Loading...
BCC Minutes 06/25/1996 R REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 25, 1996, OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:05 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine Bettye J. Matthews Timothy L. Hancock Pamela S. Hac'Kie ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dorrill, County Manager David Weigel, County Attorney Item #3 AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Call the county commission to order on this 25th day of June, 1996. Mr. Dotrill, could you lead us in an invocation and pledge to the flag. MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we thank you today, as we do always, for the privilege that we have to live and raise families and enjoy retirement years in Collier County. We thank you for its people, its elected leaders. We thank you for the dedication of the staff here. We thank you for the interest of the many citizens that choose to participate in their government process. Father, we pray for our elected leaders and those who will be off on recess and the time to enjoy that period with their families, that they bless them and bring them back in early July, that we continue through the balance of the summer. And we pray that you bless our time here together today. We pray these things in your son's holy name. Amen. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a few changes today, I guess, Mr. Dorrill. MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Why do I see add? COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Two of them. MR. DORRILL: Good morning, Commissioners. We've got two add-on items this morning. The first one is in recognition of your recess period. It will be under public services. It is 8(C)(4), which is a recommendation to authorize the execution of a contract for our community care for the elderly program. That's 8(C)(4). The other add-on is under other constitutional officers. It is ll(A), which is a request to authorize the board to serve as local grant coordinator as part of an application for a United States Justice Department grant for the sheriff's department. That will be ll(A). And then I have a request to continue item 8(C)(2), which was companion to 8(C)(1) and was previously deleted. We're not continuing this indefinitely, but I -- I need to get some questions answered, and we will bring it back and reschedule it at an appropriate time. Then those are all the changes that I have, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Commissioner Matthews. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, I have one -- one point. It's on the consent agenda dealing with the boat ramp on Chokoloskee Island. I'd like to include in that executive summary direction for staff to work with Outdoor Resorts in the negotiations for constructing a new boat ramp. CHAI~ NORRIS: Will we have to pull that off, Mr. Dotrill, to do that? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. We have a meeting scheduled tomorrow between ourselves and the National Park Service superintendent at Everglades, and if they are not invited, we will invite them or we'll have separate discussions with them because they are one of the affected parties down there. CHAI~ NORRIS: Okay. Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I wouldn't dare add to it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No additions. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We need a motion. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve the agenda and consent agenda as amended. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #4 MINUTES OF WORKSHOP MEETING OF MAY 30, 1996 AND REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 4, 1996 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED We have some minutes as well. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to approve the minutes of the workshop of May 30 and the regular meeting of June 4th. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for approval of the minutes. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #5A1 PROCLAMATION EXTENDING SINCERE GRATITUDE AND APPRECIATION TO THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMHISSION CITIZENS ADVISORY COMHITTEE FOR PROVIDING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND ASSISTANCE IN THE PREPARATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT - ADOPTED Proclamation. We need -- let's see who -- this is going to be accepted by Glen Simpson and Kim Kobza. Would you gentlemen step forward and come over here and face the camera so the people at home can see you. MR. KOBZA: All right. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Proclamation reads: Whereas, on February the 7th, 1995, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners created by Resolution 95-109 the Collier County Planning Commission Citizens' Advisory Committee to provide public participation and community input in the development and preparation of the evaluation and appraisal report of the growth management plan, the Golden Gate area master plan, the Immokalee area master plan and maps; and Whereas, beginning in May 1995 the Citizens' Advisory Committee devoted many hours to assisting staff in the identification of issues and problems and provided assistance in policy formulation through public workshops as part of the evaluation and appraisal review of the growth management plan, the Golden Gate area master plan, the ama -- the Immokalee area master plan and required maps; and Whereas, after extensive review of the various draft element evaluation and appraisal reports, the Citizens' Advisory Committee made recommendations for the management of land use, natural resources, public facilities, coastal and conservation management, housing, urban design, and public capital improvements to the Collier County Planning Commission; and Whereas, the thorough and professional manner in which the Citizens' Advisory Committee has performed its duties has made an enduring contribution to the development of the Collier County evaluation and appraisal report. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, extends its sincere gratitude and appreciation to the entire membership of the Collier County Planning Commission Citizens' Advisory Committee for rendering an important community service to the citizens and officials of Collier County and for the exemplary and professional manner in which the membership has performed its duties. Done and ordered this 25th day of June, 1996, by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida. And, board members, I would like to make a motion that we accept this proclamation. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Congratulations, gentlemen. Thank you very much. (Applause) MR. SIMPSON: I would just like to make a brief comment that the citizens and the people that served on the committees and the subcommittees were the ones that really did the work. They put in hours and hours of time really going over the details of the various components of the EAR. And the time and effort they put into it, I -- I can't say enough about their work. Mr. Kobza and I did just a very minor part of participating in that, and I really -- I really appreciate the group of people that we had the opportunity to work with. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We appreciate the efforts of all the citizens that participated in this process. It was very valuable and -- and meaningful to the county, and certainly the community owes them a vote of thanks for that. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I think your family would call your participation something other than minor, Mr. Simpson. Item #5B EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next is service awards, Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, sir. It's my pleasure this morning to give out three service awards. The first is recognizing five years of service with the library, and I'm going to do my best on your last name. Is Elizabeth Nagengast here; is that correct? (Applause) COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Five years. Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You don't know how much I sweat names like that. MS. NAGENGAST: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thanks so much, Elizabeth. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Our second award this morning is for ten years of service, also with the library, is Esther Spink. (Applause) COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And our third and final award this morning is for 15 years in purchasing, Tamara Buchan. (Applause) COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Fifteen years, you're running the joint, gees. MR. DORRILL: Tammy was five years old when she came here. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I was going to say she was very young when she started work at the county. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you very much. Item #8A2 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD TO COORDINATE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OF PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL AND NON-EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES - APPROVED WITH CHANGES Our first item today is 8(A)(2), the interlocal agreement with the Collier County School Board. Before we start that we need to say that it certainly is an honor to be graced with the presence of all these important school board people that are out here today. Thank you for coming. MR. CAUTERO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Commissioners, Vince Cautero, your community development and environmental services administrator. I'll make the presentation brief. The Board of County Commissioners several weeks ago, as you may recall, discussed the proposal of an interlocal agreement, and at that time I outlined several concerns that the -- that your staff had and was continuing to work with the school board staff on. At that meeting it was determined that Commissioner Hancock would work with an ad hoc committee that was comprised of staff on both sides and Mr. Quinby of the school board. A meeting took place last Wednesday hosted by Commissioner Hancock here in your offices, and several items that I'd like to highlight for you briefly that were amendments to the ordinance. The first one dealt with the issue of buffering and screening, and some changes were made to Section 6(A)(3), which is on page 4 of the agreement. And I believe that you were given a separate copy of the agreement with red-line changes that should be shaded in gray. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That would be the final copy then, or is that two different copies? MR. CAUTERO: Yes, that you're holding in your right hand. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MR. CAUTERO: Those changes basically allude to the fact that certain provisions of the Land Development Code were incorporated by reference as an appendix to the agreement stating what the various buffering requirements would be. In addition, some language was added to that section dealing with retention of native vegetation. The next section, subparagraph B on page 5, dealt with the issue of sidewalks and how the county and the school board staff would work on the issue of sidewalks. And it states that if there's a dispute between the staff members, that the county manager and the superintendent of the school board would resolve that dispute. Finally, the final change on page 6 dealt with the site plan review time frame. What that states is that the county staff would have a 30-day review period. Ultimate scenario would lead to the fact that if the county did not reply to the school board within a specified period of time, that that nonresponse would constitute a denial and that the school board would use their appeal rights that are contained within the ordinance. What we're trying to do is provide an agreement to you and to the school board that would allow disputes to be resolved by staff and then ultimately the manager and the superintendent and, if not, then those would proceed through other channels. The school board did hear the agreement Thursday night and approved the agreement. And that really concludes my remarks, Mr. Chairman. I'll turn it back to you and perhaps Commissioner Hancock for any information about the meeting. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Cautero, I'd like to thank you. Vince was a tremendous assistance in reviewing this from the standpoint of how to, I guess, clear some of the hurdles that we may have seen in the past and how to have a much clearer understanding with the school board to be compatible without conflicting. And I'd like to thank him and his staff for their efforts. I -- school board member, Mr. Quinby, is here. And we discussed with our staff in the meeting last Wednesday and raked you over the coals as much as I could, Clyde, you know, just to make it worthwhile. But, no, we came to agreement on all issues, and the only issue that was outstanding has been included, which was addressing the sidewalk issue that may extend beyond the boundaries of the school site, which is something we have discussed in the past. It's a -- a first step in -- in learning how to address those, and I'm -- I'm fairly pleased with what's in front of us today. If there are any questions I can answer for the board, I'd be happy to try. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Go ahead, Bettye. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thanks. I have a couple questions. In our first draft of this, there was some language in early on that dealt with the imperative instead of the possible where a word "may" had been changed to "shall." I can't find that now. Mr. Cautero, can you -- MR. CAUTERO: Yes, I believe that would have been on the bottom of page 3, section 5(P). If I'm correct, Mrs. Matthews, it states this provision requiring a 15-day advertised notice of a hearing to be held by the school board for an ancillary plant shall be waived by the county. The original version probably three or four drafts ago said may. The school board had voted to change that to shall. What that implies is that the -- the public hearing for ancillary facilities for any land under contract -- if I'm mistaken, I'm sure Mr. Cuyler will correct me -- the public hearing would not be conducted but that the plan review would be conducted. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's for land currently under contract? MR. CAUTERO: That's my understanding. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm not sure that's what this says. MR. CUYLER: I believe that what you'll find is very close to what Vince said. It wai -- for the record, Ken Cuyler with Roetzel and Andtess. It waives the 15-day requirement for the advertisement for the public hearing. There still was a public hearing held. There still was an advertisement. It was just not 15 days in advance. And then there are two other conditions, one of which is it has to be under contract either by the school board or for the benefit of the school board. And then, as I mentioned, there has to be an advertised public hearing, but it waives that 15-day period. So what Vince said is correct. That -- that facility won't be required to go through another public hearing, but it will have to come in for all of the other elements with regard to the site plan review; buffers, setbacks, off-site impacts, et cetera. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So this particular paragraph does not affect ancillary plants that may be planned five years from now that the school board doesn't currently own the land? MR. CUYLER: No. Those would go through everything else in the agreement. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. Now, Mr. Weigel brought to my attention yesterday that an interpretation from the state is that ancillary plants are not included in their intended regulations at all. And -- and we're going the extra mile and including ancillary plants, and I've been involved in at least one situation where it was an ancillary plant that caused the greatest grief, namely a bus depot. MR. CUYLER: That raises a very interesting legal argument that we probably don't have time to go through completely but which we raised early on, which is that Chapter 235 is the chapter that regulates the county's ability to look at school facilities. An ancillary plant is defined under that chapter, and educational plants are defined under that chapter, and the statute speaks in large part to educational facilities. We had mentioned to the county attorney that we think there is a very good argument that ancillary plants, whether it was by mistake of the legislature or intention of the legislature, were not included in the county's ability to look at the types of things we're talking about. But the school board early on took the position that they did not want to make that argument. They wanted to come in with a comprehensive package so that all school facilities were looked at in the same way, that they would come in with a site plan, review the buffers, setbacks, the things that would be affected adjacent to the property. The only difference in the agreement with regard to an ancillary plant is there is that additional requirement for a public hearing by the school board. So I think the answer to that is there may be arguments either way, but we decided to take the comprehensive view and get it included and -- and that way treat everything the same. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Itws almost the direct opposite of what my understanding was that ancillary plants should have and should be included in our regular rezoning petition process and -- and my presumption is that prior to this wewve just not done that. MR. CUYLER: I think that the ultimate conclusion that the county attorney came to was if you wanted to go through this process and do away with the legal arguments on both sides, I think we probably have a very good legal argument that you canwt regulate them. The county attorney would argue you can. In order to do away with those and come up with a comprehensive agreement, again, that will address both of them, I think the county attorneyls final answer on that is if -- if you want to do this, if you want to enter into an interlocal agreement, then you have the legal ability to do that. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I understand itls a policy decision of the board. Iive got no problem understanding that. Iim just -- just questioning if ancillary plants are already in the prerogative and have been for years, and -- and I know itls a legal argument, whether thatls true or not, under the control of -- of the general-purpose government, and we just simply havenlt exercised it. And Iim just bringing that to -- to a point. The -- the only two final comments that I have on this is I donlt see any language in the agreement for amending it, because it is a ten-year agreement. And I donlt -- and I see an automatic rollover for another 10 years, and that bothers me a little bit that welre making plans 20 years out. MR. CUYLER: With regard to the ten-year term, that got some discussion the last time we were here in terms of the conceptual approval. I believe that the school -- school boardls planning horizon is such that this isnlt a normal category that youlre going to be coming in two and three and four and five times a year. The number of facilities theylre going to build over the next three and five years is not enough. I think it was even you, Commissioner Matthews, that mentioned, you know, I want to get a feel for how it works; like to see the number of times the schools are actually going to be coming in to you over a ten-year period is probably equivalent to what other types of facilities under your zoning categories would be coming in on a yearly basis. So I think the school boardls clear position on that is their planning horizon. I believe Miss Cook mentioned to you last time their planning horizon is out to ten years and beyond and that it really takes that period of time to get a good feel for how the agreementls going to work. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was something we discussed in our meeting, and the number of facilities that are planned to actually physically come on line to be subject to this agreement over the next ten years is relatively small, five, as Mr. Quinby just indicated. So itls kind of tough to get a test pattern on one or two projects, and welre talking about on average a project every two years. So that low number may be more comfortable with a ten-year time frame at the outset. If welre talking 15 or 20 projects, it may be different. But in three to five years we would have maybe one, maybe two of those projects come forward, not much more than that. So that's -- we did go over that in our discussions, and that was my level of comfort. It may differ from the balance of the board. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I guess my -- my concern on not being able to amend this agreement because there's no amendment language and -- and just because we have amendment language in it doesn't mean that we will either. But, I mean, we've had two school board issues in two years that have been really contentious for the citizens and -- and fortunately, everybody has worked together and -- and made it work in the end to a large degree. But I just think that there ought to be some sort of language in this agreement to amend it because of the lang -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I try really hard not to give legal advice, but as you guys know, I can't resist that most of the time. But a contract is always amendable by mutual consent, am I correct, Mr. Weigel, whether we -- if -- if we put in the contract it can be amended by mutual agreement of the parties, that's just stating what is already the fact. It can be amended by -- it can't unilaterally be amended no matter what, but it can mutually be amended whether we say it or not. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Then why not have the language in it? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The point -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I mean, I -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The point is if you're looking to -- to have ultimate control over this school board, you've lost me, because the idea is that this agreement already addresses things that were not addressed. It places processes -- puts processes in place that never were in place. And as much as you can go and cite the Hanatee bus depot which doesn't exist, the -- and why doesn't it exist? Because the school board had a public hearing process, because the public came forward, and the school board made the right decision. So, you know, what has resulted from school board actions and the public process interaction with the school board has been positive. So for us to say that we should make sure we can amend this so we can step in and assume that role because they aren't doing their job -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Now, of course, the school board can amend it, too. I mean, you -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Either of us can amend it. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- know, this is a two-party process. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I disagree. I think the ten-year time frame is reasonable, because there are only five projects that are going to be subject to the agreement in that time frame. And, again, I'm not looking to make anyone the villain here. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel, give some legal advice, because even if we put in there that it can be amended, we can't amend it without their agreement. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I realize that. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So it doesn't really do anything. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have some questions on the substance of the thing itself, let alone the time frame. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We need to let Mr. Weigel answer that question. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, the agreement, as Hiss Hac'Kie indicates, can be amended by both parties coming forward at any point in time during its duration to do so. To include a clause in there to restate what is the option of both parties is duplicative. It doesn't really add anything. I think maybe some of the discussion as an aside earlier on was if there was significant legislative changes, the agreement would still continue to control, and I believe we've gotten past -- past that discussion, as far as that goes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Now, you had something? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. First I have to say how amusing it is to have Mr. Cuyler say, well, the county attorney and I might disagree. He still hasn't quite shifted a hundred percent. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: A little schizophrenic. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Page 4, item 6 at the top, if we're going to have a legal document -- I hate to have these vague parts, "as early in the design phase as deemed feasible by the school board." And I do appreciate that we have "but at least prior to." But "as deemed feasible," does that mean anything in particular? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually, this is something I raised a question on. The second part of that is more important, "but at least prior to the school board's approval of phase one documents." Mr. Cuyler, can you explain what phase-one documents are, because that's a set point in the process? MR. CUYLER: I can do better than that, and it will make more sense in my explanation, too. It's defined under your definitions. There -- there is a point in the school board process where they approve phased documents; phase-one documents, phase-two documents, phase-three documents. Under the definitions you'll see a general definition of phase-one documents, which is fairly early in their process. And I understand that the first part of that clause is a little wishy-washy, but it is defined, as Commissioner Hancock pointed out, by the second part of the sentence which says they can do it when they want to, but they can't do it any later than this point. And staff seemed comfortable that that would give them plenty of time to get into the process and make their review. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just curious why we have the first part of the sentence up through the word but even included. MR. CUYLER: I think the only reason was that if you said immediately prior to the phase-one document approval, that that would put a time frame that might preclude the school board from coming in two months before that if they wanted to. If they wanted to jump right on the process and get the county's okay very, very early in the process, they can do it as early as they want to. They just can't do it any later than the phase-one documents. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Could we just change that to beginning at prior, prior to the school board's approval of the phase-one document or eliminate that first sentence altogether? It wouldn't have a functional effect on the contract, would it? MR. CUYLER: No, it would not. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was going to say you could begin -- I don't know if this is appropriate English, but we could alter it accordingly, at least prior. Again, gives them the option of coming back. Nobody would read that as they had to wait until then but, anyway, that's just -- I didn't like the wishy-washy language. Moving down to 6(A)(2), building setbacks. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. Do you want to suggest a change there that it read prior to the school board's approval of phase-one documents or -- I mean, prior is prior. It could be six months, a year. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I hate to do -- say this, but I think that that argues against our side. It just -- if we added those, at least prior or something, that helps, but the way it is right now it shows that the intent is at the earliest possible time prior to or at the earliest reasonable time prior to. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's true. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It kind of gives -- the shades of gray go in our favor. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't care anymore on that One. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 6(A)(2), building setbacks, the school board shall adhere to the minimum yard requirements; however, they shall not exceed 25 feet. I've got to assume there may be some circumstances that the minimum setbacks would exceed 25 feet under normal circumstances. MR. CUYLER: Let me explain that. I shouldn't have to explain my own draft, but I've done this to four people, so perhaps this is not clear. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a clue. MR. CUYLER: I've gotten a couple of questions on this. The twenty-five-foot minimum, is the twenty -- at least twenty-five feet is the minimum. What this paragraph says is that the minimum setbacks shall not exceed 25 feet for those facilities and -- and the minimum shall not exceed 350 feet for the principal buildings. At all times, however, the minimum shall be at least 25 feet. What that is supposed to mean, and if it does not, then I need to clear it up -- what that's supposed to mean is that the school regulations never let the principal building or any buildings closer than 25 foot to the property line. What we have agreed to do is to use the county's zoning designation to establish the setback with the parameters that it will never be less than 25 feet, but then it won't exceed 50 feet. So if the restrictive adjacent district is a 35-foot setback, that is what you would use. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MR. CUYLER: You would go from the 25 to the 35. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In turning the page it says school board shall consider the retention of native vegetation -- very -- vegetation and shall use its best efforts to retain, consider, and shall use its best efforts. Is that the same thing we require everyone to do, or is that giving a little more leeway? MR. CAUTERO: It came out of the very last meeting with the negotiations in terms of what type of vegetation -- how vegetation would be retained. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we -- and the rationale there, if we require everyone else to actually maintain it, why are we giving them the option? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually this statement wasn't in there to the extent that you see it now. My request was to focus on retention of native vegetation in the buffer area, in other words, you know, encourage the consideration of leaving the pine tree instead of removing it, replacing it with an 8-foot oak. And to be honest with, you know, this is actually the first time of reading the language how it plays in here so, you know, Ken, you can help with that. You know, there was an agreement that, you know -- what I heard, and correct me if I'm wrong -- is we do that anyway. We retain everything we can anyway, so the strongest language for retention of that, except where site conditions prohibit it, seem to be an amenable point, and I see Dr. Ferrante saying, yes, that's what we said. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, there are some folks who argue whether they do everything they can to maintain as much as possible in a very recent project, but my point being, why are we giving them a lower bar than we give everyone else who builds anything else in the county. MR. CAUTERO: Commissioner, it was a negotiation point. It was an area -- as Commissioner Hancock stated, there was some requirements in their site planning manual, and that's a short version for the official title of that document. And we believe there are some strict regulations in the Land Development Code. It was merely a compromise. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll try it a different way. When the county builds buildings, when we do a project, do we require ourselves to maintain native vegetation the way everyone else does? MR. CAUTERO: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Then we probably ought to hold school board to the same. MR. CUYLER: Excuse me. You do unless there is some reason that you can't, and that's what I intended by that. And this is not where the school board is going to go clear in advance. They have to come into the county and say here's our perimeter buffer, here's the landscaping, we're going to take out X pine tree. And if the county says why and then the school board says 'cause, you know, we just want to, that's no reason. I mean, they have to -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But realistically this voting loosens up the requirements. It says shall consider and shall use its best effort to retain, and that's not what everyone else is required to do, and that's not what the county requires of itself. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because if we -- if we left in "shall retain," then the same procedures are available, I guess, for a variance or some other procedure that's available for the county when we build buildings or for other property owners when they build. MR. CUYLER: Can I have one second? My understanding is they do that, but let me just -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And, again, let's look at the wording that you've suggested: The school board shall retain native vegetation within the perimeter landscape buffer referenced above to be a priority and shall use its best effort to retain such native vegetation. The second part of that best efforts means if you have a fill slope coming off a building that hits 10 inches on the trunk of a pine tree, you know you're going to kill the pine by doing that. Saving it makes no sense. And I think that's what the second part is saying, is the site conditions have to be considered. How do we word that in the Land Development Code? We tell people you have to keep native vegetation but, you know, I look at Wal-Hart and their tree wells and how silly that is. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What I would suggest -- yeah. What I would suggest, rather than tinkering with the exact wording here, is just reference that part of the Land Development Code so they are the same as we are and everyone else is. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Cuyler is probably very familiar with the Land Development Code and the section on retention of native vegetation where it does give leeway for site conditions, if I'm correct, Mr. Cantetc. MR. CAUTERO: I believe it does. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did you hear my last comment, Ken? MR. CUYLER: No, I'm sorry. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just suggested that rather than have specific wording here, we just reference that part of the Land Development Code so -- just as the county or anyone else has to do rather than try to get the exact wording in this particular agreement. MR. CUYLER: So that it will say retention of native vegetation within the perimeter landscape buffer shall be in accordance with Collier County -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- X, Y, Z, yeah. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that would be attached as reference. MR. CUYLER: Fine. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And then whatever changes occur in the Land Development Code are automatically in this agreement. MR. CAUTERO: Well, let's discuss that for a moment, Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, because the section -- this section contemplates an attachment that would be freestanding in the event that the Land Development Code was amended, and that's something that I don't want the board to be misled on, so we -- I don't know if that's important or germane to the board at this point, but that -- that is a point that would be discussed because the intent of the agreement was to make it a freestanding document in that regard. if you're saying that something is in accordance with the Land Development Code and there is no attachments, the amendments, I am thinking, would be -- unless I'm told otherwise by legal -- the amendments would kick in if the Land Development Code was amended. And I don't know where the school board stands on that issue but -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is it my understanding that this -- this agreement is supposed to basically grandfather the school board in from further changes to the LDC? MR. CAUTERO: No, only -- only if specified, and we specified that in the area of buffering. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. CUYLER: It's not as sinister as it may sound. What we were trying to do is figure out the best way to reference so everybody knows what's going on, and you can take a look at the documents in front of you as well as everything else to -- to look at what's going on. There were two ways to do that. One was to reference a number of sections of the code, which we have done to some extent in here. I had both versions. Commissioner Hancock will remember I had another sentence or two in here that talked about changes to the code, but what we decided to do was to take a snapshot. Buffering requirements are usually not something that's going to change. Perimeter landscaping is not something that's going to change. If it was a code provision, looked like it had an ongoing amendment process -- excuse me -- then I could see that, but under these circumstances it looked like the county was not really losing anything. If -- if you knew what you were talking about, you took a snapshot, and it was the same one everybody else had to -- had to live with as of today. So I referenced the code. I put the pages on there so everyone could see what was going on. And if somebody gets a copy of the agreement, they can easily see the entire agreement in front of them so they didn't have to go to code. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there a logical reason why we want to do a snapshot other than your final statement there was so that you could just see the attached thing and not have to go look for it? I'm just thinking eight years from now the county and the school board and the public should all be playing by the same rules still. And if by chance the LDC changes, you know, in the coming eight years, it's not fair that one or all of those are on a different scale. I mean, for that matter, if -- if the burden were less -- were lessened in the eight years and you were on that snapshot, then theoretically we'd be spending tax dollars on restrictions that were no longer required. MR. CUYLER: The only other answer is I just -- you know, everyone likes an agreement to be as certain as possible. This gives certainty. Everybody knows what we're talking about in terms of commitments, the school board's commitment to you to follow certain rules and regulations. They don't know what the future holds, although with regard to these items, I doubt that it holds anything any different. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But nobody knows. MR. CUYLER: Is that a point you would like me to -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. It seems important to me that the public and school board and the county all be playing by the same rules. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This, again, was something we discussed, and I can't tell you that I had a -- a -- either a high or low degree of level of comfort. There's a point to what Mr. Cuyler is saying, and that is, yes, we know what we're getting into here, and so does the school board. The way in which this is done in -- in fezones that -- that I've dealt with where you would cite Section 2.2.14 or successor provision of the Land Development Code, meaning that what -- whenever you start citing sections of the code, you run into the problem of if that section is deleted, which has happened in the past COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, often. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We have actually deleted sections or portions of the code or changed the numbers to the point that there's no reference. It becomes difficult and cumbersome, and this way everyone has a game plan in front of them. That's the benefit. The downside is, as you said, if we become more restrictive, this document for the first ten years cannot by -- in those areas that are attached. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Or less restrictive, for that matter. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Or less restrictive. MR. CUYLER: As I mentioned, I had something along those lines in an earlier -- the school doesn't have a problem as long as it is an ordinance of general application not aimed at the school board, but aimed at any developer under those circumstances. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, not at all. I'm just trying to make sure everybody is on the same -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So that change would be that where we cite a specific section of the Land Development Code by inserting the statement section, fill in the blank, or its successor provision, would that be acceptable? MR. CUYLER: And then some other language along the lines of what I just mentioned -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As long as it's not -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. MR. CUYLER: And, Tim, if you -- I don't know that you're going to want this to come back to you. I assume the county attorney will have the authority to sign off -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So far these look minor enough. I'm confident he can sign off on them. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A couple of other questions, and this is -- I just need a little more explanation on the appeal process to the county manager and the superintendent. That's -- how does that compare with our current appeal process if you have John and Susie Homebuilder don't agree with what Vince tells them? MR. CAUTERO: Yeah. The appeal process is not spelled out, to my knowledge, in the Land Development Code other than code enforcement actions. It's -- it's an administrative process where someone would have the ability to come to me if they weren't happy with a decision they received from a department director. And then if they were unhappy with that, they would, I assume just by our hierarchy, go to the county manager; but I don't believe a appeal process is spelled out. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I thought that process -- it asked for a formal interpretation of that section of the code and then appeal it to the county commission. MR. CAUTERO: I believe that's comprehensive planning matters, but I'll have to check with our planning director. The Land Development Code is a little different. The Land Development Code, the interpretation is made by the staff subject to my concurrence, although that's not clearly spelled out because of the title changes and the old position changes. We're trying to clear that up for you now. CONNISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. MR. CAUTERO: There is a specific sentence in the Land Development Code that says a notice of violation of the Land Development Code can be appealed to the county manager, and a formal hearing is conducted. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I don't really mind that our county manager and the superintendent would be communicating on a problem area. That sounds like a good thing, but then the next step, if they can come to agreement, I'm wondering how we chose the Bureau of Educational Facilities and Management. And I have -- I don't know anything about them, and I need some help what that is and what they do. I assume that is the logical place to go but -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Are they mediators? MR. CUYLER: That's a nonbinding opinion, is what you get from them, to hopefully assist. And maybe they might say, you know, school board, look at this or, county, look at this. And that's nonbinding; and if you don't want to accept that, you go to the next level, which then would be court. MR. DAVIS: The DOE -- John Davis, I'm staff architect with the school board. The DOE is our appeal for code definitions. Whenever we have a conflict with an architect or determining the code, we go to DOE for final approval on the determination for the ruling, and that's the reason we wanted it in on this one. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MR. CAUTERO: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I apologize, Commissioner Constantine, but staff informed me that the appeal process on interpretations for the LDC as well as the comprehensive plan after staff renders them can go to the Board of County Commissioners. This is different from the notice of violation which goes to the county manager. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. CUYLER: Mr. Weigel also pointed out that the next step doesn't need to be court. Any other legally available mechanism -- if you choose to have arbitration or go to the Board of County Commissioners or go to a joint meeting or whatever, those would all be available if you wanted. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I think if we got to that kind of impasse, everyone would be interested in having a joint meeting would be my -- my belief before taking any legal action. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I would hope so. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, we're all in the same boat here. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two more questions then I'll yield. Number 8, somebody just help me with -- with this. Agreement does not provide for and does not contemplate any review of site plans of other school regarding matters regulated by SREF that relate solely to the needs of the planner, educational planner, ancillary plant for development, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. What -- what matters are regulated by them? Give me some examples of what that would be. MR. CUYLER: Those are the state requirements for educational facilities. And the key phrase in that -- before I explain exactly what the answer is -- is the last phrase that says, if you agree herein, then it overrides those regulations. If you have not agreed herein, then those regulations control, and those regulations are the regulations by which the schools are built. They include the school's building code and all of their site planning requirements. A copy was given to Mr. Cautero. He and development services have gone through them. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. And then finally, number 11, parties agree the school board shall not request reviews, and county review is not requested or required for, B, anything that's 30 percent or less. I'm just wondering how we got -- where did that number come from? MR. CUYLER: That number was our best estimate of a percentage that would give the county the review that it wanted when it needed it but didn't kick in reviews at too low a threshold. It was the subject of part of our discussion. As a matter of fact, Commissioner Hancock, in asking basically the same question, said, well, here was a change in a facility. Was that threshold above or below 30 percent? And the answer from the school people was, that's above 30 percent. He went through a couple of those and said, okay, catch us the ones that I want to catch. