Loading...
BCC Minutes 09/03/1996 R REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:10 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: John C. Norris VICE-CHAIRMAN: Timothy L. Hancock Timothy J. Constantine Pamela S. Hac'Kie Bettye J. Matthews ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dorrill, County Manager David Weigel, County Attorney Item #3 AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll call the county commission meeting to order on September 3, 1996. Mr. Dotrill, if you could lead us in an invocation and a pledge to the flag, please. MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, this morning we give thanks for our country and for this election day, and it's our prayer this morning that the citizens of this community would participate in the democratic process and -- and go out and -- and cast their ballots today and that you would bless this community today. Father, our thoughts also go to the Middle East today as there is new strife and -- and warfare in the Middle East and in particular that you would guard the safety of Americans who are on duty throughout the Middle East today. Father, as always, it's our prayer that the direction and guidance and the conviction be provided to this commission today as they make important business decisions that affect our community and that this would be both a beneficial and a fruitful time as part of this meeting and that you would bless this time together. And we pray these things in your Son's holy name. Amen. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill, I see there's a couple of changes to our agenda this morning? MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. Good morning, commissioners. Welcome back. We have several add-on items this morning and then o~e continuance. The first add-on item that I have this morning is under public works. It will be 8(B)(4). This is a recommendation to terminate a construction agreement and contract at our convenience for phase 2 utility work within the Riviera Colony subdivision and to then negotiate a new contract to complete the balance of that work with a -- a separate contractor. We have an additional add-on item, item 8(E)(1), which will be under the executive office report which is a request to approve a settlement agreement between the county, the Collier County utility rate regulation authority, and Southern States Utilities regarding the payment of regulatory fees and general compliance with your utility rate regulation ordinance, 96-6. I have one item under other constitutional officers at the request of the sheriff. It will be item ll(A) which is a request to execute a grant application for a project called Cops More. And I have one item we'd like to continue today. It's item 16(A)(13) under community development and on your consent agenda. It's the resolution of a lien for a code enforcement action, and that will be rescheduled as necessary. There is one agenda note there today, and Ms. Morgan had asked the board to remind everyone in the community that today is election day and that any voter regardless of party that was registered prior to August the 5th is eligible and encouraged to vote today. And that's all that I have, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, anything else? MR. WEIGEL: No, no further changes. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, nothing. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, one item. I'd like to add an item, board giving direction to the TDC for category C funding parameters. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You're -- you want to add that on? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, I'd like to -- MR. DORRILL: 10(B). COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry? MR. DORRILL: 10(B). COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that's all I had. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have no changes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have a motion? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'd make a motion we accept the agenda as amended. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for the agenda. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #4 MINUTES OF JULY 23, 1996, REGULAR MEETING; AUGUST 6, 1996 REGULAR MEETING; AUGUST 7, 1996 SPECIAL MEETING; AUGUST 13, 1996 REGULAR MEETING; AND AUGUST 14, 1996 SPECIAL MEETING - APPROVED AS PRESENTED We have a number of minutes to approve. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I make a motion that we approve the regular meeting minutes of July 23, 1996; August 6, 1996; and August 13, 1996; in addition to the special meeting minutes of August 7, 1996, and August 14, 1996. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for approval of these minutes. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #5A1 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER AS CHILDHOOD CANCER AWARENESS WEEK - ADOPTED We have a proclamation, Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We do indeed. Is Mike Constantine here? Mike, how are you? Come on up. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I keep telling him it's Constantine, not Constantine, but he won't listen. MR. CONSTANTINE: Either way. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, we'll both accept it either way. We have the following proclamation. Yeah, we have to turn around and face everyone in the room and in TV land. Whereas, Florida's greatest resource and most cherished treasures are indeed our youth who truly have so much to offer. Included in this population are those children with special needs who suffer from childhood cancer and blood-related disease; and Whereas, while the research and treatment of today has extended the lives and made a positive impact upon the life experiences of many of these children and while the number of long-term survivors is slowly increasing, it is essential that we work together as a people and as a state to ensure that this trend continues on the upscale; and Whereas, dedicated organizations like Candlelighters of Southwest Florida Incorporated remain deeply committed to expanding the resources and education available to families whose children have cancer or blood-related disease; and Whereas, Florida, proud home of some of the finest medical institutions in the world whose professional staff are presently at the forefront in cancer research and other advances, is pleased to join in recognizing and applauding the valuable role which families of childhood cancer patients play in helping our medical community to reach great heights in the name of caring. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the month of September 1996 be designated as Childhood Cancer Awareness Month. Done and ordered this 3d day of September, Board of County Commissioners, John C. Norris, chairman. A little aside to this, Mike's daughter is one of the -- is proof positive of the progress being made. She's doing great. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's great. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion we approve this proclamation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you want to say anything? MR. CONSTANTINE: On behalf of Candlelighters of Southwest Florida, I'd like to thank the board for your support during September, Childhood Cancer Awareness Month. As a parent of a child with cancer, I can attest to the great support they offer to the children and their families. We currently have 165 families, and we continue to grow. We would like to invite the board and the public to an educational forum to be held at Health Park Hospital in Fort Myers on Wednesday -- that's tomorrow -- and the topic will be core blood transplants. And it's a new and promising treatment alternative to bone marrow transplants. And we're also hosting our second annual golf tournament to be held at Lexington Country Club also in Fort Myers. And that's September 21. And if anybody is interested in more information on the organization, I have a toll-free number. And if it's all right, I'd like to leave some information out on the desk outside. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Sure. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks, Mike. MR. CONSTANTINE: Thank you. Item #7A PAUL LISTENBERGER REQUESTING A WAIVER OF FEES FOR KIWANIS CLUB OF GOLDEN GATE - REQUEST DENIED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Our next item is a public petition by Paul Listenberger concerning a request for waiver of fees for Kiwanis Club of Golden Gate. MR. LISTENBERGER: Good morning. I'm Paul Listenberger with the Kiwanis Club of Golden Gate. We had a block party last year. It was our first one. It turned out so great, so we was going to do it again this year. And so I wanted to see about getting the fees waived for that block party. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Dorrill, did we waive these fees last year? MR. DORRILL: I -- I can't recall. I know the -- we -- in some instances we will waive landfill tipping fees for -- for clean-ups. I'm not sure that we've ever waived just special event permit fees. Staff's indicating no. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How much is the fee? MR. LISTENBERGER: Like 115, $115. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I know we've had this discussion in the past that we -- there's no such thing as waiving. It's basically paying the fee through general fund. In other words, it has to get paid anyway. What happens is it comes out of the general fund as opposed to just never existing. So because of that we've had to take a little more strict line on -- on the type of events that we we consider for that. And it's no indication on the worthiness of your event. But I think this -- because it doesn't have a history of doing it, I -- I'm not inclined to waive the fee for this event unless there's something I'm -- I'm missing here. We've done it for special equestrians but -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm trying to remember. It seems like there are a couple times we have -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- have done it. I'm -- I'm trying to remember specifics because it doesn't do you much good to just throw it out there vaguely, but it seems to me we have. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But it seems to me we -- I mean, as much as I support your efforts that if we're going to have a special -- I mean, every single special event is gonna -- is almost always for a good purpose. So we should have the fee or abolish it. MR. LISTENBERGER: Excuse me. Last year we did pay the fees. When I went to the county this year to get the permit, they informed me that if I brought it to the county commission that I could get the fees waived. So I thought, well, 115 bucks is a lot of money at Kiwanis when you're looking for donations. So I said, okay. We postponed it, and here I am. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Dorrill, we may need to have a discussion with a staff member over there. MR. DORRILL: Friendly staff. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I apologize for that. But again, consistent with what we've been doing at least for the last year, I'm -- I'm not inclined to -- to waive the fee on this particular event. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I think we've done it often enough already with other groups that we're gonna have a difficult time singling out the Kiwanis. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We -- we've done it for strictly charitable groups. I'm not sure that we do it for a group -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Service groups. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- like the Kiwanis, a service group. I don't think we've done that before. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't think so, and I really hate to -- to -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- the money you raise goes where? MR. LISTENBERGER: It goes to the community, back to the community. Host of it goes for kids, different events. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But, guys '- MR. LISTENBERGER: This event is free, most of it. I mean, you know, you -- it's not a fund raiser. This is to give back to our community. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, if we're gonna do this, I mean, I hate to say this, but you guys who just hate that social service money that we used to give, I mean, this seems a whole lot like that and -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask a question. How much staff time do we spend processing a special events permit? I mean, if it's a 2-hour process and we got somebody that's making 40,000 bucks a year doing it, then maybe we need that $115. But if it's a five-minute or less look over the form and file it somewhere, then I'm not sure I understand the purpose of the 115, as Commissioner Hancock said. Maybe we need to look at rescinding the -- the policy. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That was me, but maybe -- I think we either ought to have a fee or not, but I don't think we ought to waive it on a case by case. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What we need to do is make a decision on what we're gonna do here. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: With -- with all due deference to the Kiwanis and the work you do, sir, I -- I think we need to be a little more consistent than we have in the past. And I agree with Commissioner Mac'Kie. Either we have a policy or we don't. So I'm going to move that we -- we do not waive the fee on this particular event. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess since it's a public petition we're just taking consensus, but add me to that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I don't support that only because we've done it in the past, and I think we're beginning to single -- single out a particular group. And I think if we're going to adjust our policy to be different than what it's been, then we should give direction to that but -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. But for the moment our policy is what our policy is. So I guess we'll move forward and -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I apologize for the time you've taken. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Three -- three to not do the waiver. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Logical question, Mr. Dotrill, do you know the answer to the point I just raised as far as how much time is spent with that? And perhaps in the future we can change our policy accordingly. MR. DORRILL: I -- I don't know how much time. I don't -- I don't know specifically what permits or coordination -- I'm sure there's coordination with the sheriff's department and the transportation department for barricading the street, and there may or may not be a separate cost to have live entertainment or music and __ and those types of things. But if you're interested, we'll be -- we'll do all that research and provide it back to you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Bring that back at some future meeting. It doesn't have to be on a rush basis, but bring it back so that we can at least examine it because we have a couple of commissioners up here that are saying they want to -- want to make sure that we have a policy in place that they -- they concur with. Thank you, sir. MR. LISTENBERGER: I would like to say, though, on September 14, Golden Gate Sunshine parking lot, if you have kids, Come on out; and if you don't have kids come on out. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Golden Gate Sunshine parking lot, that's on the Parkway at 951 on the north end, north side? MR. LISTENBERGER: Right, right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. LISTENBERGER: Thank you. Item #8A1 DISCUSSION OF FEES GENERATED FROM BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATIONS IN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION - STAFF RECOMMENDATION ACCEPTED; INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT TO PROVIDE COST OF LICENSE FOR TIME KEEPER SYSTEM CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Move on then to 8(A)(1), discussion of fees generated from building and development permit applications. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I just start off with a question for the county attorney, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Sure. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel, I hear that there is an attorney general's opinion that we -- that we are charging -- basically that we're charging the maximum that's lawful in the attorney general's opinion for building permit fees. But I haven't seen the opinion. Is that correct? MR. WEIGEL: No, that's not exactly correct. But -- and I've -- I've attempted to get the opinion to you. I have copies of the opinion here to which I can pass out even immediately for you if you'd like but -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: As I understood that -- that the parameters, that that attorney general's opinion while guided -- while, you know, guidance and not binding, you know, we would take it very seriously that it would -- that our parameters for this discussion were limited to fees other than building permit fees; in other words, PUD application fees, development review fees. MR. WEIGEL: That's right, and that was the clarification I wanted to make to your initial question there is that the discussion and direction that the board had -- had given to development services staff encompassed more than mere building permit fees but essentially looking at all of the fees that are embraced within the services of development services and to make sure that they are appropriate and reflect the -- the work relationship of even Some departments that have not been incorporated into the fee structure. And I had told the board several weeks ago when -- when this was -- had first come up that similar to other fee applications such as impact fees, for example, there's always a -- a need and a desirability to show a rational basis and nexus or connection between a particular fee and the services that are provided and as the board and the staff in the public forum had had a bit of discussion in regard to comprehensive plan, long range planning, and some of the __ some of the services that aren't currently embraced within the -- the matrix of individual fees that -- that come for services out of development services department. And the attorney general opinion that you're referencing is a 1989 attorney general opinion to Palm Beach County, and it was discussing whether building permit fees could take into account some of the costs for services and implementing and regulating the comprehensive plan. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is -- is a building inspection fee -- this refers to building inspection fees. Is that a building permit fee? MR. WEIGEL: That's a -- Vince certainly can go forward with a little more description, but that's the building permit fee and/or CO and the inspections that go -- that go with that, the building element of a particular structure. We have other fees with the county that involve services and permits that are provided that are above and beyond and different than the building permit fees. So from that standpoint I think that the attorney general opinion has some limitation in this application but it's -- but it's valuable as a -- as a general statement indicating that building permit fees which provide -- attempt to provide for the costs of inspection services cannot be a catch-all for unrelated matters. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And is that what our building permit fee does? I mean, is that -- is the Palm Beach County fee analogous to ours? Do you know that, Mr. Cautero? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually, Commissioner Hac'Kie, if -- if I may, I think Mr. Cautero probably has the exact information you're looking for. What you're asking for in a nutshell is the cost associated with a building permit fee is what is charged, the cost associated with a PUD application is what should be charged, and the cost associated with a preliminary subdivision plat is what should be charged. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And -- and -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And if we do that, we are, in fact, consistent with the AGO. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that including -- that we should include in that analysis as much of the comprehensive planning and natural resources and graphics and other functions as is legally permissible. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That is generated by the request. I imagine Mr. Cautero has the answer to that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm '- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Cautero, set us straight on this one. MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero for the record. Good morning, commissioners. I -- I would agree with what Commissioner Hancock had just told you. I believe that that is a basis for any rational nexus when you're looking at those programs that you are funding and those projects, what is the relationship to the development review process and the building permit process. And that's what we've attempted to do in our discussion on July 23 that the board had after my presentation was trying to bring those things together to come up with a fee that the board would charge. One thing to keep in mind, when the board adopted its fee resolution some years back, not the revised resolution last year with the 50 -- 50 percent decrease, but when the resolution was first adopted, there were findings made that the process was all encompassing, if you will, and that the monies collected from building permits and development review fees was going to one pot which is the 113 fund which funds the entire operation which used to be called development services. Now with the reorganization, that is split out through different departments and different sections, but the intent was to put all that money into one pot. The building permit fees then are really going across the board like the development review fees funding the entire development review operation. Genetically I like to call it development permit fees, and that money is all into one pot if that answers your question -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh, it does. MR. CAUTERO: -- in that regard. Briefly, commissioners, the executive summary contains the line-by-line breakdown that you requested at your August 13 meeting which would show the permit fee increase necessary to raise the additional $727,000 to fund the various programs that were discussed by the board in July and also at your budget workshops very briefly in June. The resolution then would be adopted later this month if the board is amenable to these potential fee increases. Again, the permit fee increases line by line show a 15.7 percent increase due to the fact that it was the easiest way to do it, quite frankly. No organization that we've met with has supported the concept at this point. The Development Services Advisory Committee on two occasions at their July and August meeting stated that they don't believe that the fee increase should take place for these purposes. However, what staff did was come back with some scenarios at your August 13 meeting. And we believe that the best course of action if you're going to adopt this program would be to implement a 15.7 percent fee increase across the board. I will tell you in your executive summary on page 8 of the development review permit fees, there are some new fees that we've included in there to raise some money. We don't know what those would bring into the county. But one of those fees we believe is necessary, and that is an official letter of authorization that the planning department or the building department may have to issue for people that rely on that information either for sale or purchase of property. I'm estimating that would bring in several thousand dollars, but we won't know until we have a full year to analyze. Another fee that we did increase or were proposing to increase more than 15.7 percent is reinspection fees. Currently our reinspection fee on a house or a commercial structure is $16. We believe that doesn't nearly pay our cost to go out there. I'm estimating that it would cost closer to $25 on the first one, 35 on the second, and 50 on the third and thereafter. That is a substantial increase, but I feel strongly about that recommendation as does the building official. That's the only one that you'll see that's quite a bit higher than 15.7. One thing -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Cautero, I have a -- I have a question on what you just said. Why is it a graduated scale first, second, or third because immediately on the surface it sounds like a penalty as opposed to what it really costs? MR. CAUTERO: That's what it's for. It's a penalty. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It should be. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do we have the authority to issue penalty costs associated with building permits? MR. CAUTERO: We -- we do that with variances. They're approximately two or three, maybe four times the cost of the variance application. And also when someone applies for permits after the fact, it's three or four times -- I believe it's three or four times the permit fee. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. CAUTERO: Not to exceed a certain amount. There are penalty fees in your resolution. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think that makes sense. The -- the point that I'm still confused about is if we're gonna accept this AGO -- and I think that we should -- the attorney general's opinion, then it seems to me that the 15.7 percent across-the-board increase is contradictory to what the attorney general's opinion says we're permitted to do. I thought that the attorney general's opinion said you can only -- that -- that our parameters for increasing fees would be limited to not -- anything other than a building permit. MR. CAUTERO: Sir? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hac'Kie, have you read the attorney general's opinion? