to, but it's not a requirement. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. I think you should -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What -- What is the fee? MR. REISCHL: $425 -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why -- MR. REISCHL: -- regular variance fee. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me, but why -- why do they want to comply with the ADA when they don't have to? MR. REISCHL: They have a handicapped son, and they wanted -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. REISCHL: -- to allow -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just like for him -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- to be able to get around. MR. REISCHL: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I -- I understand. I'm just HR. REISCHL: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm just asking why. MR. REISCHL: Yes. That's -- That's -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Handicapped son. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It seems logical enough. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Public speakers? MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am. I believe the petitioner is here only in the event that you have questions. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- Chairman, motion to approve -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- subject to the stipulations as outlined in the staff report. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. Third. When particularly that -- that direction to staff -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I guess we just took the vote. We have a third. MR. REISCHL: Is that including stipulations from the Planning -- or the suggestions from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It is absolutely in my vote, particularly that somebody shouldn't have to come to the board to be able to do this for their house. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I believe the motion was to include the stipulations placed on it by the Planning Commission. Is that correct, motionmaker? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Second, is that your assumption also? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, it is. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I thought it was. If there's no further discussion, I'll call the question. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes four to zero. Item #14 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COMMUNICATIONS That concludes our agenda for the day. We're at communications. Commissioner Norris, is there anything? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: (Shaking head.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner MAc'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. Thank you for approving the FTZ item today. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. We -- We did some good things today, didn't we? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. No. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. No. Thank you for doing all the work. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. No. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have nothing. Mr. Dotrill. MR. DORRILL: I have two -- two quick items. I -- I'd like to commend our young sheriff deputy today who expended more energy than Lieutenant Canady has in the past three years. Also I -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's unfortunate that -- that that happened. MR. DORRILL: We'll -- We'll have to kid Paul about that next week. I received a copy of a memo from Commissioner MAc'Kie who is interested in -- in scheduling or discussing with board members having a water summit at the next fifth Tuesday meeting, and I only wanted to offer that we had had a -- for what it's worth, a water summit in conjunction with Lee County, Charlotte County, and the South Florida Water MAnagement District who -- who came over here at the request of Miss Boyd last year, and I would -- you know, I can endeavor to pursue that, but I wanted to see what -- what initiated your interest and then see what the board wanted to do. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I probably should have given you more details in a memo. What -- I had a group of constituents ask me to get a group of people together so that they could begin to talk about flooding and water management issues generally, and this is an outgrowth of that discussion. We've had a group that included -- Barbara Bova, Chris Straton, Fran Stallings, and just about everybody on Mr. Dorrill's staff and the South Florida Water MAnagement staff, and Valetie Boyd have all participated in this. Valetie and her staff have, frankly, taken this over a little bit and are organizing a workshop, a public workshop. And that's -- frankly, appears is going to happen whether it is an official Collier County board workshop or not, but they are hoping that we are interested enough in the issue that we will schedule it as at least a portion of our regular workshop -- fifth Tuesday workshop. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you know specifically what ground this will cover that we did not cover in our last -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I think that the goal of this group, anyway, is to have a stormwater management plan developed by the county, that we, frankly, don't have one presently that's acceptable to anybody. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That -- That goal wouldn't include a stormwater utility and associated tax, would it? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, it would not include a stormwater utility because apparently those aren't well received by the courts but would -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Nor by this board. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, true. The last time you discussed it, I understand you turned it down. I'm telling you that there's a grounds well of people who are interested in having the discussion again, and the discussion will go forward. They hope that it will go forward with your participation. I'm responding to the request of these people who have asked for it to come up again, and -- and I support it absolutely. MR. DORRILL: I'll just make a suggestion. Then we'll -- Let's direct it. Otherwise, we'll pursue it from this angle. When we were in Lee County last week, we did discuss an initiative that is being brought sort of by the Big Cypress Basin Board to explore in conjunction with people in southern Lee County and Bonita Springs the possibility of either works of the basin involving and including Lee County or the basin even expanding into Lee County. And if we can continue from a staff perspective to bring that along, I can report to you whether we'll be prepared to do that in January or our next fifth Tuesday meeting which would occur in April. That's -- I just offer that for your consideration. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We could do it January 23, that Tuesday. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: When you're going to be gone; right? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me -- Let me -- Let me ask this. Commissioner Hac'Kie, has -- has this group reviewed the -- the minutes of that meeting that occurred -- When was it? February or -- last year? MR. DORRILL: I'll say it was March. I'm not -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: March? MR. DORRILL: -- exactly sure. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of the county meeting where the stormwater utility was rejected? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. No. No. No. No. The water -- The water summit that we had last March. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Most of these people participated in that meeting. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They participated in that meeting. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh. Go down that list. I mean, we're talking about people who would -- were leaders of that meeting. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And so what is it we're trying to accomplish that was not accomplished before? I think that -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What's different? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- question needs to be answered. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's different probab -- Maybe nothing. But what's different is that some of us are trying to revive the idea of stormwater management in Collier County, and this is that group. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Now, isn't -- But the outshoot of this last discussion that we already had, if I'm not mistaken, it turns out that it's the Big Cypress Basin Board's responsibility to develop that plan. Is that not true? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, yes, but at -- at this meeting that we had in our conference room with this group of people I was talking about, Valetie Boyd and her staff chairman -- Who is that? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: VanBuskirk. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. -- Represented to us that there is already in the -- in the basin adequate data for Collier County to base a stormwater management plan and -- and that they would be providing that data to us, that their work has progressed to a point that they are prepared to give us data adequate to prepare a stormwater management plan for Collier County. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But it's their responsibility, not ours, is my understanding. Is that -- Am I wrong on that or -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's what my understanding is. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess, yeah, but it's a question of who's going to drive that train, and I don't really understand. Why would we leave that to them? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, the same reason we would leave -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Because the legislature said that they're to do it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But we can lead them down that process, or we can wait for them. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We can take over responsibility for state government functions and the federal government functions too but -- I mean, it's just not appropriate. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me ask Mr. Dotrill a question because we met on this with Mr. VanBuskirk and John Boldt and Glenn Simpson a week and a half ago, and we were trying to find ways to speed the completion of this plan. Have you and Mr. -- Mr. VanBuskirk been able to address that yet? MR. DORRILL: Not yet, although he said that he wanted to compile some information for us to consider, and that's why I was -- If I could -- I was trying to get a gist of where Commissioner Mac'Kie had us headed, and then as we do some staff work, if we can bring back a proposal to you that is of interest to you, whether it's a staff-participation workshop or the board wants to make it a joint workshop with the basin board, that's -- I was just raising it because it was brought to my attention yesterday. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree with Commissioner Norris, that the basin board has a responsibility. They should fulfill their own responsibility, not expect us to do it for them. Secondarily, we only have a chance to have four or five of these workshops a year, and we've made an effort to prioritize what we'll do with each of those. I, for one, am not ready to bump those priorities for this, particularly having just had that session six months ago, eight months ago. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I'd like to follow more closely because I -- I'm interested in -- in getting -- in getting a drainage -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Swing vote. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- program -- I mean, I -- I'm not interested at this point in having another meeting that merely replicates what we did last March. But what I am interested in doing is finding a way to speed the process of that plan, and Mr. Dotrill and I together were working on that. And -- And if we can resolve that in the next week or ten days, I -- I think that our effort would be better expended there to -- to try to bring that plan forward faster. It's a basin plan, but if we can add some technical support to it and -- and move it faster -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, and if this group is interested in having a public workshop and a public discussion, that's certainly something that they can choose to go forward and do. I'll just report to them that the board was not interested in doing it in one of their fifth Tuesday workshops, having had a similar experience about eight months ago. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I -- I would -- I would recommend that your group get -- your citizens part of that group get the minutes of that meeting, read them over, and see what we need to do in addition to what was done there. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think that we're already there. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Mr. Weigel. That's all? MR. DORRILL: That's all. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: Yes. One brief item. The -- The sheriff municipal service taxing unit ordinances, as the board is aware and the county manager is aware and many others, ordinance have been drafted and passed out for comments. The time is approaching where those comments must be in so that we can advertise an ordinance with any revisions for public hearing. The public hearing date would -- through normal advertisement, would be December 19. I -- I think the record may show that there was something to come back December 12, but December 19 would be the -- the public hearing date before the Board of County Commissioners as the date to adopt that ordinance which must be adopted -- ordinances which must be adopted before the end of the calendar year. The City of Naples as well as the city manager and the city attorney have been working with us, and they are projecting a first reading of the city ordinance that they would adopt on December 6 and a second reading and potentially adoption on December 20, the day after the board would have its hearing on these ordinances. Mayor Butler of Everglades City has been in touch with us, and we're working with their counsel, Tony Pires and Chris Lombardo, and they like what they've read, is the report from the mayor, and they are scheduling their hearing dates on an ordinance that they would adopt endorsing the county ordinances for December 5 and December 15. So we're moving forward with all due speed in that regard, but if there are any comments from any commissioners -- or I think the county manager has some -- we look forward to -- to get them quickly so that we can provide ordinances to both -- to both cities so that they can go forward with their hearing process and we can get into the advertisement that we need to do. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Finished? MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Miss Filson, we're done? MS. FILSON: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're adjourned. ***** Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner Hancock and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted: ***** Item #16A1 FINAL PLAT OF "BRIARWOOD, UNIT FOUR" - WITH CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT See Pages Item #16A2 FINAL PLAT OF "BRIARWOOD, UNIT FIVE" - WITH CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT See Pages Item #16A3 RESOLUTION 95-656 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "LELY RESORT PHASE ELEVEN" Item #16A4 See Pages RESOLUTION 95-657 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "HIDDEN HARBOUR AT VICTORIA PARK" See Pages Item #16A5 AGREEMENT FOR THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ARTIFICIAL REEF GRANT FOR THE ARTIFICIAL REEF PROGRAM OF COLLIER COUNTY See Pages Item #16A6 SECURITY IN FORM OF CASH BOND FOR EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.551 "CLUB MARCO" Item #16A7 CHAIRMAN TO SIGN LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR A $500,000 GRANT FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY See Pages Item #16A8 RESOLUTION 95-658 APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF "BERKSHIRE LANDINGS" See Pages Item #16B1 RENEWAL OF THREE AGREEMENTS FOR VARIOUS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES See Pages Item #1682 - Deleted Item #1683 FUNDING FOR CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO THE BAREFOOT BEACH PARKING LOT CONTRACT Item #1684 FUNDING OF THE CITY/COUNTY WATER INTERCONNECT AND NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS Item #1685 STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION CASE NUMBER 94-2934-CA-01-TB FOR BONITA BEACH ROAD FOUR-LANING IMPROVEMENTS Item #1686 RESOLUTION 95-659, 95-660, AND 95-661 FOR RECORDING PLATS AND RESOLUTIONS OF ESTABLISHMENT OF THE VANDERBILT BEACH, NAPLES BEACH, AND PARK SHORE EROSION CONTROL LINES See Pages Item #1687 CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 TO CONTRACT NO. 94-2253, BEACH CLEANING OPERATIONS ON MARCH ISLAND See Pages Item #1688 - Continued to 12/5/95 Item #1689 - Moved to Item #884 Item #16B10 BUDGET AMENDMENTS OF $11,700 FOR INTERFUND TRANSFERS FROM COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT RESERVES FOR CONTINGENCIES TO REVENUE SERVICES TO REPLACE A METER READING TRUCK Item #16C1 ACCEPTANCE OF LIBRARY LONG RANGE PLAN, IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR FY 1996 LIBRARY OPERATION GRANT (STATE AID TO LIBRARIES), ADMINISTERED BY THE STATE LIBRARY OF FLORIDA See Pages Item #16D1 - Deleted Item #16D2 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN PELICAN HARSH COHMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND THE BCC TO PROVIDE METER READING AND EFFLUENT BILLING SERVICES Item #16D3 See Pages SATISFACTION OF CLAIH OF LIEN FOR WESLEY H. AND JANIS I. SCHUHKNECHT IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,880.00 See Pages Item #16D4 SATISFACTIONS OF NOTICE OF PROMISE TO PAY AND AGREEMENT TO EXTEND PAYMENT OF SEWER SYTEH IMPACT FEES See Pages Item #16D5 ADDITION TO LIST OF PRE-QUALIFIED EMINENT DOMAIN APPRAISERS OF KENNETH R. DEVOS, HA1, AND WOODWARD S. HANSON, HIA Item #16D6 - Deleted Item #16D7 - Deleted Item #16D8 SELECTION OF METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY AS THE COUNTY'S GROUP LIFE INSURANCE CARRIER Item #16G1 CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLL AS PRESENTED BY THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE 1995 TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY NO. DATE 26/27 11/08/95 1995 REAL PROPERTY 79 11/09/95 85/93 11/13/95 - 11/14/95 99/102 11/14/95 Item #1662 SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER See Pages Item #1663 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the Board of County Commissioners was filed and/or referred to the various departments as indicated: Item #16H1 CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF NAPLES AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR THE USE OF THE SPECIFIC COUNTY VOTING AND BALLOT TABULATION EQUIPMENT FOR THE CITY ELECTION OF FEBRUARY 6, 1996 See Pages There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 4:31 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL BETTYE J. MATTHEWS, CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Barbara A. Donovan and Christine E. Whitfield