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just sort of scanned it right now. But isn't that what you told us, Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Pretty much so. What I -- what I -- I want to make sure that everyone understands is that the building permit fees and other fees that were established or reestablished, reaffirmed, last fall, for instance, just because they have a fixed amount that's been recognized by the board does not mean that they capture or are going to be immutable in time whether it's building permit fees or the other fees that are -- that are part of that resolution enactment. So it probably pays, pun intended I guess, it pays development services to look at this regularly to determine are they, in fact, capturing the true cost of the services they are providing for each element. But pursuant to the attorney general opinion, it is appropriate to look at each element of service comparing it to each element of fee exaction so that you have a basis there. Another thing in regard to the penalty provisions that exist, again, if we look at -- in some cases if we look at the policy behind the penalty as well as the extra costs that development services sector has to involve itself with with after-the-fact situations, again, those I feel much more confident are defensible on a -- on an issue-by-issue basis as opposed to the broad 15.73 percent across-the-board kind of increase. And as your counsel we would prefer if those are ever challenged to answer the challenge to penalty type of fees. As we would, we wouldn't lose the babe -- baby with the bath water arguably. We would be defending on those particular penalty items. But the big picture, yes, the attorney general opinion, as you state, Miss Mac'Kie, would -- would appear to indicate that an across-the-board, enveloping increase does not work because you have to show, just as we do with impact fees and other fees, a relationship from the service that's being charged and -- and the service being provided. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I realize, Mr. Cautero, you know, we sprung this on you and you had to -- you know, on this short amount of time that we gave from budget hearings till -- till now try to come up with a way. But what I guess I'm worried about is on the record and honestly we're saying that a 15 percent across the board is because it's the easiest way to do it and we don't have enough time to do it more -- do a more thorough analysis. That worries me. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think there may be a -- there may be another answer to that question. And that is that we do not have a specific time accounting program within development services that allows us to to the penny determine the exact cost of review of every PUD that's ever come through or at least in the last 12 months. So sometimes you have to make a professional estimate of what that cost is based on experience. And I think we have one of the more experienced individuals in front of us giving us that estimate. Mr. Cautero, you've been very candid on this item in the past. And in your professional estimation, do the numbers that are being presented to us today fairly reflect the review costs of each application as it comes through? And I'm asking for your professional opinion on that. MR. CAUTERO: The exact costs, no. The costs are higher. And the reason that they're higher is they're based on valuation tables from the Southern Building Congress International, and the reason that they do that is because there are different levels of review for different types of project. So the SBCCI has done a great deal of research in determining -- and I'm talking just about building permit fees -- in determining what is a reasonable cost to review a structure, plan review a structure, and inspect that structure. And a lot of communities in Florida have adopted those valuation tables as the basis for their building permits. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: When, in fact, the cost is actually higher you're saying? MR. CAUTERO: I believe the cost on the permits is actual to the penny higher than what you might be paying people. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. CAUTERO: But keep one thing in mind. Your building permits generate somewhere between 3.8 and 4 million dollars per year. The cost to run your building department is 2.2 million. That money goes into the pot that pays for all of development review because the other applications don't bring in enough to offset the costs for your, shall I say, planning review and development review functions. So it balances out in the long run, but the building permits are the lion's share because that's where the action is, if you will. That's where more of the applications are coming in and paying more dollars because there's just more permits there. It balances out in the long run. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But in the approach you're proposing today, we have an increase proposed to those nonbuilding permit areas -- MR. CAUTERO: As well as building permits. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- as well as building permits. MR. CAUTERO: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. But those nonbuilding permit areas, what is proposed today, are you comfortable that it is -- is an equitable amount to cover the cost of review? MR. CAUTERO: Oh, yes. I'm comfortable it's an equitable cost to cover review, although I would like to look at it a little bit more closely, and I will with the Development Services Advisory Committee. If we didn't raise -- I know you have another question. But if we didn't raise building permit fees -- we did some calculations, and that was in the memo August 13 -- your development review permit fees would be looking at a 60 percent increase. And I don't believe that would be equitable if you didn't raise building permits also because some of this could be attributed in our analysis to building permits and I believe the board's analysis that you add it to ours on July 23. The 15.7 is the easiest way to do it at this point in time, and no organization that we met with actually went through it and said, "We don't agree with that. That should only be an 8 percent increase," or "That shouldn't be at all. Raise the next COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But that might be because we haven't had time for that level of analysis I have to say. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, and we don't have the tools, Commissioner Hac'Kie, and that -- that was my second question. With the IT department putting PCs on every desk in development services, we should not have a problem implementing a log-on, log- off program with individual PCs that can track time spent on project-specific areas. This was a pet of mine two years ago when we always talked about government operating more like a business. There's -- there's no amount of engineers and planners that don't turn in time sheets every day in private sector. Now, it may not always be practical, but with -- with a -- a computer on every desk over there, okay, which I'm not sure if we're there yet but we're close, log-on, log-off times and record of that done during test patterns throughout the year would be exactly what we need to either buttress or -- or verify or not verify the amounts that we're charging, and I think that's a possibility with a little work from IT. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's the same thing we've asked the law -- our legal department to do. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- I suspect we have a few public speakers on this? MR. DORRILL: You have -- you have one. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Just one? MR. DORRILL: Mr. Ward. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Ward, if you would. MR. WARD: Thank you, commissioners. My name is Whit Ward, and I represent the Collier Building Industry Association. Let me start -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Ward, who's that you got with you there? MR. WARD: That's our bull dog in case we have to turn him loose. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Gone over to the dark side. MR. WARD: Right, yeah. That's -- and -- and I can understand -- I can understand your thinking. However, let me start by saying we -- we really appreciate your cooperation and the cooperation of -- of your staff in this matter. We have -- we feel like we've always been fair in payment of our permit fees, and we - we want to continue to do that. We really do, and we want to work with you. And -- and we understand the need to balance this budget. We understand that. We -- our concern is that we don't want a balanced budget on the backs of new homeowners. We think the state law is pretty specific as to what can and cannot be charged to building permit fees. However -- and -- and -- and we believe our -- that the state law applies to horizontal construction as well as vertical construction. However, we -- again, we have the immediate issue and problem of how are -- what are -- how are we going to get through this year? What's going to happen this year? And -- and I tell you what I think we would recommend. First, we think there have been more building permit fees collected. Now, building permit fees to me are collective. They're -- they're development, permit, everything. But there -- there have been more fees collected thus far this year than we have anticipated, than we had anticipated. So we're going to have some money there. What we would recommend that we do is go ahead and raise the fees across the board the amount of money that it takes to generate our $727,000 or whatever it is to -- to get us through this year's budget, to balance the budget. That money, if it's -- if it turns out later that -- that the fees aren't justified, it will be in development services reserves anyway. And so it isn't like the money is -- is gone out someplace. We can address that later. What we would do then, that doesn't hurt anybody a whole lot. If we go back and we just nail somebody for 60 percent increase, that's a significant increase. Seven, seven and a half percent increase is what we think the across-the-board fee would -- increase would amount to. We would then ask that we have an immediate study, initiate an immediate study, including our -- our development services department, the Development Services Advisory Committee, and members of our industry. That would give us up to -- well, we're going to start looking at next year's budget probably July or so. But that would give us at least until next July or August to come up with Some real solid numbers that we could support. We -- admittedly we believe that some of the numbers would be increased, some of the permit fees would be increased. However, hopefully we -- we could keep some of them at the level they are -- are currently. But most importantly, we could support as a group whatever the fees turn out to be. That would be our recommendation. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I appreciate that, and I -- I just want to say one thing, Mr. Ward, and ask you to carry this back to your organization is I really -- I need to be clear about that what the genesis of my involvement in this was is that I sat in on a staff meeting with Mr. Dotrill and -- and heard for the first time, realized for the first time that there was a couple million dollars of property taxes supporting development environmental services. I was surprised by that. My motivation -- and I -- I believe the rest of this board too -- is not to balance the budget but to make development pay for itself, and I don't think that it was. So I appreciate very much that -- that support for this increase for this year, but I want to be clear that I believe that that is an accurate reflection of what the -- of what ought to be paid for by permit fees instead of by property taxes, not that this was this year's, you know, look for a pot of gold to balance the budget. MR. WARD: And it may be. And if that's the way it turns out, then that's fine. We just would like to see a study first so that those fees can be justified. I would like to go back to the -- woops -- the point I made earlier that we have generated more income from -- revenue from fees than we had anticipated. Our projections are and not my projections but projections of -- of some national economists are that our permit level is going to be about the same for the next couple three -- maybe three years but at least the next couple of years. And so I think from that we could pretty much anticipate that we're gonna continue at -- at this level of revenue. Notwithstanding that, we already know what the level of revenue is for this year. We can project that into next year, and __ and we do believe that we -- the fees could -- could stand -- could be raised no more than seven and a half percent or whatever it takes to meet the amount of money that we need for this year's budget. Then we will study it and come back with some actual numbers. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Ward, I -- I -- I understand what you're saying. You're saying basically take the excess fees that were not budgeted that are created from permit fees this year, take it off the seven hundred and something and find the rest in a percentage? MR. WARD: Yes, yes, that's -- Commissioner, that's correct because we -- otherwise we're -- we're only allowed to have __ generate so many -- so much reserves in our development services fees anyway. And so if we know that we are generating more than -- than we had anticipated, we know that money's already there and it's coming in, so we just add to it the -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The only difficulty I have with that is I've heard from our development services director that the nonbuilding permit fees he feels with a 15.7 percent increase are fair and -- and equitable or at least from his estimation. So I'm not inclined to lower those that amount. What I would like to do is give staff direction to pursue as it's been presented to us today with the additional caveat that we get the IT department to bring back to this board the cost of the licensing and software for some type of time keeper in development services so we can do exactly what Mr. Ward and his industry is asking for, verify the numbers that we're charging. And with the involvement of the Development Services Advisory Committee in that process, I think we can do that over one quarter of the course of the next year and give us an accurate picture. That -- that's in a nutshell the direction I'd like to give to staff. It does leave things the way they're presented today which is a little bit higher than what CBIA is requesting of us, but it initiates the process of verifying that amount. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I -- I had -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's a motion? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is a motion necessary because this was a discussion item? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I liked the idea that -- that -- of the time keeping more than just about anything I've -- I've heard in a while. But I wonder -- Mr. Cautero, you came in originally with about a $450,000 number of what it was your opinion would be appropriate to raise the fees. And, frankly, I sort of went through and said, no, I don't think that's right. I think it ought to be more like about 750. And since at this point what it looks like we're doing is what needs to be done which would be this more thorough analysis, this more thorough study, I would be more comfortable this year going back to Mr. Cautero's $450,000 number and studying it over -- you know, doing this really accurate, really clear study to know what it is that the fees should be. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have two thoughts there: One is where will we make up the $300,000 out of the general budget which we'll need to do to balance; and two is that's not what I hear Mr. Cautero saying today. MR. CAUTERO: Well, that -- that wasn't what I was saying today. But what Mr. Ward has -- has stated is something we've talked about previously. The answer to the question of where we get the money is our estimate for building permit fees alone, not the development review portion of the fees but the building permit alone is going to be about four to six hundred thousand dollars greater than we anticipated in our budget for next year. The reason is when we prepared the numbers, we didn't have a -- a big or a good base to go from with the 15 percent decrease, and we were conservative. We're going to bring in close to four million dollars again this year. And as Mr. Ward has just told you, the experts that they've retained have stated that they anticipate the amount of permit activity being steady for the next several years which should bring in that amount of money. The long and short of it is if we bring in approximately four million this year, I feel comfortable if we raise that projection to approximately 3.8, again being a little bit conservative next year. There's 400,000 of it. You have two options with the balance since the millage rate was -- reflected the decrease of $742,000. You could take it out of reserves, or we could raise the fees just to get us through one year so you don't have to dip into reserves and then conduct a thorough study. That would amount to approximately a 7 percent increase, and that's where Mr. Ward's coming up with that number of 7 percent. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I guess I go back to the point Commissioner Mac'Kie made a couple of minutes ago, and that is this isn't strictly about balancing the budget. This is making sure that the industry pays for the services they're getting. And again, maybe I misunderstood what you said earlier. But when Commissioner Hancock asked is that your professional opinion that the 15.7 percent met that obligation or met that goal, I thought you had indicated yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Except for building permit fees was your response. MR. CAUTERO: That's right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If we just raised it on -- on everything except building permit fees, what would that generate? MR. CAUTERO: To raise 742 would be 60 percent. It would come down, of course -- if you lower the amount of money you need to raise, of course, the percentage comes down. But if you needed to raise 742 for next fiscal year and didn't touch building permits, you're looking at about a 60 percent increase for the other fees. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So just because I'm not real quick with math, what if we had -- what if what we wanted to raise was about 450 or the 440 or something that you suggested before and -- and what we did was something like a 20 or 25 percent increase in development review fees and a 5 or 6 percent increase in building permit fees? Would we get there? MR. CAUTERO: I think you -- yes, you would -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Jump in. MR. CAUTERO: -- because we're -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Jump in? MR. CAUTERO: -- if we change the budget numbers. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Cautero -- MR. CAUTERO: You would get there. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what I -- that's what I think I'm going to be looking for. MR. CAUTERO: You have to change the budget numbers, though. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Cautero, I -- I have a question. Two years ago we reduced these fees some 15 percent because __ MR. CAUTERO: Last December. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Last December? Not even two years ago then and -- and -- and that -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Not even one years ago. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, not even one year ago. And -- and that 15 percent was developed as a result of your department's best effort at determining what the fees should be and the fact that two million dollars was in the reserve account that paid off the mortgage on the building and so forth, so the fees were reduced accordingly. The only thing in -- in my estimation or in my memory that has happened since then is a pay plan adjustment which maybe increased our costs 5 percent, maybe 6 percent. So this 7 percent number is more realistic to me and -- and then to put some type of time keeper in effect to -- to develop what the number ought to be. And as far as where is the balance of the $300,000 coming from, Mr. Cautero has already said that he's overestimated. We're going to pull it out of the 113 reserves and essentially put it right back in again. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, that -- yes, but that -- that doesn't get us past the original point of Commissioner Hac'Kie ever bringing this up in the first place that -- that it turns out that there is even at those levels ad valorem subsidy going into development services, and that's what we're trying to eliminate. So I think we've -- we've -- we've discussed this long enough. Does someone have a motion? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I'll restate mine as a motion because, you know, I was the only one that trusted his numbers the first time, and this board set a course to -- to reach a goal, and now it's presented before us and we're budget back pedaling. My motion is that we accept Mr. Cantero's recommendation as presented today and initiate IT looking into a time keeper software program for development services so that over the next fiscal year we're able to verify or justify or find out the true cost of these individual reviews so that the charges can be made commensurate with them. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have a question about the motion. I understood Mr. Cantero's recomm -- presentation today to also include a projection of increased revenues. And if you take that into consideration no matter if we're getting there Mr. Ward's way or we're getting there my way or, you know, something else, we get to the need for a $450,000 number instead of a $750,000 number. So if you're going to listen to everything he said, I think that it's not back pedaling. It's new information that we need 450 instead of 750. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I'm going to second the motion, and the reason is I hear you arguing against yourself now. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I am because I have more information than I had at the time. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, you're arguing against a comment you made ten minutes ago when you said this isn't simply about balancing the budget. It's about doing the appropriate rate and having the industry pay for itself. And -- and it's not just about, okay, we're 450 short. Where are we going to find it? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. I -- that's -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So I'm going to second it and because of the time keeper suggestion and the specifics of that. I think that meets Mr. Ward's suggestion that we need to be able to quantify. Regardless of what the number is now, we're looking long term. We need to be able to quantify whatever that is. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And if we're over this year, it will be made up next year. It will come back down if we're high this year. And if there's additional monies built up, then that will be also accepted the next year too. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Additionally, Mr. Cautero has told us that all in effect we would be doing is restoring the fees to the level they were one year ago. It's going to be very hard for anyone to make the case that -- that doing so is going to put some sort of undue burden on them because it's the same levels they were a year ago. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And we can also make a mid-year adjustment. If the time keeper shows during the year that the fees are too high, we can make a mid-year adjustment, and that's where the overage this year can come in and we won't have to do a budget amendment. I think -- I think both things can be accomplished here, but I'm on the outset going to err at the side this board directed us several weeks ago and -- and let it stand. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: In any case, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? That passes 4 to 1. Thank you, Mr. Ward. MR. WARD: Thank you, commissioners. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Dotrill, can we get an IT presentation within 30 days on that, please? I think that's reasonable. This software's out there on the shelf. This shouldn't even be a big ticket item. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: For each unit it might be. Item #882 RESOLUTION 96-398 ESTABLISHING A 45 HPH SPEED LIMIT ON C.R. 31 (AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD) FROM C.R. 846 (IMMOKALEE ROAD) TO 1,000 FEET SOUTH OF THE ENTRANCE TO PELICAN MARSH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item is 8(B)(2), 45-mile-an-hour speed limit. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to approve the item. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. Is there anyone here to speak on this item? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No one? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? That passes five to nothing. Item #883 STAFF DIRECTED TO PURSUE PARKING ALTERNATIVES AND REPORT BACK IN 90 DAYS REGARDING PARKING PROHIBITIONS ON C.R. 29 Next item is 8(B)(3), parking prohibition on County Road 29. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is something that -- he was waiting for the quick motion again because this is something that's been lingering out there and we need to resolve. Mr. Archibald, the presentation we have in front of us here, is there anything here that makes you uncomfortable from a traffic safety standpoint? MR. ARCHIBALD: I've outlined four options. The first option of simply rescinding the no parking does create a safety liability for the county recognizing that we've al -- already been put on notice. So options 2, 3, and 4 would be highly recommended over option 1. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews, do you have a suggestion? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, my -- my preference is to probably -- I don't like rescinding the no parking ban, and the reason for that is you wind up with a parking area on both sides of a county road that's on a curve. But we've got people here from the public, and I'm sure they'd like to -- to speak on -- on this, and why don't we go ahead and do that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Mr. Dorrill? MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. I have four. Mr. Meredith, you'll be first. Mr. Conway, if I could have you stand by, please, sir. Morning. MR. MEREDITH: Good morning. First I'd like to clarify __ CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Name, please. MR. MEREDITH: -- my position -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Name, please, for the record. MR. MEREDITH: Better? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No. Name, please. MR. MEREDITH: My name. I'm sorry. My name is Sam Meredith. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. MEREDITH: I domicile in Chokoloskee Island. That's my official residence. My insurance company calls me a full timer because we travel most of the time. We do have a place there, spend as much time as we can, and follow the climate around. My position will probably surprise you. We are for the parking. I know I've heard all kinds of backflow from everybody that we're against it, we're against it, we don't want anything done. That's untrue. What we want is a very bad situation corrected. Before when this all came up it was a proposed parking lot be built across the street there, probably do away with part of the swale which help keeps the island dry. We have a lot of high water down there. Excuse me. Also would increase the traffic and increase the problem. We do not have adequate problem -- I mean parking now. We do not have adequate control of the speed limit. I noticed one of the motions to increase the speed limit to 35. It's already 30, but it's not enforced any way whatsoever. There are plenty of parking spaces or places on down the road so the traffic can flow in and out of there. What has been created is really almost a public nuisance. We're almost prisoners of the island. We can't get in and out when all the people are there. My grass root thing that I want to tell you about is I'm very involved in the Everglades Community Church. I'm vice chairman of the board of governors. I'm chairman of the board of trustees. I took on the job after I retired four times. I keep all their records in my computer. I know all the 377 members, their children, their grandchildren, and everybody else. They won't hardly come down to our place anymore. They used to come visit. They're afraid they get killed, a trailer backs out in front of them. They can't get through. It's just absolutely unbelievable. We have 283 sites in the park. The people are beginning to come back now, about 10 a week. We have about 550 people in there in the wintertime. There's a little two-lane road, no no passing. There's all kinds of access on both sides, and these boat trailers are just bottling us in. The -- we have spoken to the national park who owns the marina. Excuse me. They say due to lack of funding they can't provide any other parking. Then if Collier County is either unwilling or unable to provide parking to make this a place that comes up to your county standards -- you have plenty of rules to do this -- then we propose you either fix it or close the marina in the park as a public nuisance. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Conway. Then, Mr. Johnson, you'll follow Mr. Conway. MR. CONWAY: For the record, Hike Conway, pathways advisory committee. This is the Collier County comprehensive pathway plan. I wrote it. You adopted it December 16, 1994. I'd like to quote a small excerpt. A good physical environment for walking and bicycling is where the -- the pedestrian or cyclist does not feel threatened by automobiles, trucks and where vehicles do not impair access to facilities and services. We all know we have that problem there. Does the commission honestly feel enough thought and planning has gone into this proposed project to include public hearings? We must be responsible to all Collier County residents and visitors. Now I'm going to wear my second hat. As a Chokoloskee Island property owner and resident, I can't believe this issue is even being reconsidered after the overwhelming negative response on this matter to the county commissioner chair and George Archibald's office last year. Even the executive summary states the transportation staff does not recommend changing quid quo pro (sic). If the status of this area has changed, you will make an existing problem compounded, and it will cause extreme difficulty for the property owners of Chokoloskee Island. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Johnson; then Mr. Goodlette. MR. JOHNSON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I'm Henry Johnson, and I represent the interests of Robert E. Ludford and Jo R. Ludford who are owners of units 12-A and 12-B at the Sunset Cove Condominium Association. It is their units which are nearly adjacent to one of the recommendations of increased proposed parking, and it's their units who overlook basically the gateway to Chokoloskee Island. Let me take a moment to suggest to you why increased parking in the area which is suggested in your executive summary is inappropriate and certainly why no parking signs in all of their present form have to remain. I had the opportunity on Sunday -- that would be September 1 of this year -- to visit Chokoloskee Island. And one of the things that struck me is that you've got a very nice sign that __ on the entryway to Chokoloskee Island. It says, "Welcome to Chokolokee -- Chokoloskee Island." It should say probably, "Welcome to Chokoloskee Island, home of random parking and -- and -- and disjointness," because it's -- it's under present -- under the present way in which things are configured there, you have a -- you have basically a traffic bottleneck which has become even greater bottleneck by the existence of cars that are permitted at this juncture to remain in two no parking areas on both sides of the street. You also have a proposed parking area which I would respectfully suggest if it were ever to even be considered seems to interfere with the mean high water line of the -- of the -- of the __ of the inflow of water from -- from the sea. So certainly from a -- from a practical standpoint, it doesn't seem to make much sense to continue to -- to do anything other than to enforce your -- your no parking regulation. I observed personally what I would perceive to be a health and -- very strong health and safety concern in two regards. One, the pathways advisory board has already worked with the county to install a bike path which basically intersects this exact area of - of where -- where the -- where the no parking ban I think should -- should continue and where the proposed new parking should take place. Number two, on any given time during the day, you can see cars with -- with trailers attached to the back of them doing complicated K- and U-turns around the entryway to Chokoloskee Island. So as cars are moving forward at their ordinary and necessary and reasonable speed, you're finding cars backing out of -- of -- of what they perceive to be parking spaces which at this point in time bear the sign no parking. Number two, the land upon which the proposed parking area is -- is suggested presently creates a swell for the Sunset Cove residents and the surrounding area during high tides and hurricanes. My clients have a legitimate concern that if a parking lot were to go in, there would be no place for the excess water to go and invite - and, in fact, may just end up flooding -- flooding Sunset Cove. I know that most of you have had the pleasure of visiting Chokolokee -- Chokoloskee Island, but this is one of those situations where I think certainly pictures do say a thousand words. And my time spent Sunday afternoon on Chokolokee -- Chokoloskee Island gave me an incredible feel for the fact that what you -- the answer here is not more parking. The answer here is not destroy the no parking signs but make sure that there is no parking and come up with an alternative reasonable solution to deal with the potential parking problem. One other thing that struck me is you know that a mile and a half or two miles down the road is the National -- National Park Service entryway to, I guess, the 10,000 Islands. And there's apparently to me tremendous parking areas. At least there were tremendous unused parking areas there on a Sunday. It would seem very logical that if, in fact, there is a parking problem on Chokolokee Chokoloskee Island that perhaps before you take drastic actions with modifying any -- any 1991 resolution that you go the extra step, caucus, analyze, meet with members of the Chokolo -- Chokoloskee Island community and also with the National Park Service to see if there's some other reasonable alternative. There's plenty of land. There's plenty of parking, and there seems to be an appropriate -- an appropriate alternative. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Johnson. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you very much, sir. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Goodlette's your final speaker, Mr. Chairman. MR. GOODLETTE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dudley Goodlette with the law firm of Goodlette, Coleman, and Johnson. We represent the Outdoor Resorts of Chokoloskee and basically wanted to come today to tell -- to encourage you to lift the no parking signs that are there now. We -- our client, Mr. Kenny Brown, is present in the room. He wants to be a part of the -- very much a part of the solution to this problem. And it's -- just -- just to put this in historical perspective, this marina has been operating there since 1957. Mr. Johnson's clients probably bought their unit sometime in the eighties perhaps, but so this is a -- this is a problem that -- that exists. It exists, and it -- and it exists with -- the no parking signs there now has interfered significantly with commerce in -- in Everglades and Chokoloskee Island. And people are not coming down there to use the boat ramp as they have historically because they're getting tickets from the sheriff's department, and -- and it's -- and it is indeed a problem. The solution as we see it -- and -- and -- and -- and Mr. Olliff can tell you that he has talked with the people at the National Park Service. We've tried to get a ramp -- get I think the National Park Service to consider building a ramp near -- inside the park, if you will. They have refused to do that, as I understand it. So part of the solution that Mr. Johnson just alluded to, you know, thanks but no thanks has been the reaction from the National Park Service. So we need their cooperation in order to -- for some of these solutions. But in the near term, in -- in -- in your back-up materials at page 3, you will see a diagram that Mr. Olliff or someone in his office has prepared. And I'd like to just suggest to you that what -- what Mr. Brown would be amenable to doing would be to -- to __ if -- if the no parking were eliminated on those 20 spaces that are shown on the west side of 29, if it's possible -- and we can explore the possibility of putting that parking -- moving it over onto the east side of 29 so that when people access the boat ramp they don't have to cross over 29. And if that could be improved, our client would be amenable to paying all or substantially all of the expenses associated with improving that as long as he has some perpetual right to use it or could acquire it indeed in order to facilitate the -- the -- the -- the -- the safety that we -- we all urge does need to be attended to in that area. So there are solutions to this problem. Mr. -- Mr. Brown and Outdoor Resorts in Chokoloskee want to be a part of the solutions to those. They're willing to -- to - to assist in paying for some of those improvements but -- and the only thing that they would ask in return is that they have the perpetual right to use that for their -- for their customers and the people who use the boat ramp and the marina. And I'll be happy to answer any specific questions. There are -- there are people who live down in the -- in the resort area who favor eliminating the no parking down there as as -- as you've heard. And -- and we can answer any other questions. But I wanted to just be on record as to what -- what Mr. Brown is proposing to do. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a question. What's the feasibility -- to where would the 20 spaces be relocated? Is there someplace to do that? MR. GOODLETTE: If you looked I think just north of the existing parking on the east side, Commissioner Mac'Kie, in other words, you see where it says mangrove line way out there? We think that there's space in there. It would -- it would -- it would require perhaps relocating the bath -- the bike path a little bit to the west. But we think that can be accommodated if that -- if that alternative is explored. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Rather than running the gamut of options today, I'm probably one of the few people in this room that was born and raised in this state. And the idea of, you know, taking a johnboat out on Saturday and dumping it in the water off the side of the road and going out fishing that evening with -- with your father or with your uncle is something that's as part of Florida as anything I can think of. People have been parking along this roadway since the roadway was built and putting in here. What we have, though, is an unsafe condition. There's no question about it. So, Mr. Dotrill, roughly, if we go put a boat ramp in somewhere, what does a boat ramp cost us these days? MR. DORRILL: Quarter of a million to three hundred thousand dollars. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We have a $300,000 asset sitting there with 19 spaces to serve it. Figure that out per space. It's not very economical use. We have a demand there that is going to continue. If the no parking signs stay up, some people will take the risk, will continue parking in the right-of-way, may get ticketed, may not, and an unsafe condition continues. Looking at the demand, I don't think there's any way to avoid trying to find a solution that increases parking. But we've gotta do it in a safe manner in a way that is most compatible with the adjacent community. Buffering can be imp -- can be utilized. Hedges, ficus, whatever, can be put in to screen visually. I would like to -- my -- my personal feeling is something akin to number 3 in the recommendation, not to rescind just yet because we don't have a safe parking plan in place but to direct staff to provide options to work with all the parties involved to give us some physical options on the land and some associated costs with those. And at that time if we find one that does answer most of the concerns, we can then look at rescinding the ordinance and moving ahead. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And as part of that to take up Mr. Brown's offer to assist in financial portion? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think that's part of the solution. We have to look at one option, yes. MR. GOODLETTE: In that regard, if I may, I didn't mention but I should have that if -- if the county could -- would deed that property to Mr. Brown, the liability associated with it he would -- he would assume if that's -- if that's a concern. I know it was mentioned earlier by Mr. Archibald that there were some liability concerns that the county has, and Mr. Weigel can speak to those. If our client owned that property, he would assume the liability inherent in -- in -- in some of those problems as well. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I appreciate that. But that again would be all a part of the options that our staff would present to us to find safe ingress and egress to increase the usability of this boat ramp. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock, what -- what I would like the board to consider doing is -- is not so much option 3 today but to consider option 4 keeping in mind that option 4 is to maintain the parking prohibition until such time as we find solutions. I -- I would like to give staff direction today to actively seek solutions to this. There -- there is plenty of land further to the north even beyond this bend in 29. There's plenty of vacant land where if we were to put in another boat ramp -- and Mr. Olliff will tell you right now we have a shortage in boat ramps in our Growth Management Plan and we need more boat ramps -- that this would be an opportune time for the county to do exactly that and to find additional space for another boat ramp and additional parking to -- to go along with it in this area. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just don't think $300,000 being spent a stone's throw from an existing boat ramp is something that Mr. Olliff would recommend. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock, if you'll put your thoughts into a motion, I'll be happy to second it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What -- part of what you've said I agree with. One is not to -- not to rescind the parking resolution, 91-19, to leave it in place and direct staff to bring back alternatives that will allow for the safe ingress and egress of the boating public to access this ramp more appropriately. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well -- okay. But -- I understand what you're trying to do, but wouldn't it make more sense to -- to take option 3 and -- and to give the staff time to -- to look at alternatives but to move forward with option 37 COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My only concern there is if we rescind the parking ban in there, we haven't provided a safe alternative yet. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I know as much as people want to see this thing go away and others that don't, I think we have to have a safe alternative or something that we can recommend and fund before rescinding that parking resolution. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just to make sure I understand, your suggestion is that we get to that point, but we just make sure we're safe before we rescind it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's exactly correct. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Which is what option 4 is to me. I would prefer to see option -- option 4. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you want to put a timeline on it? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, yeah, very much. I'd like to see staff come back to us within -- within 90 days with some real options as to what's available but in the meantime maintain option 4 and keep the parking prohibition in line and let's -- let's get this thing resolved. This has been going -- been going on now for at least three years. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Archibald, any chance you could do that quicker than 90 days, 45 days? MR. ARCHIBALD: Ninety days is a good time frame because we not only have some access questions, but we also have environmental permitting issues. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And you've got a lot of folks who are interested in this that need to be a part of the solution. My motion does not cite number 4 because it says increased additional facilities in Everglades City and Everglades National Park, in other words, increased $300,000. So that's why I'm not going with option 4. I think this ramp can be utilized better and safer and in a compatible manner, and that is why I'm giving staff -- my motion is to give direction in that regard. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you'll -- COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, modify option 4 then and say that we're not going to rescind the prohibition but to give staff direction to actively search for a solution to this problem by working with the people who live on Chokoloskee Island, Outdoor Resorts, the whole group of people, and let's get a solution to it. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I think you have just restated my motion. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's all within 90 days. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It will get back to us within 90 days. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed. Ninety days. That's the motion. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I guess you got a motion and a second. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do you have a second? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. I'm sorry. I didn't hear that. We do have a motion and a second. I would prefer to go forward with number 3 and give some time to look at the options before actually implementing number 3, but looks like that's not gonna happen. So all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? So thank you, Mr. Archibald. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So we -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're going to get there. Item #8B4 TERMINATE, FOR CONVENIENCE, CONTRACT NO. 26-2517 FOR PHASE II UTILITIES IMPROVEMENTS, RIVIERA COLONY SUBDIVISION, NEGOTIATE A CONTRACT WITH ANOTHER CONTRACTOR AND APPROVE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT - STAFF RECOMHENDATION APPROVED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Our next item is an add-on, 8(B)(4), termination of the Riviera utilities contract. MR. GONZALEZ: Good morning, commissioners. Adolfo Gonzalez with your office of capital projects management. I'd like to give you a brief update on three items today. One is the contract status, one on the neighborhood status, and the last one on the project status. On July 29, Diamond Construction started a contract for Riviera Colony phase 2 which was the water and sewer work portion of our contract. Couple of days into the project we felt that -- we communicated to the contractor that the material they were using for backfill was not suitable. Unfortunately, we were not able to reach an amicable agreement with them as to the suitability of the material or reconcile our differences. Four days after they had started construction we asked them to stop work out there, and we issued them a cease and desist order. The neighborhood issue, just last weekend we cleaned up the site somewhat. There are four or five driveways that are impacted by the construction that had already started, and we established two-way traffic around Riviera Boulevard right in front of the trench that's there right now. That should be -- it's not as convenient as having the full two-way movement of cars that they had previously, but at least they can get around the work site until we can get that project under construction then. We have since spoken to the two other bidders that bid on that project, the second and third lowest responsive bidders, neither of which is interested in doing -- continuing the project at this time for -- for different reasons. What I'd like to recommend to you is to rebid the project immediately for a couple of reasons: One is we need to now share with the contracting community again what we found out there that we were unable to reach agreement with the first contractor and let them incorporate that into their bid so that they will give us a bid that hopefully we can act on. And we need a little bit of time to do that efficiently without trying to shortcut the process and -- and hopefully get another set of bids that don't meet our specifications. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Mr. Gonzalez, that neighborhood is -- even though we've taken some measures to get some traffic moving, it's still a major disruption to the -- to the residents. They've got these big pieces of equipment and pipes and everything sitting out in their front yards. So how long are you anticipating before we could get this project done? MR. GONZALEZ: If we go through the conventional bidding process again -- and we can accelerate -- I've spoken to Steve Camell, your purchasing director, who is willing to help us and accelerate this process -- we're still about 60 days out before we can get another contractor out there to do that. We have taken some temporary measures. If you have driven by the site, you'll notice a lot of signage to redirect truck traffic away from the -- the excavated area. We've put some temporary markings to redirect cars around the excavated area and provide two-way traffic. If we were to rebid it, we may have to do even some further cleaning up of the site to allow access to a couple of the driveways that luckily the residents are not there right now, but we anticipate that they're going to come back in the next few weeks. At least that's -- that's the information they have given us. So we still need to do a little more cleaning up of the site if we -- if it looks like we're not going to have any activity for the next two months out there. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Are you -- are you saying that if we go under emer -- emergency bid procedures that it's still 60 days out? MR. GONZALEZ: No. We could accelerate that process. I'm -- I would be cautious in doing that because we want now the contractors, whoever's going to bid on this project, to have the benefit of the information that is out there and put together an intelligent bid on it. If we accelerate it and don't give the contractors enough time to look at the conditions now that have been exposed, we may get an artificial bid. We may not get a -- a -- an accurate set of bids. We may not even have really a list of bidders that could intelligently tell us what they think it's going to cost to do it according to your specifications. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sounds like for the residents there there's not a real good option. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No. Any speakers, Mr. Dorrill? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve staff recommendation. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Motion -- Commissioner Constantine, would you include in that motion to take whatever steps are necessary to -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Expedite? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- normalize the area until it can be rebid and work be completed to the best -- to the greatest extent possible? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I will. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And to expedite the bid process for the -- for the new procedure? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, that was a part of staff -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's to expe -- expedite the bid. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's part of staff recommendation. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Second amends. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #BE1 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY, THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER AUTHORITY AND SOUTHERN STATES UTILITIES REGARDING THE PAYMENT OF REGULATORY FEES AND GENERAL COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE NO. 96-6 - STAFF RECOHMENDATION APPROVED Okay. Next item is 8(E)(1), settlement with SSU. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is someone bringing a check? MR. PALHER: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, Tom Palmet, assistant county attorney. Staff has proposed to you this morning as an add-on item a proposed settlement agreement between the county, the utility regulatory authority, and this board that settles eight issues that have been undergoing negotiations now for about the past eight weeks. And we've had a breakthrough last week to the considerable talents of Commissioner Norris and Mr. Ed Day who have done a remarkable job in negotiating an agreement. This agreement settles eight issues that have been pending, matters of dispute between Southern States Utilities and the county. And if you'd like, I could go through the eight of them. The -- there's a time-sensitive matter because there's a matter pending before the First District Court of Appeals in Tallahassee that the county is required to respond to this afternoon. If this agreement is approved by the board this morning, that will moot that point. Southern States Utilities will withdraw their motion. The county will not have to respond. That is one of the issues. The county would also withdraw its pending motion for declaratory statement before the Public Service Commission. The county is asking now the question clarified as to whether the Public Service Commission will ever in the future claim against SSU any regulatory fees they are now agreeing in this agreement to pay to the county. They will also agree that materials that have previously been submitted will constitute an application for two grandfather certificates. That material was submitted previously for informational purposes only. The county will also waive the fees that were imposed by the utility regulatory authority last week. The utility regulatory authority met this morning in emergency meeting, approved this agreement which is expected to arrive today by Federal Express. This agreement was arrived at over the telephone last Friday between staff subject to your approval this morning. And Southern States Utilities is concerned that if Southern -- if they pay the county, itws possible that the Public Service Commission will thereafter claim against Southern States that those fees should have been paid to the Public Service Commission all along. Staff feels that that is a remote possibility. But to come to this agreement, the county is agreeing that in the event that that happens and if Southern States Utilities is made a party to that proceeding that the county will hold them harmless. As wewve said before, we do not expect that contingency to happen. The county also agrees that -- COMMISSIONER MAC~KIE: I~m sorry. If that happens the county holds SSU harmless? MR. PALMER: Yes, maTam. The county will step in and defend the assertion by the Public Service Commission that those -- the fees that have been paid to the county should have been paid to Southern States Utilities. COMMISSIONER MACwKIE: And the amount of those fees and the potential cost there? I mean, we would -- if we lost that would pay the fee back, and then wewd also have some litigation -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me, Mr. Palmet. I think you misspoke. You said that the fees would be paid to SSU. What you meant was the PSC. MR. PALMER: Yes, the fees would be paid by SSU to the Public Service Commission. Therels the possibility that belatedly the Public Service Commission could make a claim that those fees should have been paid to the Public Service Commission rather than Collier County. And Collier County has agreed to step in and defend against that assertion by the Public Service Commission. We feel that is extremely remote because Hernando County has -- is in the position similar to Collier County. It has been for two and a half years, since April of 1994. And the Public Service Commission has not claimed any fees against Hernando County. COMMISSIONER MACwKIE: Similar amount of money? MR. PALMER: Iwm not sure -- itws considerable, hundreds of thousands of dollars, but Iwm not sure itws the same amount. These fees are based on the percentage of the revenues collected by Southern States in the respective county. We really feel that that contingency is remote. And if that kind of a claim is made, it would not necessarily result in litigation. It may result in negotiations between the county and the Public Service Commission. The county has also agreed that they will not attempt to reduce rates as approved by the Public Service Commission. We feel that this provision is nothing more than a present statement of the law, that those fees will be binding on the county in any case. This provision, however, does not preclude the county from bringing what is called an overearnings action; that is, that they should exceed the rates that are approved by the Public Service Commission. Those are extremely rare. This contract does not preclude possibility of an over -- of overearnings actions. Southern States will pay these fees to the county within 30 days of today if this agreement is approved today, and staff is __ favorably recommends that the board approve this agreement. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Public speakers? MR. DORRILL: Ms. English? No, then that's the next one. There are none on this one. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That -- that's one of my concerns, Mr. Chairman. If -- who in the public from Marco -- is this something that the people on Marco Island are going to be cheering? Is -- I just -- we -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- hear so much from them about this issue that it frightens me a little bit. Okay. Fay's smiling. That's a good sign. And -- but the reason for doing this today as a~ add-on is so that we don't have to respond to some -- to a hearing today? MR. PALMER: Yes, ma'am. The -- Southern States Utilities filed an emergency motion last week with the First District Court of Appeals asking that a stay be lifted. When the county appealed the general matter about jurisdiction over SSU, an automatic stay goes into place. The order of the Public Service Commission is not effective. Therefore, the Public Service Commission did not by its own order assume regulatory jurisdiction over SSU. Last week SSU went to the First District Court of Appeals and is asking that that stay be lifted so that immediately the Public Service Commission resumed jurisdiction over SSU. We do not feel it's an emergency, but the Court compelled the county to respond by five o'clock today. SSU is waiting for a phone call. If this agreement is approved by the board, they will immediately withdraw their motion for the stay and the county will withdraw its motion for declaratory statement with the Public Service Commission. Those two matters of litigation will become moot. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I make a motion to approve the item and particularly with kudos to Captain Day and Commissioner Norris. Great job. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? That passes. Item #9A PROPPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT REGARDING THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MATTER AND FEDERAL LITIGATION INVOLVING COLLIER COUNTY, PACIFIC LAND CO./VINE RIPE FARMS, INC., AND THE INDEPENDENT TRADITIONAL SEMINOLE NATION - APPROVED We'll take one more item, and then we'll take a short break. The next item is 9(A), settlement between code enforcement and Collier County Pacific Land Company and the Independent Traditional Seminole Nation of Florida. MR. MANALICH: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, Ramiro Manalich, chief assistant county attorney, along with Shirley Jean McEachern, assistant county attorney. I would also note that here today on this item is Mr. Danny Billie who is the representative for the Independent Traditional Seminole Nation as well as their counsel, Laura Belflower. And also present is Katherine English, attorney on behalf of both Pacific Land Company and Vine Ripe Farms Inc. As the executive summary outlines for you, basically this is a matter that has had a lengthy process you're all well aware of and extensive negotiations, the culmination of which was a meeting between Chairman Norris and Mr. Danny Billie. And the result of that is the proposed settlement agreement that is here before you. Basically the whereas clauses of that agreement recognize that there are still outstanding differences in viewpoint on some of the legal issues that were involved in this case both in the Code Enforcement Board and the federal court setting. Regardless, the parties have arrived at this proposed agreement that although not totally resolving all of those questions will enable both to go forward. Basically what would be involved would be a conditional use application that the county would make. And if that were approved, then there would also be joint inspections for electrical and plumbing safety concerns. If both of those items were met, then there would be dismissal by both sides of both cases. I would note that the agreement does outline for you that this particular agreement has no precedential value with regard to any other proceedings or any other persons in the county. It's limited to this specific parcel, these unique circumstances. Essentially that's what is proposed. I'm here to obviously answer any questions you may have or the parties' representatives. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I got a quick question. We aren't presupposing we're gonna approve a conditional use, are we? MR. HANALICH: No. Obviously it has to go through the process and, you know, you'd have -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I just want to make sure we're not -- MR. HANALICH: Right. And the agreement does mention that if, in fact, you do not approve the conditional use, in that event this agreement would be null and void, and we'd be back to where we were. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's a conditional use for the cultural area? Is that what we're talking about? MR. HANALICH: For a cultural facility. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think it's important to note that we're not creating a special -- special situation. This is -- a cultural facility is outlined in our Land Development Code as an existing conditional use. And we're not creating something special to solve this problem. The other -- the other thing from my perspective that -- that was very important to make sure that we -- we accomplished was the ability to make the inspections so that the county can feel secure in the knowledge that we have fulfilled our responsibility to protect the health, safety, and welfare of our citizens. With the -- those two major items, I think that that's what brought the -- the agreement to the point where we are now. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: This to me sounds like the makings of -- of an offering that began last fall sometime, and I'm I'm really pleased, Commissioner Hac'Kie, that you brought up the idea that we try to do this and, Commissioner Norris, that you were able to work with the Indian family and to bring it together. I think it's a great job. We're -- we've solved a very difficult problem. Thank you very much. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have one question. In paragraph 2 it refers to future residential chickees and structures that can be built or moved to the property. What I don't see is a tie-in of those future structures subject -- subject to the same safety inspections that existing structures are subject to. I need to make sure that all future structures either built on or moved to the property are subject to the same safety inspection, and I don't see that specifically outlined. The safety inspection in number 5 refers to existing, not future. MR. HANALICH: I believe you're correct on that, Commissioner. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I -- I think the agreement is -- is -- is what we've been asking for, but I would like to see a~ inclusion that under paragraph 2 where it refers to any future residential chickees and structures constructed or to be moved to the subject land which are similar ad infinitum from there that that make a reference to paragraph 5 and that they be subject to the same safety inspections the existing structures are subject to under this agreement. MR. MANALICH: I think it may be possibly appropriate at this point to hear from the representatives of the other parties on that. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Otherwise it would put ourselves in the same position we were in eight months ago when a structure goes in. MR. DORRILL: Ms. English and Welflower (sic) are your only registered speakers. MS. BELFLOWER: Good morning. My name is Laura Belflower from the law firm of Holland and Knight, and I am representing the Traditional Seminoles in this matter. First of all, I would like to thank your staff very much for their efforts in -- in resolving this matter. I think it is a good resolution. As it regards the suggested change, the only concern is that basically this was an agreement that -- that once we went through these -- these two processes of the conditional use and the inspections, then it would be done. I think that we can agree that the intent is that any structure that is built, any chickee that is built or moved to the site, would be -- any electrical or plumbing changes or -- or additions that are added to those structures would be built in a manner consistent with what was found to be safe or something like that rather than requiring an additional safety instruction, that we would just make the commitment that the safety concerns or -- or lack of concerns will be determined at the time that the inspection is made. The residents will know what the county's concerns and intent are, and I believe we could commit to any new structure would be built in a manner consistent with those safety instructions in terms of the electrical and the plumbing. MR. MANALICH: The present provision, commissioners, is as follows: This waiver extends to any future residential chickees and structures constructed or moved to the subject land which are similar in appearance and construction to the residential chickees and structures presently existing on the subject land including plywood walls and windows and which form a part of the present usual and customary use of the land by the Traditional Seminoles. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I just need to be comfortable in the fact that two years from now something may happen out there that causes us to go out. We find a new structure has been built, and let's say it's not even up to the -- what is existing out there. Under what's presented before us, I don't see available recourse to require that to come up to at least the -- the minimum standard that we're asking be met for the existing structures. And __ and that's a concern for me because then we are getting away from the responsibility of safety and welfare that this board carries on -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I '- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- future structures. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I say I think that how that's addressed is in the language that Mr. Manalich just read. It requires that they be the same. Any new structures moved on are going to be the same. And if they aren't the same, then we have a violation of the agreement and can proceed. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Let me ask that question directly then, Mr. Manalich. In the -- in the instance that there was a new structure, an additional structure, placed out there and the __ and subsequently found that they didn't meet the requirements of the inspection, would we -- would we be precluded from filing a new code enforcement action by this agreement today? MR. MANALICH: No, I don't believe so. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Well, that answers the question. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would we be in any way increasing our liability by not requiring that initial inspection of new structures that would be consistent with this? MR. MANALICH: Well, the only thing I can say is, I mean, that is a potential. But since the language says they're similar in appearance and construction, they're going to be bound to build any new similar type structure in a manner the way it has been approved as of this date. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So do I have agreement from both counsels that this agreement makes it incumbent upon the land occupants to create them in a manner consistent with what exists today? Therefore, if it is not done, the liability rests more with them than with the county. MS. BELFLOWER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. HANALICH: I mean, I think you have a very valid concern. And, frankly, I'm not sure we had thought of all those permutations, but I think that with the language here and with the representations of counsel, rather than imposing on them further inspections, I think that there's the understanding between the parties that this provision requires that they build any similar type structures in a manner as has been inspected and approved. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That answered my question. Responsibility rests with them and not with the county on -- on new structures, so that answers my question. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Let's continue with the public speakers. MR. DORRILL: Ms. English and then Mr. Perkins. MS. ENGLISH: Good morning. My name is Katherine English. I'm with the law firm of Pavese, Garner. And I represent Pacific Land Company and Vine Ripe Farms. And to answer your question right off, I'm Ed English's niece. I'm here this morning to speak in support of this proposed settlement. Speaking for my clients, we see this as a win for the county, a win for the Independent Traditional Seminoles, and a win for both the landowner which is currently Vine Ripe Farms Inc. and the predecessor in title, Pacific Land Company. And given the support that I've heard from the commission this morning, I'll just terminate my remarks there. But thank you for your consideration of this agreement. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Perkins? MR. PERKINS: Good morning, commissioners. A1 Perkins, Belle Meade Groups, Citizens for Constitutional Property Rights. Needless to say, today is the day for the Constitution, a big day for the Constitution. The position that we're gonna take is in behalf of the Seminole Nation for the simple reason the preservation of the heritage of this country is so important and so important to this county that we need not overlook it nor be stifled by it. It's up to you people to take and preserve this on their behalf and on the behalf of all the children and citizens of this county. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: That will be it, Mr. Chairman. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, after nearly a year of bureaucracy and nonsense, I want to compliment you and Mr. Billie for sitting down and putting the -- the final details on this and making something work and certainly everyone else who's put the effort into it, and I'll go ahead and make a motion we approve the proposed settlement. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? That does it. We'll take a very short break and come right back and finish up. (A short break was held.) Item #10A RESOLUTION 96-399 APPOINTING FRED THOMAS, JR.; TIM NEVAREZ; CAROL LOSA DELARA; AND GARY HARRISON TO THE IMHOKALEE ENTERPRISE ZONE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Ladies and gentlemen, we'll reconvene the county commission meeting. Mr. Brundage, when you finish with your meeting, we'll like to start ours again, please. Okay. Next item is 10(A), appointment of members to the Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, just a note. Two of the names on here are actually from the Fort Myers area. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Got that covered. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We already got that covered. What -- if -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I must have missed the memo. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, we just investigated it. The requirement is that the members live within the nominated area, residents, or nonprofit community based organizations operating within the nominated area, local private industry council, local code enforcement agency, or local law enforcement agency. The two people in question, number 1 is president of the Immokalee Chamber of Commerce, so that one meets the community based organization nonprofit. And the other one, Tim Nevarez -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Private industry council. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- is the jobs council, jobs services, and that's the private industry council. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just remember we had the question before. And Mr. Erlichman isn't here today and thought I COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, the ordinance here reads differently than all of our other advisory boards. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Than -- than our ordinary. So with that I'd like to make a motion that we appoint and reappoint the four people -- Fred N. Thomas, Tim Nevarez, Cara -- Carol Losa deLara, and Gary Harrison -- to the Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #10B DIRECTION RE TDC CATEGORY "C" FUNDS - TDC DIRECTED TO CHECK LIST OF MANDATORY AND DISCRETIONARY AREAS FOR TDC FUNDING; TO CORRECT HAKEUP FOR STATE STATUTE FOR ATTRITION; APPLICATION TIMING; AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT AFTER THE EVENT Next item, 10(B), Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. The -- there was a change in the state legislation regarding TDC category C funds this past session. Because of that change and because of the difference of opinion that has occurred between this board and TDC recommendations in the past, I would like to ask the board to give direction to the TDC in a four-part approach. The first is to create a checklist of mandatory and discretionary areas for TDC category C funding. Specifically that means these are the things it has to meet to qualify for category C and these are the elements that are discretionary. I don't think we have a real firm grip on that, and we've seen applications come in in different time frames and time zones, so that's a first. The second is to correct the makeup of the TDC per state statute through attrition. Our TDC makeup right now may not meet that in the state statute. And through attrition or resignations, that __ I think that needs to be modified. The third is a recommendation regarding application timing. Should applications continue to be submitted throughout the year, once a year, twice a year? What would work best for both applicant and the TDC? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We just changed that to throughout the year I thought. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, and -- we did, and what I'm hearing is that it's difficult to keep track of what do we have to spend and -- and prioritize projects when they can come in at any open door but again -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So you're saying review that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, asking for a recommendation from the TDC on that. And the fourth is a recommendation regarding an accountability report after the event. This is something that we've asked for and not received on at least two events. And that is to come back to the TDC and say, this is how the money was spent, and this is how you're -- you know, this is our share versus TD share and this is where it went. And that accountability report needs to be provided. There may need to be a cap on that. An event that requests $5,000 and has a $20,000 budget, you know, hiring someone to do that may be too expensive. But the larger items, again, I'm asking for a recommendation on that because we need to have these post-event reports come back to the TDC so there's some level of accountability. Those are the four elements of what I would ask this board to direct the TDC to look at and make recommendations on. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Make a motion. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And my motion will -- will include just that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that motion. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I like that idea. Perhaps -- and I know these are really -- really general, but I would like to encourage, as you said -- the smaller events may be too costly to do that and put it together in a tiered facet of -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- of value. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And I'll just modify it to say that number 4 of that recommendation may include a tiered approach based on the amount of funds given to the event. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My understanding on all of these is you're just looking for recommendations from the TDC on how to address these four specific areas. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Exactly. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: From the TDC or the staff? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Both. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: From TDC. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: From the TDC to us. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would like the TDC to workshop these items, provide recommendations to this board, and then we'll make decisions on whether or not there are necessary ordinance changes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Not any. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. Item #11A "COPS MORE" '96 GRANT APPLICATION - APPROVED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: ll(A), the sheriff's department has a request for us to accept a cops grant. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My understanding is what they want to do with this is we gave them a certain amount of money to buy 20 new laptops anyway. They just want to use the money that's already been allocated to leverage a grant so they'd be able to buy about 60 laptops instead. So I'd say it's a pretty cut and dried idea. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's kind of a -- kind of a good idea. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would that mean that Clinton's plan now has 60 new officers? Is he counting laptops or -- PUBLIC COHMENT - AL PERKINS REGARDING PUBLIC INPUT AND THE RIGHT OF PEOPLE TO VOTE CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Public comment, Mr. HcNees? MR. HCNEES: Yes. You have one registered speaker. A1 Perkins. MR. PERKINS: Good morning again, commissioners. A1 Perkins, Belle Heade Groups, Citizens for Constitutional Property Rights. I'm going to be talking about the Constitution until you people get so sick and tired of hearing me, and maybe some of the peep -- the apathetic people sitting at home will get up out of their chair and go to the polls and vote today. Topic this morning is your TV coverage. The expansion of the TV coverage needs to be done. I notice that we now have a personnel on board that is running the cameras. We also need the monitors put in place in this room so -- and we need the camera in the center of the room up here so that we could have seen Gale Brett's presentation about the confiscation of the southern Golden Gate Estates and you could have heard all the lies too. This needs to be put in place but not just for the commission meetings. There's a lot of other meetings. Last Friday, the Big Cypress Basin Board met here. Two of our commissioners were here, and I think one of our commissioners had her eyes opened big time to the extortion that this state is doing to this community. With that, I want to take and tell you people at home let's get the message out. Let's take and use the sunshine law so everybody in this community can know what's going on. And that also means in the courts. Let's make it general public to everybody about everything. The people don't know what it cost them because they upped the millage last week. They upped the millage, and then this morning with Southern States Utilities with this nonsense going on, nobody attends the meetings to realize that the Southern States Utilities approached the Big Cypress Basin Board for grant monies. Now, when you lay out dollar bills, you can't tell one from the other. So let's take and make this public to everybody. The repeat of the commission meetings need to be advertised. Let's make this public. For the last four years I've been doing my best to put your feet to the fire so that everybody has input to take and make this a better community for everybody to live in. And I think between TAG and the rest of the organizations that participate here we've done a fairly decent job of that. We saw Some of that this morning with the Indians. With that, I have a complaint. Change of subject. Approximately two weeks ago I came into this room -- into this building, and I put up decals on every window on the doors of this building. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that a vandalism charge? MR. PERKINS: This was nothing more than a statement for you people to register and vote. Most of them had all been taken down. I see there's just one left up here. If you've checked with Mary Morgan, you know I've instigated trying to get the registration forms throughout this county. We have it in the fire department, the police department, at the schools. We have it at the community centers. We have it in every place that is a public -- in the libraries. Your right and obligation of the 12th Amendment of the Constitution requires that you have the privilege and right to vote, and it's also your obligation to vote to voice your opinion about how you want your country ran. Get off your duffs, people, and do it. Thank you. Item #12B1 ORDINANCE 96-49 RE PETITION PUD-90-19(1), BLAIR A. FOLEY OF COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC., REPRESENTING CLEVELAND MEDICAL CLINIC FOUNDATION, REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ASTRON PLAZA PUD FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCREASING THE HEIGHT OF BUILDING FROM 35 FEET TO 42 FEET - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Our next item is item 12(B)(1), petition PUD 90-19, sub 1. MR. NINO: For the record, my name is Ron Nino with your planning services section. This petition asks you to increase the the allowable height of buildings in the Astron PUD -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Neil? MR. NINO: -- from 30 -- 35 feet to 42 feet. The Astron Plaza PUD is situated on the southeast corner quadrant of 1-75 and Pine Ridge Road. Opposite the development is a commercial tract in the Vineyards PUD. And, of course, the west is bound by -- by the freeway. The two more sensitive relationships are to the east and to the south, both of which are zoned E estates. The -- the setbacks that this project is required to adhere to as a result of its original approval which remains in effect with -- with the current PUD -- nothing is being changed other than the matter of height as the executive summary iljustrates -- would basically have the nearest buildings 185 feet and 160 feet away. In the opinion of staff, you know, we think the addition of seven feet of vertical height is not discernible at those building separations. There is no matter of consistency with the GMP related to this type of amendment. The PUD was determined consistent at its time of approval, still remains consistent. The petition was heard by the planning commission. They unanimously recommended approval. We've received no letters or communications in opposition to this petition. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Nino? MR. NINO: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Has any increased buffering or mitigation for the increased height been offered by the subject property? MR. NINO: No, it hasn't. However, the original petition -- I mean the current PUD does provide for a larger buffer particularly on the south side along 10th Street. It requires a 30-foot landscaped buffer exclusive of the use -- of the ability to use that for any water management function. So we have a buffer there that's three times the size that would normally be required. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a question for Mr. Foley. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Foley, we've seen with recent parcels an attitude of removing every tree in sight. Do you have any idea on site clearing what the focus on retention of -- of, you know, existing vegetation because if I'm not -- if I'm correct, there's a lot of pine trees on that site. MR. FOLEY: Yeah, that's correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Any idea what the approach is on that? MR. FOLEY: Preliminary indications on their landscape plan is on the south buffer they need to try to retain most of those. They've had several meetings with adjacent property owners, and they wanted to see that remain. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. FOLEY: So they're going to try to incorporate a lot of those larger specimen trees in their landscape plan. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So is it safe to say we have a commitment from the -- from you to the greatest extent possible the pine trees in the 30-foot buffer on the north -- south side will be retained? MR. FOLEY: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No more questions. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No more questions. We'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have a couple questions. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Oh, sorry. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Nino, this PUD I see is dated 90-19, so it's the nineteenth PUD in the year 19907 MR. NINO: Yes. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is this a PUD that would normally be coming back to us under the sunset provisions? MR. NINO: Yes, it would. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Would our approval today preclude that from coming back now? MR. NINO: No, it would not. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It will not. MR. NINO: (Mr. Nino shook head.) COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So they -- they have until their fifth year to get their site plan in? MR. NINO: Exactly. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll reclose the public hearing. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll make a motion to approve PUD 90-19(1) with the stipulation stated on the record by the applicant. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #12C1 RESOLUTION BAR-96-2 APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 1995/96 ADOPTED BUDGET (2ND QUARTER) - ADOPTED Next item is 12(C)(1), resolution approving amendments to the fiscal year '95, '96 second quarter. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, Michael Smykowski, county budget director. In accordance with Florida statute, these are a series of budget amendments increasing a fund appropriating additional revenues. Each of these has been previously approved by the board via a separate executive summary. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? There are none. Item #12C2 RESOLUTION BAR-96-3 APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 1995/96 ADOPTED BUDGET (3RD QUARTER) - ADOPTED Mr. Smykowski, the next one is the third quarter? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's correct, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Same thing? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Same thing exactly. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All these amendments have been approved previously by the board. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #12C3 ORDINANCE 96-50 AMENDING ORDINANCE 87-78 WHICH CONFIRMED THE CREATION OF THE GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY COHMITTEE BY AMENDING SECTIONS ONE AND TWO BY CHANGING THE NAME OF THE MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT TO GOLDEN GATE BEAUTIFICATION MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT, AND BY CHANGING THE NAME OF THE ADVISORY COHMITTEE TO THE GOLDEN GATE BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY COHMITTEE - ADOPTED 12(C)(3) -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: Thank you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, these 3 and 4 go together. The first is to change the name from Golden Gate Parkway Beautification Advisory Committee simply to the Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee. It was originally created to do the beautification on Golden Gate Parkway. Now they'd like to expand and be able to do some other areas. So they want to just clarify that in the name. Second item expands some of the boundaries which will allow them to do more in more places and also collect a little bit more in the community so that they can do more either on Santa Barbara or Sunshine or Coronado or different roads that are the main corridors in the Golden Gate area. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Why don't we take these separately. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I was just going to ask, the property owners in the second one are in agreement to be included in the HSTU? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's been -- and I don't know if there's anybody from the beautification advisory committee here. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have public speakers on either of these? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: She may be able to answer that. I know we've had an -- MR. DORRILL: You have a representative -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- extensive discussion on that. MR. DORRILL: I said that there is a representative of the advisory committee who's here. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: She may be able to clarify that for you, Commissioner Matthews, but I know there's been extensive discussion on that. They've had several meetings and public meetings and workshops and such. MS. HUSCI: I'm sure Mr. Archibald has all the information. Our concern was -- oh, Sabina Husci. I'm sorry. I'm with the advisory board. We were just concerned with -- for future reference that our boundaries ended in the center of a median. And at some point in time if we wanted to do something with that median, would need the whole median. So we were just extending our boundaries past the center line for no other reason. We have no immediate plans for that. This is just in preparation. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There wonwt be an immediate collection from those areas. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh. So these -- these boundary changes then do not include additional property owners who have not before -- MS. MUSCI: No. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- been included. MS. MUSCI: No. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No other public speakers? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, do you want to jump in here? MR. WEIGEL: On 12(C)(4). I guess youlre purely on 12(C)(3) at this point. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Weill need two separate motions. Theylre different ordinances. MR. WEIGEL: Thatls right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did you close? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing on 12(C)(3). COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve -- COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Second. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- item 12(C)(3). CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #12C4 ORDINANCE 96-51 AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 83-55 WHICH CREATED THE GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY BEAUTIFICATION MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT, BY AMENDING SECTION TWO TO CHANGE THE NAME OF THE MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT TO GOLDEN GATE BEAUTIFICATION MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT AND TO EXPAND THE BOUNDARIES OF THE UNIT TO INCLUDE POSTIONS OF GREEN BOULEVARD, C.R. 951 AND SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD; AMENDING SECTION THREE TO PROVIDE GENERAL LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE ROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND ACCENT LIGHTING; AMENDING SECTION SIX AS IT PERTAINS TO THE PURPOSE FOR THE LEVY OF TAX MILLAGE - ADOPTED 12(C)(4)? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Just small comment. The amendment that appears in the agenda package needs a slight change under section 6 appearing on page 3 of the agenda package, and at the bottom of the page are some underlines which really don't -- the additions are not appropriate there because it's referring to a 1984 ballot question. So although we're increasing the reasons for the -- for the work to be done in the HSTU, we don't need to correct the old question that's long -- long ago history, and we'll -- we'll make that change. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. So I -- then you're saying that line 28 to 33 are ineffective? MR. WEIGEL: Well, that's correct. No change needs to be made there, and we'll -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: -- we'll reflect that in the version that comes to the board. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right. Close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to offer a motion to approve 12(C)(4) as amended. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #12C6 RESOLUTION 96-402 APPROVING THE PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ESTIMATED COSTS AND TENTATIVE ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR THE NAPLES PARK AREA DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS MUNICIPAL SERVICE BENEFIT UNIT AND CONFIRMING THE INITIAL RESOLUTION, NO. 96-312, ORDERING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ASSESSABLE IMPROVEMENTS - ADOPTED Our next item is 12(C)(6), Naples Park drainage improvements. MR. BOLDT: Good morning. For the record, John Boldt, storm water management director. This morning's agenda item is a repeat of a tentative assessment hearing held on Naples Park last year. But now that we have the bids in hand, the tentative assessment rolls have been recomputed. And this public hearing, which has been duly advertised and all the property owners near have been sent a notice by first class mail of their tentative assessments, is for the approval of the roll. We do have two letters we need to read into the record of objections. I guess out of 3,700, I had 2 personal letters addressed to the board objecting to the project, not necessarily to the assessments themselves. One of them is from Salvatore and Antonio (sic) Vitale. And the other one is from Joseph and Catherine Trupiano both of Naples Park, and they both object to the project. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Boldt, out of the 3,700, how many letters do you have praising the project? MR. BOLDT: Not necessarily any. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. MR. BOLDT: I have some phone calls. We put out a fact sheet I thought maybe you've noticed, and several people called us and thanked us for the fact sheet which I was thankful for. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: A lot of people write letters saying "I'd love to be assessed." CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's go to the public speakers. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Lamoureux. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Boldt, while he's coming up, do you have -- have you received any telephone calls in opposition to this as well? MR. BOLDT: There were a number of people called in inquiring about the assessments, and we dealt with them. I'm not sure they necessarily were objections as wanting more information what this is all about. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. But -- okay. They were simply -- simply inquiries then. MR. BOLDT: Yes, ma'am. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Anderson, you'll follow Mr. Lamoureux. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Lamoureux, could you go ahead, please? MR. DORRILL: Apparently Mr. Anderson's going to speak before. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think they're asking for a change in the line-up. MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson from Young, van Assenderp, and Varnadoe. And I represent Commercial Development Company, William Chapin and Guy and Helinda Fracasa who are all owners of developed commercial property within the municipal service benefit unit. I'd like to -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could you identify them, Mr. Anderson, just what properties? MR. ANDERSON: What properties? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh. MR. ANDERSON: Commercial Development owns Coventry Square and the North Park Office Center. Mr. Chapin owns a small strip center called Plaza Park, and Mr. and Mrs. Fracasa own another strip shopping center directly across the street from Plaza Park that is called Plaza North. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: And I -- as required, I want to give the court reporter our written objections and make those a part of the record. We believe that the runoff intensity factor assessment methodology is incorrect and it is at odds with what a ground truth survey would have revealed. It does not take into account that the county has for many years required commercial developments to have on-site water retention and has never required that from residential properties. Because of that difference, these platted residential lots need and will benefit more from the drainage project than the platted commercial lots which do have on-site retention. The methodology uses a .7 or 70 percent for commercial lots and a .3 for residential lots as the runoff intensity factor. And it was explained to me that it's tied to, as a general rule, which this general rule doesn't apply in this case, that 70 percent of commercial areas are impervious surfaces and only 30 percent of residential areas are typically impervious. Mr. Lamoureux will advise you that that is not the case, and these -- these commonly accepted values that we have used in their methodology are at odds with what's on the ground. And we believe you should rely on facts and not general assumptions. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sorry. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Please continue, Mr. Anderson. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A little distracting. I'm sorry. MR. ANDERSON: As an example, the North Park Office Center, the final site development plan approved by Collier County for this project reflects 43 percent open space pervious coverage, not 30 percent as -- as is assumed and is used in this -- in the assessment methodology. Mr. Lamoureux will tell you that that 43 percent is pretty typical for new commercial developments what with landscaping, buffering requirements that you impose on commercial properties that you don't impose on residential. He will also tell you that the typical pervious impervious -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Why don't you let him tell us. MR. ANDERSON: Well, I want to tie it in. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Why don't you just let him tell us. MR. ANDERSON: Well, I need to tie it in here or what I -- what I say will be out of context. We believe that the runoff intensity factor ought to be established at .5 or 50 percent for both residential and commercial lots. We also believe that those properties which lie within the, A, flood zone should be assessed at a higher rate than those who lay outside the flood zone. It only makes sense that those that are in the flood zone will benefit more from this drainage. We also believe that the location benefit factor has been inappropriately applied to the Coventry Square PUD. They are on the very outside of the assessment project up in the northeast corner. They will discharge immediately across lllth Avenue North, and they were required to build a very extensive water management system at the time of that PUD approval. Mr. Lamoureux will give you the details of that. Finally, additionally, we feel that the county should be kicking in some more. Mr. Boldt -- yeah, I know, but I gotta get it on the record. You own 33 percent of the land, and it's all impervious surface. And you're only kicking in sixteen and a half percent. Normally when you repair roads and maintain them, they are paid for through gas taxes and ad valorem taxes, not special assessments. And we feel that that part of the drainage project that involves the roadway work should be paid for outside of special assessments. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: And I would ask that you take cognizance of point 5 in my letter which I previously distributed to you, and I thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Anderson, when were you retained by CDC to represent them? MR. ANDERSON: Last week. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So the date on this letter of September 3 where you ask that specific information be reviewed and we delay a decision when, in fact, the methodology discussions have been ongoing for over a year now and, in fact, CDC has had a representative at many of those meetings sitting in the back of this room, don't you find this timing to be a little -- a little antagonistic? MR. ANDERSON: It's certainly not intended to be antagonistic. We -- we met with staff as early as we -- as early as we could last week on Friday unfortunately. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But they waited to retain you until last week. MR. ANDERSON: That's -- that's correct, but if -- if we're not allowed to -- to raise these questions and objections at the public hearing, I would respectfully ask what's the purpose of the __ of the public hearing. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're certainly allowed to. I was just curious about the timing of this request. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Lamoureux and Ms. Fitz-Gerald. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We already know everything you're going to tell us. MR. LAMOUREUX: Yeah. Well, Bruce Anderson -- what I'm going to tell you is what he should have told you. No, no, just -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Identify yourself, please. MR. LAMOUREUX: Oh. Hark Lamoureux. I'm representing myself this morning, and I'm representing Commercial Development. I'm representing myself because I have a piece of property that I have my office building in on 97th Avenue. And I myself have looked at the methodology. And, quite frankly, I have waited till the last minute, but it was just because I knew this public hearing was going to be my chance to speak up. For myself, I'm against the project because I feel like it's a county subdivision and the county should be taking care of drainage problems as they exist. We have a drainage problem there, and the county should, I think, take care of it without assessing all of us individually. Now, as a representative of Commercial Development, there's a few things about the methodology that I disagree with. One is the intensity factor. The commercial properties have an intensity factor of 0.7. The requirement that commercial properties have is a storm water management requirement, a landscaping and buffering requirement. And I believe that it would be incorrect to use that as an intensity factor for the commercial properties. There's also -- and I brought a copy of the flood map. If we -- if we look at a copy of the -- the flood map, the properties north of 102d Avenue are in the flood plane. The properties south are not. So it would seem that there is more benefit to those properties that are not in the flood zone or actually just the opposite, that there would be more property benefit to those in the flood zone, and there should be some way to account for that particular situation. With the matter of Coventry Square, Coventry Square had as part of its design a fairly sophisticated drainage system. The system discharges completely off the site, off of the project area. In particular -- well, maybe we better use that map over there. Coventry Square is in the very northeast corner of the project. As you can see, the -- the plan is to discharge the water off of the site. And we have an elaborate system here. We're discharging, and then we're going completely off site. I would think that because of the system we have in place and because of the fact that we're not contributing or flowing through Naples Park that we should either eliminate entirely or reduce these location benefit factors or the intensity factor all together. I think those are the major points that I wanted to cover. We would need, again, to reduce the commercial intensity factor and also to eliminate some of the -- the -- the commercial development properties, namely the Coventry Square project. And lastly, we would need to separate those properties that are commercial that are in the flood zone and those that are out of the flood Zone. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Lamoureux, same question. When were you retained by CDC to review this project in its entirety? MR. LAMOUREUX: Well, for this specific purpose, it was last week. But as I mentioned to you, since I received my notice as a property owner there, I knew I had this forum in order to speak up. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But you've been actually reviewing the plan in its entirety for the last ten days intensively? Would that be your -- MR. LAMOUREUX: I've looked at them a little more closely in anticipation of this meeting, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Fitz-Gerald, then Mr. McGilvra. MS. FITZ-GERALD: The reason I never responded to this was because I just got home on Saturday night and -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Name, please. MS. FITZ-GERALD: Oh, sorry. It's Vera Fitz-Gerald. I live on 107th in the nonbenefiting zone. It's not dated. I had no idea other than the fact there was going to be a public hearing. It doesn't say when you have to get a letter in by because there's no date on it, no date on the envelope. It seems that when you're supposed to respond for something or they ask for input they could at least put a date on it. I -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Vera, can you pull that microphone down a little bit closer? Thanks. MS. FITZ-GERALD: Sorry. I rarely am accused of speaking too softly. It must be a function of exhaustion. These businesses -- just one side comment here that the businesses are saying that they have drainage retention for their - _ their businesses and there's so much permeable area. I'd sure love to see it. I know that area pretty well. I want to put these in as part of the record. They're letters I have written in the past. I want it to be part of this hearing. I'm not going to go over it. I have stood here, and I have been talking for ten years. And the last thing I want to say on it is that I'm not gonna benefit from this. The way I would have benefitted was if the secondary system had been addressed. The secondary system is being not addressed. I don't benefit from this at all. I don't contribute to the problem. I live in the west basin. I'm going to continue to flood. Sixth Street's gonna continue to flood. Seventh Street's gonna continue to flood as are the avenues. Nothing is being done for that. Now, this assessment I received was rather astonishing. I will be billed $1,533.58 for nothing. If -- I would like someone on this board to tell me where I benefit. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Vera, we've had that discussion several times, and we disagree. MS. FITZ-GERALD: We've had it hundreds of times. But I need to know where the benefit is. If I'm gonna pay $1,500, I'm still gonna flood, I'm still gonna have a big ditch. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Vera, does your water leave your property? MS. FITZ-GERALD: No, backs up on it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So you have a retention era -- area around your entire property, so everything that falls on your property is kept there, doesn't go anywhere. MS. FITZ-GERALD: It doesn't go anywhere, but the neighbor's comes on to ours. That's why we flood; okay? That's all I want to say. I do not benefit. It's a lot of money to ask somebody in the west basin to pay when there's no benefit. MR. DORRILL: Mr. McGilvra. MR. MCGILVRA: My name is Doug McGilvra. First of all, I'd like to thank all the commissioners for all the work you've done on this for the last ten years, particularly John Boldt and his group in stormwater management, people from Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage and Ed Finn and Bob Wiley and everybody else and in particular Tim Hancock. This has been going on for a long time. I hope we can bring it to some kind of a conclusion today. All this problem as far as the drainage into the various areas and the methodology factors has been gone over ad infinitum, I mean, for years. This is not just one year. It's been a number of years. People who are -- have been concerned about this certainly have been doing some thinking about it a long time before now. I can understand that probably they were busy and couldn't get to it. But I think it's an important thing. They should have looked into it. I was looking into it for a long time myself. I say let's, you know, go ahead with the project. I think it's about as low a cost as we're ever going to get at the present time. I think everybody in the Park is going to be helped out by this item. Vera says, of course, she has a problem with some flooding, and there are some other areas in the Park which are somewhat downhill, and they're going to still have problems. But George Archibald has put out a memo as to what he's going to do on the secondary system at county expense. And this has been planned all along from a mevious -- previous meeting of about two years ago. So there is going to be something done on the secondary system. It is in the plans. It is being presented before the board in the next few weeks, I guess, George. I'm not positive exactly when but -- so that problem is being solved. I think the whole thing is rolling in the right direction. Let's go. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just one quick question. I know where we're headed with this anyway. But just for my comfort level -- and I appreciate your comment, Commissioner Hancock. This has been going on a long time, and there have been ample opportunities to participate and raise the question. But, Mr. Boldt, can you just tell me the one point Mr. Lamoureux raised that that corner parcel sends water out of the area, if -- if that's accurate or if it doesn't contribute in any way to this system. MR. BOLDT: Coventry Square property does drain into the facilities we've proposed to improve, and there's a considerable amount of money we're going to spend north of lllth also. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's all I need to hear. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I think that obviously Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage given this letter today is not really going to be able to provide a detailed response, but I don't see a lot of new questions being raised here. What I would like to do is ask that staff prepare a response to the five points raised in this letter and copy the Board of County Commissioners on it; should staff find that there is a valid issue here and not just some red herring issues, that that be addressed. But I believe these have all been addressed either verbally or in writing at one stage during these hearings, so I think we're fairly well covered there. With that direction I would like -- I'd like to go ahead and make a motion that we approve resolution 96-312 as presented today. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm gonna -- yeah, I was going to say I was going to second. I've got one question, though, Mr. Boldt. It's my understanding that the easement along 91st, 92nd where it meets the lagoon has been gated off, fenced off. And if you'd look into that, I'd -- I'd appreciate it. MR. BOLDT: I'll look into that also. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman -- excuse me, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That passes 4 to 1. Yes. MR. WEIGEL: Pardon me. In regard to the motion for clarification, the resolution 96-312 in the executive summary is a resolution that was to be rescinded. The resolution that's being done today does not have a number yet. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: So I think that the record would need to reflect that you're adopting the resolution in the agenda packet today. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me clarify the intended motion. The intended motion was to approve the plan, specifications, and estimated cost and a tentative assessment roll for the Naples Park area drainage improvement municipal service benefit unit and confirm initial resolution. You said -- now you said that resolution's being rescinded? MR. WEIGEL: No. 312 -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right number. MR. WEIGEL: The initiating resolution's being rescinded. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, this says we are confirming 96-312. Is that, in fact, correct? MR. WEIGEL: The executive summary recommendation says rescind the initiating resolution. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's make sure we get that right because that's a little bit on the important side. MR. WEIGEL: Absolutely. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are we confirming 96-312, or are we rescinding? MR. BOLDT: Well, top of page 2 of the executive summary says if the board finds at the conclusion of this public hearing that the project cannot be approved -- MR. WEIGEL: Okay. MR. BOLDT: -- then -- then you are to rescind the previous one, but you are approving. Therefore, you don't need to take that action. MR. WEIGEL: Pardon me. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So my motion stands on 96-312. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that clarification for my sake. Thank you. Item #13A1 PETITION V-96-11, TROY JANSEN REPRESENTING JOHN JANSEN REQUESTING 8.12 FOOT AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 15 FEET SIDE YARD SETBACK TO 6.88 FEET AND A 3.75 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK OF 5 FEET TO 1.25 FEET FOR A WALK-IN COOLER INSTALLED AT THE REAR OF THE RESTAURANT - DENIED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Next item is 13(A)(1), petition V-96-11. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good morning, commissioners. My name is Chahran Badamtchian from planning services staff. This variance is a -- this is an after-the-fact variance for Marco Island, 826 Elkcam Circle. The petitioner installed a cooler, walk-in cooler, which has an 8.12-foot encroachment into the side setback and a 3.75-foot encroachment into the rear setback. But the rear setback problem was resolved by -- the staff says the code says the minimum rear setback has to be five feet or a minimum -- or zero. The applicant agreed to increase the size of the cooler in the back so they are going to have a zero-foot setback in the back. And for the side setback this building was built under the old code, and the old code said side setback zero. But the new code -- code's saying side setback 15. There's a language in the Land Development Code that we can administratively approve variances for additions built on the exact same building line. However, that provision does not include commercial developments. That's the variance they are asking for today. Planning commission heard this item and unanimously recommended denial. However, at the time the applicant didn't have proper representation. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And now they have Rich Yovanovich. MR. DORRILL: I wouldn't go so far as to say that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just make sure I understand. The -- the -- it was -- the building was originally done with what -- the code then was a zero. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct. The code allowed zero side setback, and that's -- they built the building on the side property line. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What they've done here in asking for the variance is consistent with the old -- with the existing -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They are -- no, they are not going to be on the exact same building line. They are going to have a 3.75-foot setback on the same side, but today's code requires 15. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Chahran, when they came in for a building permit for this expansion -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They didn't pull a building permit. It was built without a permit. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No permit pulled, and now an after-the-fact variance for a structure that was not permitted. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Boy, we've seen this one before. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What -- and what's the penalty? Should we approve this, there is a penalty. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We charge them twice the variance fee. Instead of 425, we charge them $850. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Proper representation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Proper representation. MR. YOVANOVICH: For the record -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Let's hear a good story. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I have no story. The critical timing of when we were retained was -- when we were retained was -- I'm sorry. Rich Yovanovich with Roetzel and Andtess. Our client did build the structure before pulling the building permit. There's no denying that. We were retained after he had already built it and asked us to help, and he will pay extra building permit fees I believe also in addition to the extra fees for the after-the-fact variance. I think this would have been administratively handled, as Chahran has said, if there was a procedure for that to be taken care of. I have nothing else to add other than what Chahran has already said. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I made an unsuccessful argument several weeks ago that when someone goes ahead and builds something without a building permit and does not give our staff or this board the opportunity to review the impacts prior to their construction that then obtaining an after-the-fact variance is just ludicrous. It's it's a complete dismissal of -- of the process that they're supposed to go through to avoid these types of things. And every time we allow one of these variances, we're saying that's all right, the extra 425 is enough penalty. Have a nice day. And I disagreed with the board's decision on the last one, and I see no reason to approve this after-the-fact variance. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand your frustration. However, what I hear you saying is under no circumstance should there ever be an after-the-fact variance. And if that was the case, we wouldn't have a policy that allowed for after-the-fact variances. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, that's not what I'm saying. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well -- well, I mean, in effect you're saying anybody who's done this and comes back afterwards __ COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- you think is bad. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. I'm saying -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And what I hear our staff saying is had this come through the proper channels, it probably would have been approved. If that's the case, there is a penalty attached, and they should be -- should be penalized for not doing it properly. However, to simply be dismissed out of hand, you didn't do it properly so you can't do it at all -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, that's not what I'm saying. You've mischaracterized my statement. I said they did not pull a building permit. This isn't someone who pulled a building permit and there was a construction error or there was a staff error or there was a misinterpretation. This is someone who simply didn't pull a permit. And now on top of -- what's the cost of a building permit when you make an addition like this? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We charge the -- double the fee. It probably is like $42. We charge $84, something like that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I just have a problem with people who -- particularly a commercial business makes an addition and doesn't pull a building permit. I just think what it does, it puts us in a position of saying you have to go physically tear down something that we may have approved, and there's -- that's a no win, you know. But if we're not afforded the opportunity to do it through a reasonable process, I don't believe variances were intended as a catch-all for those who ignore pulling building permits. And that's what I feel this is doing, and that's what I feel the one a few weeks ago did, and I just can't be supportive of that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You don't think this is a reasonable process. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. I -- I thought this board had discussed a couple of years ago about raising the penalty fee for after-the-fact variances and after-the-fact permits to -- to -- to such a level -- and I thought we were talking $1,000 or more -- but raising them to such a level that it truly is a penal -- truly is a penalty. And -- and, you know, $425 for some of this stuff is insignificant to -- to what they've done. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. -- Mr. Weigel, does the board of zoning appeals have the ability to impose fines? MR. WEIGEL: No, no, they do not. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And if we're going to make a financial penalty -- penalty, then let's just say, go ahead and do what you want, and here's the cost. It's either use it the way it's intended or let's strike it. And I think we're bending it far beyond the intent of after-the-fact variances. Again, we can argue it all day. Might as well take a vote on it but it -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: May I just ask you a question? The -- the -- your preference would be return to staff, that they remove their violation, they come back, they ask for a variance, then if it gets passed, then they go ahead and build it again. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If they choose to do that, fine. What I'm saying today is to ignore two separate processes and for this board to say that that's okay, I have a problem with it. If it means this person has to tear it down, they have to tear it down. This board voted 5-0 to remove the corner of a swimming pool cage in Naples Park, the corner, 5-0, but now we're saying go ahead and build something without a building permit at all, come in after the fact variance, and it's okay. I think that's not consistent, and I prefer the tack that we took that said, look, you're going to have to follow the process. And if you don't, our approving these types of things condones that. So this is much more principle than it is issue specific, and -- and that's where I'm going to stay on it. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to ask one more question, please, Chahran. The -- the petitioner who -- who built this walk-in cooler, did he have any discussion at all with development services prior to what he did? Or did he just go do it and ignore the system completely? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I -- I believe he did. I believe he came and asked someone for a building permit and he was told that he need a 15-foot setback, and he walked away and he built it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The exact same thing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, variance -- after-the-fact variance still requires four votes; is that correct? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. MR. WEIGEL: I don't think so. I think it's just three. Variances are three. MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioners, again, I don't condone the way the client went about doing this. But the bottom line is he would get -- if staff could have done this administratively, they would have done it and said to him, yes, you can build it. He didn't make a very good argument to staff as to why he should have been allowed to build it the way he planned on doing it. Staff doesn't have any problems now with how he planned on doing it. I think he should be charged, you know, for an after-the-fact building permit fee and pay the penalty. He should be charged to pay the penalty for the after-the-fact variance. You can't have an after-the-fact variance unless you have violated the rule in the first place, and that's where we're at. He has -- he has done it incorrectly, and he wants to come back and do it right. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think Commissioner Hancock's concern is it's an intentional violation of procedure, not an accidental one. It makes a big difference. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've got one -- I'm sorry. I had one more question of Chahran. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: When -- when the petitioner was advised that he needed a 15-foot setback and he just walked away and went and built it, did anyone on our staff advise him that there Was a method for obtaining a variance? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes, we did, but he said he needed the cooler for the season and he couldn't wait a couple of months. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock, you've persuaded me. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I motion to deny variance 96-11. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Next item, 12(A)(2). COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Des -- despite proper counsel, the motion carries. Item #13A2 RESOLUTION 96-403 RE PETITION V-96-12, G. MICHAEL SCHMAELING REPRESENTING BOBBY AND KAMI JONES REQUESTING AN AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE OF 2.3 FEET FROM THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 7.5 FEET TO 5.2 FEET FOR AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 4741 PINE RIDGE ROAD EXTENSION IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Petition V-96-12. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Again, Chahran Badamtchian from planning services staff. This is also an after-the-fact variance in the Golden Gate Estates area. The building was built in 1993 based on a survey that had a mistake. The building was CO'd in 1993, and a few months ago the homeowner decided to build a pool, and we asked for a recent survey, and the survey showed encroachment. He's requesting this variance to remove the violation. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But he was CO'd and he was okayed in 1993. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the survey was in error. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The survey was in error. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me ask you this, Mr. Badamtchian, is we -- oh, I guess it was a month or two ago we said start keeping a record of these surveys who -- surveyors who make errors. Are we doing that now? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: In this case we have to make an exception. The surveyor has passed away. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because one -- one thing we did say is that there was one case in which we -- we asked staff to send a letter to the Department of Professional Regulation and the state, and I think we'll continue doing that but that -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Since that's not applicable here COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: There's really not a whole lot we can do. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is one of those. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: An accidental, and it's different -- completely different too. Public speakers? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion to approve with a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #13A3 RESOLUTION 96-404 RE PETITION CU-96-8, ALAN D. REYNOLD, AICP, OF WILSON, MILLER, BARTON & PEEK, iNC., REPRESENTING THE COLLIER COUNTY OFFICE OF CAPITAL PROJECTS MANAGEMENT, REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE PER SUBSECTION 2.6.9.2 (ESSENTIAL SERVICES) OF THE "A" ZONING DISTRICT FOR A MAINTENANCE FACILITY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED DIRECTLY NORTH OF AND ABUTTING THE COUNTY LANDFILL - ADOPTED Next item, 13(A)(3), petition CU-96-8. MR. REISCHL: Good morning, commissioners. Fred Reischl, planning services. This is a request for a conditional use for a 60-acre site -- excuse me -- north of the county -- the existing county landfill. The site is -- borders the landfill on a -- the 60-acre site south border. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Reischl, this is our county maintenance combined maintenance facility we're talking about? MR. REISCHL: Correct. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The one we've been discussing for about two years? MR. REISCHL: Conditional use for essential services. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Public speakers? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're pretty familiar with it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Are there public speakers? MR. DORRILL: No, sir, there are not. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've got one question. Access to this site is going to come from where? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Above. MR. REISCHL: The principal access will be -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Helicopter. MR. REISCHL: -- from 951, Landfill Road and up a proposed road on the eastern side of the landfill into the southeast corner of the maintenance facility. The secondary access is through the northeast corner which will eventually tie into Garland Road. And one of the stipulations recommended by the planning commission that is in the resolution that you have is that that Garland Road access be only for emergency purposes. If there's something that's blocking Landfill Road, then they can open up Garland. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Isn't Garland Road a private road? MR. REISCHL: There are easements. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: There are -- there are easements. MR. REISCHL: I don't believe it's a county road. I just believe it's easements dedicated to the adjacent property owners. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is -- is there any intention here to put a bridge across the canal at 25th? MR. REISCHL: 25th? At the planning commission meeting, Mr. Kant of the transportation services department stated that at this time there is not. That was brought up. There were several property owners that spoke, Golden Gate Estates property owners that spoke, that that satisfied their objections. However, there was still at least one property owner adjacent to the property in the ag. zoning district that that didn't affect his objections to it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We've been beating people up on aesthetics lately. I know this is a residential area. I know there's a canal there. What type of vegetation do we have on the perimeter of this property? MR. REISCHL: It's mostly pine with scattered cypress. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. What buffer -- MR. REISCHL: It's pretty dense. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- are we required to put there? MR. REISCHL: Required would be 15, and proposed is 100. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The likelihood that within 15 feet of -- of the edge of that that pines could be retained and live because their root base is a little broader probably is not a -- not a sufficient distance. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: He just said 100. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: A hundred feet. MR. REISCHL: A hundred feet is what's proposed. They're required -- it's only required to be 15. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Instead of listening to you, I'll just go off on my own tangent. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I like 100-foot buffer on this. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's fine. That's fine. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Public hearing is closed, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes. Close the public hearing. MR. REISCHL: I -- if I could just make one more point that was brought up at the planning commission, the planning commission voted 4 to 2 in favor. The two objections were not necessarily to the landfill -- or to the maintenance facility in particular but to the fact that it limits the county's options for expanding -- possibly expanding the landfill in the future. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which really isn't what the planning commission's purpose in that item is. MR. REISCHL: Correct, and that was pointed out by the county attorney. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #13A4 RESOLUTION 96-405 RE PETITION CU-96-10, BRUCE TYSON, ASLA, OF WILSON, MILLER, BARTON & PEEK, INC., REPRESENTING STUART MACUS AS TRUSTEE, OR ASSIGNEE, REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE "16" OF THE "A" RURAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT FOR A GROUP CARE FACILITY, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6901 AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD NORTH (C.R. 31) - ADOPTED The last item, petition CU-96-10. MR. NINO: For the record, my name is Ron Nino, planning services section. Petition CU-96-10 is a petition that asks you to allow group care facilities as a conditional use in the agriculturally zoned district. The property is a 18-acre -- plus or minus acre parcel of property that fronts on Airport Road and fronts upon Orange Blossom Road. It wraps around the Italian American Club and the -- and the and a vacant agriculturally zoned property. To the -- to the west of the subject property you have a PUD, Sunshine Village, that was approved a couple of years ago that provides for single-family density development. And then the remainder of that property is agricultural. And further west of that is the Cay Lagoon which is a condominium project currently under development. This petition asks you to approve 390 assisted care living units. There's a breakdown on page 3 of your executive summary of the types of units that -- that are proposed. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before you go on, this is 18 acres roughly? MR. NINO: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Currently zoned -- MR. NINO: Agricultural. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And under -- that agricultural zoning would allow how many living units? MR. NINO: One dwelling unit for every five acres of land. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So three? MR. NINO: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the proposal is for -- MR. NINO: 390 units or 21.67 care units per acre, and I emphasize that because I think you all appreciate there is a difference between a care unit -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I had a discussion with the petitioner, and I guess we need to disclose that anyway, that it Won't impact my decision today, but the -- I like the ACLF as more of a true ACLF than the goofy one we saw on Marco Island a few weeks ago. But I -- I really have trouble with the concept of going from what is currently allowed, 3, to 390. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, likewise, I -- I had lengthy discussions with the petitioner on this, and I expressed a lot of the same reservations and issues that were brought up on the Marco Island piece. And I said then that the reason we grant up to 26 units per acre on ACLF is a true nursing home doesn't have exterior generation of traffic and external impacts greater than single- family homes would. And as you have units that allow for more free living space and more individual operation, those impacts go up. What we don't have in front of us is a detailed site plan that I was shown that show the different phases of the projects and the graduation as people move through into a -- an ultimate what I'll call a nursing home. There's a nursing home where 24-hour care is necessary and so forth. So within that graduation, if this is in the urban area we're talking really four units an acre. I mean, that would be low density residential. So we're looking at 72 units possibly of single-family homes in there. So are the external impacts here less than what a maximum of 72 single-family units would be? And that's the comparison that -- that I think is most fair because of the location of the property. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And -- and coupled with that, does the future land use element anticipate this kind of change? MR. NINO: Yes, the future -- well, let me say the future land use element designates the area as urban residential. Within the urban residential area, care units broadly defined as they are broadly defined in our Land Development Code is a use that is permitted, authorized through a rezoning action in the residential areas. Appreciate that in all residential zoning districts including the ag. district, we allow care units as a conditional use though they are permitted as a matter of right. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And as Commissioner Hancock just asked, are 390 care units going to give a more intense use to the surrounding areas than 70 single-family homes? MR. NINO: With all respect -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That was your question. MR. NINO: -- we haven't -- we have not made -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That's the distinction I draw. MR. NINO: We have not made that analysis. However -- and we would not normally make that analysis because whether we like it or not, the way the Land Development Code is currently structured, it says 26 dwelling units per acre is an authorized use -- is an authorized density under this type of zoning application. This petition is at 21.68. They're really not at the -- not asking you for the total authorized 26 dwelling units per acre. Now -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So the answer to the question is you don't know. MR. NINO: We don't -- we don't know what all of the level of service relationships are. We do know in terms of traffic that you could have anywhere from -- normally about three or four care units is the equivalent of a standard dwelling unit, anywhere in the neighborhood of three or four times. However, if you ask me what the -- is there any appreciable difference in terms of water consumption, sewer consumption, we have not made that analysis. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm less interested in those than I am physical external impacts. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Like traffic. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Like -- like traffic, like just aesthetics. If I'm sitting 50 feet on the other side of the property line, what could they build under residential versus this? And I've addressed these questions to the petitioner, and I hope that they have -- they have brought today the information that allowed me to have preliminary some degree of comfort, and I -- I think that may help answer some of these questions. MR. NINO: If I might address, Commissioner, in terms of housing structure types, I think it's pretty obvious -- and we -- we -- we mentioned this -- we may have mentioned this in our staff report. But if not, I've talked about it in a subsequent application that's coming into you very soon for an additional adult care facility for the north of this site. When you look at Airport Road, it's pretty obvious that the first tier or the first 600 feet of Airport Road that even though the density is only 3 or 4 units per acre that in all cases those people are going to be coming before you to ask for a rezoning of the type that allows multiple family use, albeit at the 3 or 4 dwelling units per acre level unless it's a parcel of land that's less than 10 acres in size. Then you know they're going to ask for the infill. So you -- you might reasonably expect that along Airport Road the response to land use along Airport Road is going to be a multi-family structure. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You may recall when Dwight Nadu was here with the property on the corner of County Barn and Davis that I raised the point that perhaps the future land use element shouldn't assume a maximum use, and I realize under today's existing law it does. But I'm wondering what work has been done. And I know that's a Land Development Code change, but is that -- that question progressing? Is that research progressing? Are some options progressing right now so that things like this -- I don't like the fact that we just assume it can be used -- it can be changed from ag. which would allow 3 and can automatically under law go to 390. I realize that's what the law says right now, but we had talked about looking at that change. And is someone doing their homework on that in preparation for this LDC? MR. ARNOLD: For the record, Wayne Arnold of your planning services staff. We are not specifically looking at that specific issue as part of the current Land Development Code changes. That and many other similar issues were brought about as part of the evaluation and appraisal report for the comprehensive plan which will be coming back to you late this fall or early in the coming year to address that issue. And based on your last discussion, I've had our graphics department prepare an exhibit which I planned on bringing forward to you in the very near future regarding existing agricultural and estate zoned property in the urban area to show you what you do have the potential in making a comparison between the existing density that's permissible under the zoning and what the comprehensive plan would permit as a base density. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's also a recognition that we get a lot of folks at that podium that say, your comp. plan says I can have 12 units an acre. No, no. It says up to which means that the -- the project is graduated based on its impacts to a reasonable level. And that's the approach that I'm taking on this. They're not asking for 26 units an acre which is what we saw on Marco. We saw two ends of the spectrum; the highest degree request for units per acre and the highest degree of individual livability with garages. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Independence, independent living. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, in essence it was -- it was a condo project with -- with a couple of tables to have lunch at. So, you know, that was the -- that was just a -- an anomaly I hope. I hope that the petitioner can justify the 21 units an acre as far as impacts, as far as what design elements will cause it to be as quiet or quieter than a -- a commensurate residential project. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why don't we invite him to do that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's let him try to do that. And while the petitioner's coming forward, Mr. Weigel, let me ask a question that interests me. This is a conditional use. If they discontinued the use, what do we -- what do we do with the building if they discontinue the use? They'll have 21 units an acre built. What do we do then? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That was our concern with Marco. MR. WEIGEL: I'll make a general statement. Marjorie may want to fill in some gap here. But it appears to me if there's a conditional use and the property's developed for that conditional use and the use falls off for the appropriate amount of time where -- wherein the conditional use is lost, then the development on that property is nonconforming. And it seems to me that the underlying landowner's going to have some responsibilities to bring that property back into conformance. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Before he can use it for any other purpose. MR. WEIGEL: Before it can be used for anything else, yes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Or demolish it. MR. WEIGEL: Or demolish it. And, of course, we've had situations in the past over years where, you know, the property wasn't moonscape before it was developed and it shouldn't revert to cement and moonscape after if the use no longer continues either. There's a restoration requirement, reasonable, of course. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Am I correct in that if, let's say, ABC Nursing Care left the property and the building was vacant and someone else came in to resume operation they would have to come through the county and get a CO or a -- there's a business designation COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Occupational license. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that varifies the type of use? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Occupational license. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, that's it. I'm sorry. MR. NINO: Occupational license would establish legally that there's -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because that's where we caught insufficient parking on Marco for one center down there because somebody else came in for a new use and staff reviews all that stuff. MR. NINO: You know, additionally they're getting a different parking generation, so that if they -- for example, if they no longer had a licensed facility and they started to operate it in the manner of conventional housing, they would have to come back to because then they'd be operating in contravention of their approved development order. So they'd have to come back and ask us to change something, and that change would all in likelihood be -- would be a complete retrofit of the physical facility to reduce the density to that which is allowed by the Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Let's -- let's go with the petitioner, hear from the petitioner. MR. GARLICK: Yes. Good morning, members of the commission. For the record, my name's Tom Garlick. I'm with the law firm of Harter, Secrest, and Emery representing Stuart Marcus as trustee and also his assignee which is Health -- Health Trust Corporation. Health Trust Corporation I should point out to you is in the business and only the business of developing adult living facilities or ALFs as they're now called under our state code. I wanted to introduce to you the people that are -- we brought with us this morning because I know this concept has been a little unusual and the ALF definitions have changed from time to time including in 1995 in the state legislature. So if I might introduce, this morning we have with us, members of the commission, Harry Rafofsky who is a principal and owner of Health Trust Corporation. Mr. Rafofsky has been involved for over 25 years in senior living having been an executive vice president of Lovett Homes in the past where he first developed a senior living and senior care type facility. He also has developed a very similar facility to the one we're presenting this morning on the east coast of Florida which he'd be glad to answer questions about if you so choose. With him this morning is Mary Jo Pompayo, vice president and chief operating offer of Health Trust Corporation. Mary Jo has bachelor's and master's degrees in long-term care administration and has served as an administrator of several ALF-type facilities, including one facility similar to the one here. Also with us this morning is Dr. Richard Conard. Dr. Conard is presently the chairman and CEO of the Senior -- of Senior Living Services Inc. in -- located in Bradenton, Florida. He is an expert in senior care health-related issues and ALF-type facilities. He and his company consult and lecture widely in the state of Florida and other places with regard to ALF-type facilities. And -- and he will be able for you here this morning should you wish to answer all those complicated questions that we seem to raise from time to time regarding how these -- how these facilities operate. And lastly, I want to introduce to you who will make our formal presentation this morning, Bruce Tyson, who I'm sure is known to you from prior appearances. He's with Willer, Miller -- Wilson, Miller, an engineer and land planner and landscape architect with 26 years' experience. Simply before I sit down, for the record I would like to introduce the -- for the record a copy of the curriculum vitae that is the resume and summary brochure of Dr. Conard, our expert witness; also a letter from Dr. Conard which sets forth his opinion -- and it will speak for itself -- but that this facility shall comply in all respects with Florida law and licensing requirements for the facility. And lastly, I'd like to offer the resume of Mr. Bruce Tyson the land planner, so that they might become part of the record. Thank you, and Mr. Tyson will make our presentation. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. TYSON: Morning, ladies and gentlemen. I'm Bruce Tyson. I'm a project manager with Wilson, Miller, Barton, and Peek. And I'll -- let me just take care of a couple of matters that -- that I think are important just to put on the record. As part of the conditional use, we have to meet the test of four -- four points: Its consistency with the LDC and the -- and the Growth Management -- Management Plan; its making sure that the ingress and egress to the property and the proposed structures thereon are handled from a standpoint of convenience, traffic flow, and control; that the effect on the conditional use would not have any major impact from the standpoint of noise, glare, economic, or odor impacts on the environment to the immediate residents; and in additional, it must be compatible with the adjacent properties and other properties within the district. Briefly if I can -- let's see. Can you all see this -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes. MR. TYSON: -- easily enough? Okay. We -- this is -- again, this is 17.8 acres, almost 18 acres. Orange Blossom along here, Airport Road to the north, and a ten-acre block of land here, half of which is open and vacant. The Italian American Club is a provisional use that's on the upper five acres of that; RSF-1 zoning for Yarberry Lane to the west; and a vacant parcel about 330 feet by the total length which is about 1,320 feet along the south boundary. When we -- we looked at this -- and I'll try to address some of your issues as I go through this and try to keep it as brief at the same time -- we talked about density and what the impact would be. In terms of setting that up, it was the placement of -- in this case as it turned out 390 units on the 17.8 acres. And what was important was the -- the visibility and how we could utilize this narrow band of 330 feet. And as it turns out, its best use was almost to create a park. And from the water management standpoint, the building in terms of impact visually is set back over 700 feet to Airport Road. So it -- it virtually will not be seen. The -- the way in which it's been phased -- and we talk about phases or somebody has -- the initial phase is this is a first phase, this is a second phase. And the idea behind it is to cjuster with a major amenity which takes up about 20 percent of the whole facility a group of assisted living units and supportive living units attached to this main cjuster. You've asked some real challenging questions when it comes to impact. And it's very, very difficult to -- to quantify Some of this information simply because it doesn't exist in an apples-to-apples basis. Mr. Nino pointed out that -- that you'd look at these as care units. And when you try to go to trip generation numbers, it's almost impossible to come up and make the comparison between what is someone here going to be driving versus what will somebody in a comparative situation driving (sic). If you look at -- from a -- from that pure standpoint without trying to get overly technical about it, for instance, the highest density which exists just down from this in the -- the Bear Creek apartments, at about 16 units per acre, they generate approximately 105 trips per day per acre. And that's the only way I can do this to try to get it down into a comparative basis. The only apples-to-apples comparison was an acre. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that like an assumption rate for traffic engineers for life? MR. TYSON: That's based on -- it's pulled right out of what's called the ITE trip generation which is 6.6 trips per -- per acre as it -- as it works out. So you can go through all these numbers. I mean, you know, it's -- it comes out to the point -- I think what I -- it really boils down to is Mr. Rafofsky has done a project over on the east coast called North Park which is in Hollywood where we have some actual numbers as to what happens from a standpoint of traffic. As it turns out, in that facility there are 375 total units or apartments in that facility. And from the standpoint of the overall parking lot ratio to -- in other words, the number of automobiles for the number of apartments, it's 44 percent. And yet we're looking at even in the presentation here of having 81 percent parking spaces if you look at it in a pure numbers basis versus the number of units, even though they have a similar parking ratio from the standpoint of the number of vehicles that are there, the point being that nobody drives or very few people drive. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: As far as the traffic element, on -- page 9 of our executive summary says that the ITE trip generation manual indicates that this petition will generate approximately a little more than a thousand trips on a weekday, and that's what was used to -- to conclude that you don't reach that 5 percent of that LOS C design volume. MR. TYSON: That's correct. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The -- that -- maybe this is for Mr. Nino. What would the -- if these were regular apartments instead of life care units, what would the trip generations be for this density? Somebody look that up in the ITE because it's just -- MR. NINO: It would be about six and -- it would be about six and a half units -- six and a half trips per day for each dwelling unit. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: About 2,000 plus. MR. NINO: For multiple family. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So a -- so about double. And so in other words, your project is about half of what an apartment complex, a normal apartment complex, would generate for trips using the ITE numbers. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: However, 4 -- 4 units an acre which would yield about 72 homes, the ITE standard is, I think, 10 trips a day per single family. MR. NINO: Single family's ten and a half. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So you -- ten and a half. MR. NINO: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So you're talking nearly 800 for single family at 4 units an acre. MR. NINO: Correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You'd mentioned 44 percent of the units at a similar project on the east coast. As a matter of fact, is it very similar to this? MR. TYSON: Very similar. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Forty-four percent had vehicles. MR. TYSON: Correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So were there any trip generation numbers from that, any counters across the entries? MR. TYSON: No. Again, that gets very sophisticated, and it's not necessarily comparing apples to apples. And we can -- we could go on. I think one of the most important things is, even though it jumps ahead a little bit, this is a chart that is put together by Dr. Conard, and he can be very specific when it comes to answering any specific question about it. What's most important to recognize is if you have what's been referred to in some projects as an independent living, that's almost like being in a single-family home and having people come in. That's when your trip generation would wind up being higher. But when you get into the congregate living from the standpoint of resi -- from vehicle trips, you might get a few of these people in here that would have cars that would actually move them. Up in here with the assisted you get -- you would get next to none. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And where are -- MR. TYSON: And that's what happens. From the standpoint of the living component as this facility is -- is ranked in and amongst what's called the residential care facilities in the middle of this continuum. What happens is that you realize you're serving somewhere between, plus or minus, 800 to 1,000 meals a day. This becomes much more of a service-oriented facility, not necessarily - when they look at trip generation, it's not from an automobile standpoint. It's from service vehicles and what happens from that standpoint on a daily basis as much as it would be from an automobile basis. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Tyson, you seem to be ignoring visitation. MR. TYSON: Well, that would be -- certainly that would be a major component. But again, that's all built into that two point -- as a matter of fact, the -- the -- the comparison number that you were asking for, Commissioner, was 2.15 for a lower component of this. And, quite frankly, ITE hasn't quite caught up with -- with what we're doing here. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think there's -- the ITE model, there's only like four or five examples so they even put -- is it 27 There's little asterisks on the bottom of that page that says, here's the curve, but don't bet on it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that's the 2.15 numbers. So it could be higher or lower depending on where you fall on that scale. MR. TYSON: And those both were done in Oregon, both studies. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think we beat the traffic element to death. Continue, please. MR. TYSON: In addition to the plan that we have there, I wanted to indicate to you a little bit of what's happening within the county, especially now with the issues dealing with -- we get into the aesthetic side of the business. And the idea here is to really present a first class product. And one of the things that totally differentiates this if you try to compare with -- with other facilities -- sometimes I know that occurs -- but the rents here will wind up being, for the type of use that occurs, somewhere in the neighborhood of two and a half at a minimum times the market rents that you would have for a luxury apartment. Consequently, what Mr. Rafofsky's target is from his -- his audience and having people come to the facility is to generate a first class operation, and it will look very similar to this. This is the main entry as you would come up with the assisted living component which would be back on this side looking up to what would be considered part of phase 2. Whole idea is it will be all stucco on the front with a Mediterranean style mansard that will go up and -- and help hide some of the mechanical equipment on the roof. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Two story? MR. TYSON: It's a combination of two and three story. I should point out that as much as we would like to have four story simply because the ability to re -- or to shorten walking distances, the code does not allow that, and we didn't want to ask for any variances, so there are no variances here. And consequently, all of what you see in tan are three-story elements. And the majority of what's shown in the peach color winds up being two-story elements. The other thing we have done from a planning standpoint is while the buildings are required to be set back 30 feet, in no case do we come closer to any property line than 80 feet. So we have maintained that situation. We've looked into all of the zoning issues which people have asked. I think we've responded to those points to you. We'd be happy to answer any of those specifically. I -- I believe that covers the majority. But one of the other things I think is important that you have asked in the past is is this facility or can this facility be licensed. And one of the most -- that's the most important element because it's required right out of the code. And the point is that this facility can be completely licensed and is -- is designed and developed under the guidelines of the state statutes for that purpose. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have any public speakers on this? MR. DORRILL: No, sir, I don't have any. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Don't have any. Do we have any questions from the board? No questions? Mr. Tyson, what if this board were to ask you to limit to 15 units an acre? Would you still go forward with the project? MR. TYSON: I'd have to certainly ask my client about that. It comes to a point of where you have an economic justification. I'll let him explain that if -- if you would like to do that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: He doesn't need to explain economics to me. Just answer the question would be sufficient. MR. TYSON: No, not at that -- not that low. That would -- that would never quite -- it would never quite get to that low point I don't believe. And that's -- that's all -- again, that's all part that they would have to respond to. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any more questions from the board? Close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move approval of the request. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before we vote, I'm going to say I'm going to support it because it meets our current law. But I want to voi -- again voice my objection to the future land use element and the fact that it just automatically assumes property currently zoned as estates or ag. can be used to -- to the maximum use. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was initially concerned about this when I saw 390. I live in a community that wraps around Moorings Park, and I don't think we could have a better neighbor as single-family. There's not -- I mean, I drive by those gates every day three, four times a day, and rarely is there a car even coming out of it. That combined with a lot of the things that have been done here give me a greater level of comfort that this is actually going to be better for the area than the request that may come down the road. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dotrill, you've heard several board members including myself say that we want to take a look at the future land use element as soon as possible and as well as the -- our LDC and density allowables that come with these ACLFs, ALFs -- MR. DORRILL: Very well. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- affordable housing, all of those density bonus situations. We'd like to see all of those. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And even the urban estates or urban ag. property. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I think you need to include the -- the proximity to activity center in that also. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The whole thing. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'd like to -- all would like to look at all of those. We have a motion and a second in the interim. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? That motion is approved. Item #14A UPDATE RE LAKE TRAFFORD RESTORATION COHMITTEE - DISCUSSED Commissioner Matthews, anything else? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, I have two -- two items. One, I'd like to give the board a quick update on the Lake Trafford restoration. Committee, we met again last week. And things are moving along quite well. We have gotten -- the DEP has done some bathymetry studies, and we find out that there are eight million cubic yards of muck in Lake Trafford. Also the DEP is doing some testing virtually as we speak on heavy metals, pesticides, and so forth in the muck so that we know what we can and can't do with it as we move along. So I just wanted to let you know that we -- we've gained the benefit of about $80,000 worth of testing and computer modeling from the DEP in this process so far. So we're -- we're moving along pretty good on that one. Item #14B L.G. TOURNAMENT BUDGET PLAN OF ACTION - DISCUSSED The other item that I'd like to bring up -- and I know I was in the dissenting vote on this -- but I see from the newspaper last week that the new LG tournament is -- has cut back the use of the word Greater Naples or Naples at all. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's not correct. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It says in the material the Naples, Marco Island. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, very small print. And then I also see in the very next day that $600,000 for the Quest for Kids scholarship. I think Quest for Kids is a great program, but I think there's -- may be some magic to the $600,000. I'd -- I'd like this board or someone on this board who voted in the majority to bring the issue back to rediscuss exactly what LG is doing with the -- with the funds. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think you got a valid point in that it -- part of the agreement was to have Collier's name, Naples and Naples, Marco Island, in the name as a title sponsor. And it was -- because that's how it was featured on television, on all the ads, and that was part of the agreement. So it's -- it's a good point. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I voted with the majority, and I'd be happy to -- to bring back for a discussion the -- the whole what's the marketing effort. We need an update anyway. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just like the -- the picture of the material changes because although I've been at one of the presentations, you know, it has changed substantially since we approved the item. And I would just like to know what those changes are, so I agree with that. I -- you know, I'm not so sure the kids thing is -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. I'd -- I'd just like to know -- I'd like to know what the changes are. I'd like to know what the $600,000 is going to be used for, if the marketing and promotion element is going to be as -- as strenuous as we were told it was going to be. And -- and I'd like to know how they intend to raise the six hundred -- the possible $600,000 for -- for the Quest for Kids. if -- if one of the members in the -- on the approval side of that would bring that back for discussion, I'd -- I'd appreciate that. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What do I need to do, Mr. Dotrill, to do that because I'd be happy to -- or can I just -- MR. DORRILL: You don't need to do anything. I'll bring it back because you're -- you're beyond your reconsideration issue, but we'll prepare -- I've got two notes here: What is the specific budget or plan of action for your $600,000 and second to that the - as I understand it, there's some challenge grant program for the primary beneficiary this year which is the Quest program or whatever the successor to that is and to make doggone sure that we get the proper credit for the area prior to whatever other main sponsors that they have been able to obtain. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or they can just give us back the money if they don't want to do that. That's their choice. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't have anything else. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like to wish three of my colleagues good luck. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Likewise. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nothing else. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a brief comment. We wrangle and argue and disagree on different issues and -- and -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- from time to time take one another to task, and I wanted to say to Commissioner Norris, you've had a busy recess, two big, very big items. Great job as far as doing a little negotiating and bringing people to the table on both SSU and the Seminole -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And campaigning at the same time. Item #15A UPDATE RE FORD MOTOR CAR CO. TRACK SITE - DISCUSSED COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: How are we doing with Ford? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Take the next two weeks off. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do that again. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Not to jump back in. I know I had nothing else to say, but -- but how are we doing with Ford? Can we get an update on that? MR. DORRILL: Well, the chairman's office also while negotiating with the Indian tribe and others was -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Got it all together. MR. DORRILL: -- very instrumental in the trip that we arranged with the Governor's office. And there are some things that they need to do in the interim at that site that would appear to be allowable without an additional permit, surface water management permit. But they want to do some things to their current facilities that we're going to try and develop and show them an expedited means to do. They also have indicated to us that while we are not currently scheduled to be eliminated -- and it was one of the main points that Mr. Russet wanted to make to us -- they now have nine test facilities worldwide. They just acquired Mazda Corporation, and with that they got a track in Japan, and they had some of their haughtier types at the meeting explaining an internal review that they are involved in worldwide to eliminate from nine down to some number the number of facilities that they will keep in the future. And that will be complete by the end of the calendar year. And in anticipation of that, they're not spending any significant money on expansion for any of their facilities until the completion of their report. But I thought overall the meeting went -- went very well. I think that we owe a vote of thanks and I have already corresponded on your behalf to the lieutenant governor who flew in from Chicago. He left the convention and missed his -- his nominee's acceptance speech in order to be there and go to bat for Collier County in -- in what may be one of the more Republican counties in the state. But he looked them dead in the eye and told them that this was an issue of statewide importance and that's why the Governor had asked him to be there, and he did a fine job. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is it safe to assume that as they go through that review process of their nine sites that we will remain active and not just leave this one visit? MR. DORRILL: We -- we have a -- yes, sir. We have a continuing strategy. And, in fact, I may dispatch some people up there this time next week to meet with their engineering track officials to explore what specifically they would like to do to their track this year. One of the things they want to do is expand one of their metal buildings. When they have up to 300 engineers and design people there and it's the middle of the winter and a cold front comes through, they -- they don't even have enough room to get all of their people who may be at work out there indoors currently. And that's a problem to them. So we're -- we're looking at what we can do to get them ready for this season and show our ability to deliver on -- on some of the representations we made. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah. I don't think their test track in Yuma can duplicate our climatic conditions around here. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There you go. MR. DORRILL: We told them that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Anything else, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: No, sir, I don't have anything else. Item #15B FDOT CERTIFICATION PILOT PROGRAM - ENDORSED BY BCC CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Yes, thanks. One small item. The U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration sent us a letter, me a letter, I received August 12 concerning the Florida Department of Transportation and the federal transportation asking if the county would endorse a certification program under the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act. It's -- and so we farmed it out to Mr. Archibald and Mr. Con -- Conrecode to tell us what they thought of the transportation issue request that was involved. And -- and they both responded back, George Archibald particularly, indicating that in response to the highway department's question, would the county endorse this concept of federal-state certification and -- and work in cooperation, George indicated that he thought it was commendable. And my question to the board is that I have prepared a draft one-sentence letter response saying that the board does endorse the program, the certification pilot program. It's a pilot program, and I can pass out to you the background information. I've got it certainly here. But I just thought this might be an easy way for me to respond rather than getting the board responding that there is what appears to be based on staff's review a program that's okay for the time being. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Sounds good. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Miss Filson just got back from Utah. She -- she's going to deliver us now a lengthy report on the Mormons. No, not today, Miss Filson? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Any fifth wheel tips? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're done. ***** Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner Matthews, and carried unanimously, that the following items under the consent agenda be approved and/or adopted: ***** Item #16A1 RESOLUTION 96-379, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60503-038; OWNER OF RECORD - SLOANE R. BARBOUR JR. AND CHERYL BARBOUR See Pages Item #16A2 RESOLUTION 96-380, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60502-017; OWNER OF RECORD - THOMAS SANZALONE, ET UX See Pages Item #16A3 RESOLUTION 96-381, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60418-044; OWNER OF RECORD - MAURICE TREHBLAY See Pages Item #16A4 RESOLUTION 96-382, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60318-110; OWNER OF RECORD - IMPERIAL FIVE INC. See Pages Item #16A5 RESOLUTION 96-383, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60122-023; OWNER OF RECORD - CATHERINE A. STIHNLA_N See Pages Item #16A6 IRREVOCABLE STANDBY LETTER OF CREDIT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,480.00, ACCEPTED AS SECURITY FOR EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.557 "WILSHIRE PINES" LOCATED IN SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST See Pages Item #16A7 APPROVAL OF A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO OFFSET EXPENSES INCURRED FOR CONTRACTED LOT CLEARING IN CODE ENFORCEMENT Item #16A8 RESOLUTION 96-384, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60503-051; OWNER OF RECORD - RAYMOND A. MILLER See Pages Item #16A9 APPROVAL OF THE RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "HUNTINGTON LAKES UNIT TWO" - WITH STIPULATIONS, PERFORMANCE BOND & CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT See Pages Item #16A10 APPROVAL OF THE RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "EDGEWATER ACRES" Item #16All RESOLUTION 96-385, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60401-011; OWNER OF RECORD - CATHERINE L. HARRISON See Pages Item #16A12 RESOLUTION 96-386, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60401-005; OWNER OF RECORD - STEVEN MILLER & HELENE NAILS See Pages Item #16A13 - This item has been continued Item #16A14 RESOLUTION 96-387, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60322-076; OWNER OF RECORD - ROSE L. CASTEEL See Pages Item #16A15 RESOLUTION 96-388, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60202-021; OWNER OF RECORD - BRUCE T. WHITHER & ELSYE K. WHITHER See Pages Item #16A16 RESOLUTION 96-389, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60118-099; OWNER OF RECORD - YOUNG ELECTRIC CO., INC. See Pages Item #16A17 ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES FOR PELICAN HARSH, UNIT ELEVEN, PHASE 1 - WITH STIPULATIONS O.R. Book Page Item #16A18 APPROVAL OF SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE RESOLUTION 96- 288 See Pages Item #16A19 APPROVAL OF SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE RESOLUTION 96- 287 See Pages Item #16A20 APPROVAL OF SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE RESOLUTION 96- 249 See Pages Item #16A21 APPROVAL OF SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE RESOLUTION 96- 161A See Pages Item #16A22 RESOLUTION 96-390, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60410-008; OWNER OF RECORD - FELIX LERCH FAMILY TRUST See Pages Item #16A23 RESOLUTION 96-391, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60502-128; OWNER OF RECORD - BERT NILE DEEMS & JANET SUE DEEMS See Pages Item #16A24 RESOLUTION 96-392, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60506-014; OWNER OF RECORD - NOEL H. WILLIAMS See Pages Item #16A25 RESOLUTION 96-393, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60510-019; OWNER OF RECORD - BERNARD DAVID See Pages Item #16A26 RESOLUTION 96-394, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60510-020; OWNER OF RECORD - BERNARD DAVID & KARIN DAVID See Pages Item #16A27 RESOLUTION 96-395, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60510-021; OWNER OF RECORD - BERNARD DAVID & KARIN DAVID See Pages Item #16A28 - This item has been deleted Item #16A29 - This item has been deleted Item #16A30 APPROVAL OF THE RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "CAMELOT PARK" - WITH STIPULATIONS, LETTER OF CREDIT & CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT See Pages Item #16B1 APPROVAL OF THE STIPULATED ORDER FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION CASE NUMBER 95-5071-CA-01-TB (PARCEL NOS. 114 AND 714) FOR VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD FOUR LANING IMPROVEMENTS (CIE PROJECT NO. 023) See Pages Item #1682 AWARD BID NO. 96-2536 "IHMOKALEE ROAD GROUND MAINTENANCE SERVICES" TO COHMERCIAL LAND MAINTENANCE, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $83,562.94 Item #1683 - This item has been deleted Item #1684 RESOLUTION 96-396 AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, SIDEWALK, UTILITY, DRAINAGE, MAINTENANCE AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS AND/OR FEE SIMPLE TITLE FOR GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD PROJECT, CIE NO. 62 See Pages Item #1685 AUTHORIZATION OF EXPENDITURES FOR OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL FOR LAND ACQUISITION MATTERS - IN AN A_MOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $50,000.00 Item #1686 PETITION AV-96-016, JULY C. ADARHES, HOLE, HONTES AND ASSOCIATES, INC., AS AGENT FOR OWNER, SAXON MANOR ISLES APARTMENTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, REQUESTING VACATION OF A UTILITY EASEMENT RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 1467, PAGES 1551-1553, INCLUSIVE OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND LOCATED IN SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA See Pages Item #1687 AWARD BID NO. 96-2557, FOR THE HAULING AND DISPOSAL OF LIME SLUDGE FROM THE REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLAN FACILITY, TO J. J. BAKER, INC., IN THE ESTIMATED A_MOUNT OF $120,000.00 Item #1688 APPROVAL OF A SITE AS SURPLUS PROPERTY, DIRECT STAFF TO OFFER PROPERTY FOR SALE PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE, AND APPROVAL OF SALE TO HIGHEST BIDDER, IF ACCEPTABLE Item #1689 NOTICES OF CLAIM OF LIEN FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE NOTICE TO PAY SEWER IMPACT FEE STATEMENT FOR THE TIMBERWOOD SUBDIVISION See Pages Item #16C1 AUTHORIZATION OF BUDGET AMENDMENT TRANSFERRING FUNDS FROM 345 REGIONAL IMPACT FEE RESERVES TO THE AQUATIC COMPLEX AT GOLDEN GATE COHMUNITY PARK TO PURCHASE AND INSTALL A 3 METER DIVING BOARD Item #16C2 APPROVAL OF A LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND NORTH NAPLES LITTLE LEAGUE, INC., GIRLS' SOFTBALL COHMITTEE FOR USE OF A PORTION OF VETERANS PARK See Pages Item #16C3 APPROVAL TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH COLLIER SPORTS OFFICIALS ASSOCIATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING SPORTS OFFICIALS FOR COUNTY SPONSORED ACTIVITIES See Pages Item #16C4 - This item continued to 9/10/96 Item #16D1 AWARD BID NO. 96-2548, ANNUAL GASOLINE AND DIESEL FUEL BID, TO VARIOUS VENDORS LISTED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16D2 APPROVAL OF THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO APPROPRIATE THOSE REVENUES RECEIVED IN EXCESS OF THE CURRENT BUDGET, OFFSETTING EXPENSES Item #16D3 APPROVAL OF THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR THE PURCHASE OF HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE UPGRADES AND MAINTENANCE FOR TELEPHONE SWITCHES Item #16D4 RESOLUTION 96-397 AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR A LUNCHEON TO RECOGNIZE RECAP (REDUCE COSTS OF ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL) EMPLOYEES See Pages Item #16El FORMAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE CONSENT/EMERGENCY ITEMS APPROVED BY THE COUNTY MANAGER DURING THE BOARD'S ABSENCE DURING THE PERIOD OF AUGUST 14, 1996 THROUGH AUGUST 30, 1996 Item #16E1A ACCEPTANCE OF WATER FACILITIES FOR PELICAN MARSH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ON-SITE - WITH STIPULATIONS O.R. Book Page Item #16E1B ACCEPTANCE OF WATER FACILITIES FOR ARIELLE AT PELICAN HARSH, PHASE I - WITH STIPULATIONS O.R. Book Page Item #16E1C APPROVAL OF A BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF TWO (2) CENTRAL LIBRARY'S ENTRANCE DOORS, REINSULATE THE CHILLER PIPES ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, PROVIDE A PORTABLE DEHUHIDIFIER FOR BUILDING "A", PROVIDE EMERGENCY POWER TO THE SECOND FLOOR OF THE ADMINISTRATION, AND CONSTRUCT A SIDEWALK ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE ELECTIONS BUILDING TO PROVIDE SAFE ACCESS TO THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING Item #16E1D AWARD BID NO. 96-2564, FOR 100,000 RECYCLING INFORMATION CARDS TO NAPLES PRINTING - IN THE A_MOUNT OF $5,600.00 Item #16E1E REJECT BID NO. 96-2562, FOR WELLFIELD MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION SERVICES AND EXTENSION OF THE CURRENT BID FOR SIXTY DAYS - CURRENT CONTRACT WITH A_MPS, INC., EXTENDED FOR 60 DAYS Item #16ELF APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENT TO INCREASE PURCHASE ORDERS FOR SOLID WASTE COLLECTION IN FRANCHISE SERVICE AREAS ONE AND TWO, TO COMPLETE THE 1996 FISCAL YEAR Item #16E1G APPROVAL OF TWO CHANGE ORDERS TO BARANY, SCHHITT, WEAVER & PARTNERS, INC., FOR THE GOLDEN GATE ESTATES/CORKSCREW EHS #12 SUBSTATION See Pages Item #16E1H APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENTS 96-551 AND 96-567 Item #16Eli APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENTS 96-548 AND 96-553 Item #16E1J APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENT 96-539 Item #16ELK APPROVAL OF TWO WORK ORDERS FOR CONSTRUCTIBILITY AND ERRORS AND OMISSIONS CLAIM REVIEWS RELATED TO THE NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT See Pages Item #16ELL TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO FUND ROSE ORLANDO'S SICK LEAVE Item #16ELM AWARD BID #96-2573, TO GULF SPECIALTIES, FOR THE PURCHASE OF RE- ENTRY IDENTIFICATION BADGES, IN THE AMOUNT OF $17,155.00 AND TO LABELS AND MORE, FOR THE PURCHASE OF DECALS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,614.96 Item #16E2 APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENT 96-564 Item #16G1 CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE 1993 TAX ROLL NO. DATE 242-244 7/16/96 1994 TAX ROLL 205-207 7/16/96 1995 TAX ROLL 246-248 7/16/96 252 8/13/96 Item #1662 SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER See Pages Item #1663 SATISFACTION OF CIVIL JUDGMENT LIEN FOR CASE NO. 91-48-CFA See Pages Item #1664 CANCELLATION OF LIEN FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER FOR CASE NOS. 94-1699-CFB AND 94-10960-HHA See Pages Item #1665 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the various departments as indicated: Item #16H1 RECOHMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS SERVE AS THE LOCAL COORDINATING UNIT OF GOVERNMENT IN THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS, GRANTS TO ENCOURAGE ARREST POLICIES PROGRAM AND ENDORSE THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE GRANT APPLICATION See Pages Item #16H2 RECOHMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS SERVE AS THE LOCAL COORDINATING UNIT OF GOVERNMENT AND ENDORSE THE COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE GRANT APPLICATION FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SUBGRANT APPLICATION FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY FUNDS See Pages There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:35 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL JOHN C. NORRIS, CHAIRMAN 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: Shelly Semmler