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Right, and I'll cite those examples: Naples High, yes; Lely, yes; Barton Collier, no. All Barton Collier did was add a gymnasium and was external to the building and did internal improvements, and so it was -- you know, I started looking at how that threshold applies. It made sense in past cases that those that we would want to have review ability on would kick in. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Theoretically there could be a gymnasium, exactly. If a school wanted to build a gymnasium on, it wouldn't under this be required to follow the setback requirements or any of those things. Is -- am I assuming correctly? MR. CUYLER: It would not be reviewed. They still have their own setback requirements, but -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Not our code requirements. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The county would have absolutely no authority or no voice in the process? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My only thought there is build a gymnasium on -- I don't know where this would happen or if it would happen, but you build a gymnasium or you build the cafeteria. You do some addition, bounce it up against an existing neighborhood. Even though that's not a 30-percent change, that can still have a big impact on the neighboring neighborhood residential property. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It depends if you're measuring your 30 percent from inside the school or from the house next door, you know, because it can be a 99 percent to the house next door and be a 2 percent to the school. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, is the key concern there encroachment -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- in the setback areas? That could be qualified simply by saying that if it conflicts directly with other provisions of this agreement, then it would trigger it. In other words, if you're going to do an expansion less than of 30 percent, yet you don't come anywhere near the either 25- or 50-foot setback, it's not important so if -- or not relevant. So, you know, maybe we can ask Mr. Weigel to craft a kick-in mechanism that if it doesn't encroach upon the established setbacks or, you know, exceed 30 percent, then it's not subject to review. That would be -- just add another element to that one statement of 30 percent or, you know, that it doesn't encroach upon established setbacks provided in this document. Is that -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does that meet the concern? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is that it? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Anyone else? Public speakers? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I make a motion that we approve the interlocal agreement with the changes cited today and authorize the county attorney to prepare the document with those changes not requiring a second board hearing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. Before I call the question, let me make sure for the record that we -- the agreement does cover primary facilities and ancillary facilities -- MR. CUYLER: It does. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- as well. MR. CUYLER: It does. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. And opposed? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. A -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Woop. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Surprised? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, not really, because I just CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, school board members. Item #8A3 RECOHMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS CONSIDER AN ABSORPTION OF PERMIT AND OTHER ASSOCIATED FEES FROM THE GENERAL FUND AS NECESSITATED BY A RETURN CHECK WRITTEN BY GULF COAST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR PERMIT #96-765 - NO ACTION Our next item is 8(A)(2), recommendation that the Board of County Commission consider an absorption of permit and other associated fees from the general fund as necessitated by return check written by Gulf Coast Development Corporation. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You didn't tell us this story. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: How did we ever get to see something like this? MR. CAUTERO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Vince Cautero again for the record. The request today that you consider this is somewhat unusual. However, after consultation with the manager's office, the staff prepared this executive summary for your consideration based on a current case that is in our contractor licensing section in the code enforcement department. Mr. Douglas Schmidt, who resides at 775 Park Avenue in Naples, secured Gulf Coast Development Corporation to build a home for him. Part of that contract included the payment of all permit impact fees and other associated fees with the building permit totaling $7,624.89. Staff was researching complaints filed by subcontractors against Gulf Coast Development Corporation and in the course of their investigation found that the check that was issued for this building permit, including the impact fees, bounced. And in the process the building official rendered the opinion that if you have a building permit without the applicable fees -- and I believe he correctly rendered this opinion -- the building permit is not valid. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He hasn't paid for it. MR. CAUTERO: Pardon me? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If the check hasn't cleared, you haven't paid for it. MR. CAUTERO: Correct. Therefore, there is no valid building permit on file. Therefore, we cannot proceed with inspections on the home. Therefore, Mr. Schmidt is left in a quandary. He approached our staff, asked for resolution. We told him that we could not process the inspections and continue with the -- the permit until a new permit was rendered because there is no valid permit on file. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Cautero, just to verify, Mr. Schmidt is the client who paid Gulf Coast Development the impact fee COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He's the good guy. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that he's not Gulf Coast Development. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Who is -- do you know? Who is Gulf Coast Development? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Who signed this check? MR. CAUTERO: I forget the name of the qualifier. Mr. Balzano is the person on my staff that can answer the question on that. MR. DORRILL: You need to know because we're pursuing criminal action against those individuals, and I have also been told preliminarily that this may be a pattern upon the part of the qualifier before. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to get that information out in this small forum if possible. MR. CAUTERO: Mr. Balzano tells me that Mr. Senarus (phonetic) is the qualifier for Gulf Coast Development Corporation. There is an outstanding case against the corporation, both by the state attorney's office and the sheriff's department, trying to secure the funds. There are two other homes, one in the City of Naples, one in unincorporated Collier County, in which the checks were also not good. The total of these is approximately $14,000 of which $7,600 and change pertains to Mr. Schmidt's permit. So what we have here is a case where the permit is not valid because there's no fees. Mr. Schmidt has come to us for relief. We need a new permit to be filed in order to proceed with his inspections. The only relief we could offer him is a discussion in front of you for potential absorption of fees. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's really a terrible situation when we have people in our community that will treat our citizens that way. But at the same time while I feel, you know, distressed that Mr. Schmidt's found himself in this position, I can't see that it's the taxpayers' problem to step forward and take -- take over on this -- this instance. I mean, you know, he's got a great civil and perhaps criminal case here, but that has nothing to do with the county taxpayer -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Might I -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- in my opinion. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Might I suggest a middle ground? And we don't -- correct me if I'm wrong, but we don't really have a history in this area. Is this the first -- in your tenure here is this the first type of request that has been heard? MR. DORRILL: To my knowledge, it is. And we responded quickly and are working with the sheriff and the state's attorney on the criminal side through our code enforcement staff. We -- we would like to get these people, especially if this is a pattern. And I found out last week that they are also -- the same issue happened in the city. It would be our intent at a minimum to shut the business down, to void the license upon the part of the qualifier, and to aggressively pursue the criminal action against these people from, frankly, ripping people off, taking their money and applying it to other jobs. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me ask you if what I'm thinking is a possibility. Is it possible to -- in this particular circumstance, to float the seventy-six twenty-four until C.O. is issued; at that time the amount must be paid or C.O. is not issued? That would give this gentleman time to pursue legal action against Gulf Coast Development, and if he can't or he's -- he's still going to have to come up with the money one way or another, or you can't move into the home. I'm looking for some level of relief so that the taxpayers don't have to step up to the plate and provide -- and by deferring this to C.O. in this particular instance where it's not the doing of the individual but that of a fraudulent contractor, can that be done to assist this -- this person? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I get the -- MR. CAUTERO: It could be, yes, sir. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The practical implications are he doesn't have a valid permit, so he's got to go hire another contractor to do the work, so the question is does he have to come up with another almost 8,000 bucks. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Huh. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And, again, while that is a terrible situation, I don't know that that burden should be carried over to the taxpayer. I'm a little uncomfortable with the suggestion. I like the sentiment of it, but I just -- you point out this is the first time. But if we had a few dozen of these float up, we don't want to have a bunch of them floating out there, a bunch of numbers that would not keep track of who owes what and which ones that can have a C.O. and can't C.O. It's going to set us up for -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I hate to say this, too, but I hate to guess that I hired a bad contractor and ended up having to pay a fortune in money that I shouldn't have had to pay -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think we've all done that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- but I learned my lesson and, you know, I didn't ask the county to float the money for me. COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't know. When I hire a contractor to do anything, I make some phone calls and find out the quality of his work and the timeliness of his completion and -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Rather than beat up on Mr. Schmidt, I can count to three. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, I'm sorry. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm sorry, too. I hate to see what's happened, but I think responsibility belongs with them in this case. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, that's -- that's the crucial point is responsibility; whose responsibility is it. Unfortunately, you know, it's a terrible situation when something like that happens, but there's no way you can construe that to be the responsibility of the county taxpayer. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But I do think, though, that the county, as Mr. Dotrill has said, should vigorously pursue. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Oh, absolutely. MR. CAUTERO: We are. We are doing that. MR. DORRILL: There is a notice to appear in criminal court, I believe, before the end of the month; and we're attempting to get some sort of action before the end of the month and go after the code -- contractor license as well. Mr. Schmidt is here. I don't know whether he -- he wanted to speak or to at least -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's certainly give him the opportunity to if he would like to. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Schmidt, are you still here? MR. SCHHIDT: Douglas Schmidt. I'd just like to thank you for considering this. The way I sort of look at it, I believe the permit was issued around February 27th and had a investigation that occurred, I believe, around the -- April llth is when I was notified by Jim Schultz that there was a problem with the check. So building had proceeded on my home for approximately seven weeks before an unrelated matter brought up the fact that the check was no good. So, consequently, now my house has been sitting for about eight weeks uncompleted, you know, without a contractor and without a permit. Basically that is the reason why I went to the county to plead for relief. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How -- how did it take so long, Mr. Cautero? MR. CAUTERO: We had no knowledge of the check not clearing. As I stated earlier, Mr. Schultz and Mr. Balzano from my contractor licensing staff were investigating Gulf Coast Development on behalf of subcontractors who had been hired by them on other jobs where the checks had bounced, because they had not been paid. In the course of our investigation, contractor licensing determined that the checks that they wrote were bad, researched this, worked with finance and revenue and found out that the check was bad. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So maybe something is broken in our process. I have to tell you, I was sitting here thinking, gosh, this is the very first time in the history of the county that a contractor has bounced a check? I'm really proud but surprised. But maybe they're bouncing, and we don't know it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Somehow -- somehow this allowed construction to commence and go on for eight weeks before a problem was realized, and I think that's the relief Mr. Schmidt is asking for. It's not as if the check bounced and he's sitting there on a vacant piece of land saying, gee whiz, I can't build a home. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And as much as I'm concerned, I see a sort of red flag waving here. Are checks bouncing, Mr. Dotrill? What's the process for our finding that out? It sounds like a department of revenue function. MR. DORRILL: Well, as much as we love to blame the department of revenue -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I do. MR. DORRILL: -- they don't make the deposits. And the communication could have been better; but, frankly, we don't have too many contractors with the unmitigated gall to write bad checks for building permit and impact fees, which is the very first step in the process. And could communication have been improved back from finance through department of revenue in the contractor licensing and code enforcement staff? Sure it could have. But, frankly, we don't -- and I can't ever remember getting a bad check for a building permit application and impact fees. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The clerk's office then is where the checks go? MR. DORRILL: When they return they come back to the accounting section. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me a second. Mr. Cautero, would you at your earliest possible opportunity develop a system in your office of tying checks to the specific permits and so forth that they were issued for? MR. CAUTERO: Yes, sir, we're in the process of doing that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Fine. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Like either a cashier's check, or you don't get the permit until it clears seems a simple rule to me. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. CAUTERO: We'll work on it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Schmidt. MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you. Item #8B1 RESOLUTION 96-296 CALLING A STRAW VOTE ON NOVEMBER 5, 1996, GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT TO DETERMINE IF THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS RESIDING WITHIN THE PROPOSED LELY AREA STORMWATER IHPROVEHENTS PROJECT APPROVED THE CREATION OF A MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE LEVY OF AD VALOREH TAXES AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS TO FUND THE STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item, 8(B)(1). COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, this is the item we discussed a week or so ago, and the wording appears to be fine, the resolution for what they're asking for it to be on the ballot. I don't know if anybody else has a problem with it. MR. DORRILL: One speaker. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: One speaker? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: One speaker. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Erlichman. MR. ERLICHHAN: Gil Erlichman, East Naples. I'd like to thank the commissioners for making sure that this agenda item is considered for a straw vote. I was one of the many people that live -- living in that area last year which was affected by the floods of water -- standing water for approximately two weeks, and thank you again for getting this started. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You're welcome. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have one concern. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just -- are we -- is anybody worried that we haven't given people enough information? You know, will they know about how much it's going to cost them when they decide to vote? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're trying to do everything possible to have that information developed. It's in process, but we don't have concrete answers today to add to this. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But in five months we ought to be able to put something together. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes. I understand that we have a challenge to get the public educated on this, but that's a separate matter. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's real critical. MR. CONRECODE: For the record, Tom Conrecode, public works. We've already begun talking about producing some fact-finding things, broadcasting on Channel 54, advertising in the local paper; and so we are working on the public relations portion of this item. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, sir. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, motion to approve the resolution. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to approve. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #882 WORK ORDER UNDER ANNUAL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AGREEMENT 95-2334 AND PURCHASE ORDER FOR CONSTRUCTION OF GULF COAST COHMUNITY PARK IMPROVEMENTS - APPROVED Next item, 8(B)(2), work order for Gulf Coast Community Park. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I wish we'd -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Speakers? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Great presentation. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Gosh, we're going to be through by noon. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Tomorrow. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't think so. Item #8C3 WORK ORDER WITH WILSON, MILLER, BARTON & PEEK, FOR ENGINEERING, DESIGN WORK, A REVISED AGREEMENT WITH SURETY CONSTRUCTION, INC., AND AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE NAPLES ROLLER HOCKEY LEAGUE FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF DONATED CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO ROLLER HOCKEY COMPLEX AT VETERANS COHMUNITY PARK - APPROVED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item, 8(C)(3). MR. OLLIFF: Good morning. For the record, Tom Olliff, your public services administrator. And you're, frankly, doing it faster than I can turn the page. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Tom, did it come in under budget on this one or even? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Quick question. It's 8(C)(2)? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, we skipped it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That one's been continued indefinitely. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you very much. MR. OLLIFF: 8(C)(3) is an item requesting approval of three separate items all related to the same project. The first is a work order with Wilson, Miller, Barton, Soil, and Peek for some engineering design services. The second is a revised agreement between the county and Surety Construction for its portion of a joint roller hockey facility. And the third is what we're calling a donation agreement between Collier County and the Naples Roller Hockey League in order to fund and construct the balance of that project. As we indicate in the executive summary, the -- the county had worked with what we're calling a friends of the park group in Veterans Community Park, and as a capital project budgeted in this year we're going to construct a covered basketball facility at Veterans Park. The idea was to have a shady outdoor structure for the children in the after-school programs and the summer camps, to have an outdoor play area when it rained or in the peak of the day in the sun to have a place to play. At the same time the Naples Roller Hockey League was coming to the county and discussing amongst itself the need for North Naples area roller hockey rinks. So rather than look at three separate type slab structures in the Veterans Community Park which would eat up a great deal of the green space that's left and available there, we sat down with the Naples Roller Hockey League to see if we couldn't join them in the project that could service all of the needs that we were looking at. What we ended up with was what you see front of you, which is an agreement wherein the county would use its existing funding and -- and only the funding that was approved as part of your originally budgeted project to build the first portion of a two-roller-hockey-rink facility. What's being proposed is two slabs, both of them roller hockey league specification type slabs, one being covered, the other being uncovered. On the covered facility we're requiring that they have basketball running sideways across the roller hockey so that you actually have a dual-purpose facility there, and we -- we meet the needs of what was the friends of the park's original desire; and we also meet, I think, a hugely growing demand for roller hockey in the North Naples area. The balance of the project and above what we have budgeted is going to be paid for by the Naples Roller Hockey League through donations and fundraisings that they will have. Our estimate of that contribution is in the neighborhood of $232,000 that they are going to raise. One of the issues that we had, because this is a fund-raising effort where they have not got the cash in hand as yet, was protection of the county's project. We didn't want to get a third of the way into the project and have that fundraising not occur and we end up on the hook for the balance of a project. So what we've required as part of this agreement -- I've outlined in the executive summaries that we would require either a bond, a performance-type bond, or a letter of credit in hand before we have the county sign that agreement so we know we have some protection of that project. Overall we think it's a great project. We're recommending that you approve it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Mr. Olliff, is it -- it's my understanding that you're personally involved in the formation of the new roller basketball league? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We should send Commissioner Constantine on that. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That would be interesting, roller basketball. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What would qualify as traveling? Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: How would you stop? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Second. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Second. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But I have a question on maintenance costs and how long will it take to build. MR. OLLIFF: The agreement is structured so they're allowed 12 months. They would be provided a six-month extension that they would have to come in and request, and that's only to try and anticipate whatever fundraising problems they may or may not have. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would we expect within a year from now we'll have these in place? MR. OLLIFF: We expect well within a year, hopefully nine months to have all of this in place. The maintenance of the facilities would be the county's responsibilities as the original structure would have been, but in -- in essence, it's a concrete slab. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, it's not -- MR. OLLIFF: It doesn't require a lot of maintenance. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Probably less than if it were grass and we had to cut it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #8C4 COUNTY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE 1996-97 COHMUNITY CARE FOR THE ELDERLY GRANT CONTRACT IN THE BOARD'S ABSENSE - APPROVED Our next one is the one we see every single year at this time, Mr. Dotrill, a request -- MR. OLLIFF: The only reason it is here on an emergency basis, we are asking you to ask the manager to sign in your absence. The current contract expires June 30th. The new contract will start July 1st, but we have not seen a contract from the state yet, so I don't have a document that I could have submitted and approved by you in time. There are 220 elderly people on that program. The county match portion is 62,000. We get in return a grant funding of about 550,000; but because we don't have the contract yet, there is a gap while you're on break. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Move approval. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ask the motion maker to include barring any changes to the local match amount. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, absolutely, under those conditions. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second with modification. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #8D2 RESOLUTION 96-297 SETTING THE DATE, TIME AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO APPROVE A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT (NON-AD VALOREH ASSESSMENT) TO BE LEVIED AGAINST THE PROPERTIES WITHIN THE SOLD WASTE DISTRICT NO. 2 MUNICIPAL SERVICE BENEFIT UNIT FOR SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES AND APPROVE THE FIRST CLASS NOTICE TO BE SENT TO ALL ASSESSABLE UNITS - ADOPTED WITH CHANGE The next item, 8(D)(1), is companion to 12(C)(5). We'll hear that at that time. MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So our next item is 8(D)(2). MR. YONKOSKY: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is John Yonkosky. Agenda item 8(D)(2) and 8(D)(3) are sort of companion items that they are separated only by the two districts and the amount of fees that are in them. This is basically a recommendation to have the board establish a time and date for an advertised public hearing to put the solid waste mandatory assessments on the tax bill. And there are two districts, and there's something that I'd like to explain to you in there. What staff is recommending is that you establish a upset amount. And this came to a joint discussion -- several joint discussions with the county attorney's office, because this is a -- is almost a countywide -- it is unincorporated area countywide mailing, which is a very expensive proposition. We're requesting that the board approve an amount of not to exceed $130. And on the second page of the executive summary, you can see that the first fiscal year the bill that you will be asked to approve is $107.30; and then taking a 5 percent increase per year, it's 112, 118, 124, 130 until fiscal year 2000. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Why are we using 5 percent, Mr. Yonkosky? MR. YONKOSKY: In order to put an amount in there that we -- we think is the largest amount in any one year that it would -- that it would increase. Historically it has been considerably lower than that. It's been about 2.2 to 3.3 percent. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This 5 percent is a maximum? MR. YONKOSKY: Well, no, it's the -- the outside amount, the 5 percent. This is over the past. Sometime there has been a 5 percent increase. We want to be able to issue this letter one time and mail it, and hopefully that it will save you the postage, the legal advertising, and the mailing cost over the five-year period. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. I -- if it's not a maximum, what is it? That's the amount we are definitely going to do each year or -- you lost me there. MR. YONKOSKY: No, sir. Let's take, for example, the first year at $107.30, 5 percent above that, which is what we estimate that the maximum that the CPI would increase. So we're -- we come out with $130.43 as a five-year window, and it's what we think the maximum amount would be. Hopefully it will come in below that. We could have set it at -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But we are -- we are setting that as a maximum then? MR. YONKOSKY: Sir? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We are setting that as a maximum then? MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, we are, because above that we would have to come back, and we would have to get permission from you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We are not setting the fee for each of these years but the maximum fee? MR. YONKOSKY: That's correct. Yes, ma'am. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What happens -- because we have people moving into the county at all times, what happens to people coming into the county in the interim? When will they be notified of these changes? MR. YONKOSKY: What we are going to do is that the notice that you approve today, the form of the letter that will be sent out as a first-class notice, at -- when the C.O. was issued, those people will be given their notice at that time. And I would like to point out to you in -- that this bill that's going out in November will only be three-quarters of the year because we have -- we're switching, as the commissioners know, from a calendar year to a fiscal-year period. You've already collected the first quarter of fiscal year '97, so the bill that will go out will be -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to approve item 8 -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: (D). CHAIRMAN NORRIS: (D). COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- (D)(2) and item 8(D)(3). COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: One at a time, please. MR. WEIGEL: One at a time, if you could, two motions. And I would appreciate if the motion maker would note, if there's no further discussion, that the resolution -- the notice that goes out, particularly since this is one shot for five years, would include the map of the districts for clarity because it's -- the legal description, we're talking about division of almost the entire county in the two districts. And it's easy to read the words and not understand the legal description, and I would suggest that we'd be well served to have the map included in the advertisement. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll withdraw my motion. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that the map would be in the land records recorded, please? MR. WEIGEL: Yes, yes. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As a title reviewer, I beg you. MR. WEIGEL: The resolution would be recorded in the -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've got one other question that just occurred to me. When do the contracts for these two disposal companies come up again? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 1998 with a renewal option to 2000. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But it's within this five-year period? MR. YONKOSKY: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'm going to -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Maximum fees I like, but -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to move approval of item 8(D)(2) subject to the statements our county attorney has placed on the record for inclusion of the map. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. MR. WEIGEL: Also I'd just add that the resolution provides then that there will be a public hearing for the setting of the rates on Wednesday evening, August 7th, at 5:05. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm free. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a question. One of our DOR people looked very upset. I'm wondering; is there a problem with what we're doing? MR. YONKOSKY: Well, I'd like to explain that to you. If we put the map in, the cost is going to increase substantially. What we would like the board to consider is to have the map in the advertised, where it's legally advertised, as opposed to putting it in, because the costs that we have given you are based on the two-page letter, and if we put a map in -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How much more? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can we copy a map on the back of the second page? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why not? MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, we can. I'm just saying that -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: She's saying, no, you can't, behind you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You guys want to maybe get together and talk? MR. WEIGEL: We've talked. MS. RIESEN: For the record, Teresa Riesen, DOR. I have just found this out from the people that are going to be providing the service. Because it is a three-page letter, each letter has to be lasered in order to make sure that District 1 gets District 1 and District 2 gets District 2. The cost on a two page went up approximately $15,000 to add the third page, so to add a fourth page with a map in it will cost us another 15,000. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can it go on the back of the -- MS. RIESEN: Because it's lasered it cannot; that's the problem. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Wait a second, whoa, whoa. Because it's lasered, if we preptint the map on the back of the page prior to the stock going to be laser printed, why can't it happen? MS. RIESEN: I questioned that because I wanted to try and make this three page into a two page, and I was told that there is difficulty in doing that and that they could not provide this. Now, we are talking Moore Business Communications, which is probably the largest or one of the largest in the country, so I know I'm getting accurate information. The Florida Statutes in 197 state that the map can appear in the newspaper, but it does not need to go into the -- the first-class notice. However, we can take out the description and put the map in, which would probably be more understandable to people than reading a description that is this long (indicating). COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, can you help me on this? You're telling me the map is necessary. Is the legal description as necessary? Do both have to be in there, in your opinion, to meet state requirements? MR. WEIGEL: The legal description clearly has to be there. I think the map is important because it's -- you just can't tell from a legal description when it starts out with township, range and then goes for about 80 lines, 70 lines, the legal description -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. How about the legal description -- this is not my idea, but I think it's a great one, that the legal description is in a 2-point font and the -- and the picture is what counts. I don't -- the pictures -- you guys ever tried to read a legal description? COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, yeah. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Forget it. MS. RIESEN: That -- that -- she's exactly right. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't know about two point, but maybe six point. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Go fix it. Hake this work. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Compromise on four point. What we're saying is you make the legal description smaller, stick the map in there, can we do it in three pages? MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, we can. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. My motion stays. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second stays. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Item #8D3 RESOLUTION 96-298 SETTING THE DATE, TIHE AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO APPROVE A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT (NON-AD VALOREH ASSESSMENT) TO BE LEVIED AGAINST THE PROPERTIES WITHIN THE SOLD WASTE DISTRICT NO. 1 MUNICIPAL SERVICE BENEFIT UNIT FOR SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES AND APPROVE THE FIRST CLASS NOTICE TO BE SENT TO ALL ASSESSABLE UNITS - ADOPTED WITH CHANGE COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Hotion to approve item 8(D)(3) with the same stipulations. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Item #BE1 RESOLUTION 96-299 FIXING THE DATE, TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPROVING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT (NON-AD VALOREH ASSESSMENT) TO BE LEVIED AGAINST THE PROPERTIES WITHIN THE PELICAN BAY MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, BEAUTIFICATION OF RECRATIONAL FACILITIES AND MEDIAN AREAS, AND MAINTENANCE OF CONSERVATION OR PRESERVE AREAS, AND ESTABLISHMENT OF CAPITAL RESERVE FUNDS FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF CONSERVATION OR PRESERVE AREAS, U.S. 41 BERHS, STREET SIGNANGE REPLACEMENTS WITHIN THE MEDIAN AREAS AND LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS TO U.S. 41 ENTRANCES, ALL WITHIN THE PELICAN BAY MUNICIPAL SERVICES TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT - ADOPTED Okay. 8(E)(1), this is the Pelican Bay issue. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is this just to set a time and place -- MR. DORRILL: There's an obligation under the ordinance to meet in Pelican Bay to review both their budget and the special assessment. I believe Mr. Ward is recommending August the 14th at the foundation offices -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve. MR. DORRILL: -- as we did last year. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #8E2 SEPTEMBER 4, 1996, AND SEPTEMBER 18, 1996 ESTABLISHED AS PUBLIC HEARING DATES FOR ADOPTION OF THE FISCAL YEAR 1996-97 COLLIER COUNTY BUDGET - APPROVED 8(E)(2). MR. DORRILL: Similar issue for you to establish in order to allow the City of Naples to then establish the first and second budget adoption hearings in September. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we set those dates as Wednesday, September 4 -- Wendy, September 4, 1996, and Wendy, September 18, 1996 -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- both at 5:05 p.m. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. MR. DORRILL: You have a speaker on this. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. DORRILL: And he may have it confused with the public comment portion, but Reverend Allen? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, he's here for public comment, aren't you, sir? MR. DORRILL: Okay. All right. Very good. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right. We have a motion and a second then. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #8E3 REPORT ON REVENUES FOR THE SECOND QUARTER OF FISCAL YEAR 1996 - PRESENTED COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. We got money for the second -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 8(E)(3), it should be, Barb. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Smykowski looking rested and relaxed. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, hadn't seen you in so long. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Getting slow, too. I can't get up a flight of stairs as quickly as I used to. The revenue report for the second quarter FY '96, overall things are looking -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You'll be back in shape soon carrying that ten-pound weight around with you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He's got a new baby. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Indeed, thank you. Overall within the intergovernmental categories we only have slight negative variances in the gas -- in the constitutional gas taxes, approximately 1 percent. State law, though, requires that we only appropriate 95 percent of available revenues. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. MR. SHYKOWSKI: So that's okay. Tourist taxes, as Ms. Gansel indicated, it seems a long time ago, just a few days ago at our budget workshop. They are below the adopted budget level. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hiss Filson, would you give him some oxygen? COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: We're silly up here today. We're sorry. MR. SHYKOWSKI: My breathing is slowly returning to normal. The FY '96 budget was based in part on projected tourist tax receipts in '95. Those were slightly less than -- than projected and year-to-date receipts reflect little increase over the prior year with the exception of the additional penny. As Hiss Gansel indicated at the budget workshop, it was a function of our -- we had a -- obviously had a poor winter season in terms of weather, and some of the hoteliers and the marketing representatives from category B had indicated that people actually had trouble getting down here during the winter season. As I had indicated previously, in the first quarter the airport authority is -- has a negative shortfall in airport authority fees, principally a function of the new airports coming on line later than anticipated due to construction problems encountered during the construction phase. Impact fees are also reflective of varying degrees of shortfalls at this point. Obviously, though, that's a very volatile source. We give one large permit, I may be back in the next quarter saying we're well ahead of schedule. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that's my question. Building permits are up 12.4 percent, yet impact fees are down. Is that because we've had more residential coming on line than commercial? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. And also the fees that were -- the building permit fee schedule, there was a 15 percent reduction, as you all are aware, as my executive summary indicates, within -- within that category. The revised fee schedule was not actually implemented until early December, so we're receiving some addition -- we did receive in the first quarter of the year additional fees above and beyond what was initially budgeted, so that reduction did not take place for 2 1/2 months. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the beach parking fees are almost 60 percent below what we anticipated? MR. SHYKOWSKI: That is correct. We're currently projecting 405,000. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Huh. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hmm. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Leaving a mere 400,000, my gosh. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Well, we balance the budget with nine thirty-eight, so that's about five hundred out of reserves. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Short of where we hoped. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Smykowski, I know we finished the budget hearings yesterday, but what did we budget for beach parking fee revenue for the coming year? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Five hundred fifty thousand. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Considerably less than we did last year. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. That's based on actual receipts that -- what we've gotten this year, and obviously we're adjusting for a full year's worth of receipts. We had problems obviously, as identified within the executive summary, regarding installation of meters, and obviously the -- the cold weather impacted the beach as well as red tide. We seemed to have encountered a compounding effect of a number of issues that have adversely impacted that revenue. A year from now obviously they'll -- the sum cost of the meter installation of the meters go away as well as parks had implemented some cost-saving measures as well this year by utilizing part-time employees, so we're saving some money on the expense side of our budget as well. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So really between the personnel and the initial costs and all, we haven't seen any money yet by the time you balance all that out, but you expect to in the next couple of years? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. We are projecting a profit of approximately 250,000 this year. Next year that automatically increases because of not having the meter cost in year one as well, so that is a -- a net revenue generator for the county. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is a real dumb question, but people -- do people go to the beach with a roll of quarters? You know, those machines -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, they better. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- they only take quarters. You have to take three dollars of quarters in in a day. MR. DORRILL: Some of them take -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could you get change machines for those? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, I -- I sent a list of letters to Mr. Olliff yesterday asking to see if he could remedy some of the complaints that are listed on these tickets. MR. DORRILL: I think overall we had a poor staff estimate in terms of first-year revenues. And we can sit here and say it was cold, it was windy, we were renourishing the beach, and then we had red tide, all of which was true, but I think we blew the initial estimate. And I think we have done a less than satisfactory job at ordering some of the initial machines that only take quarters when, in fact, the most recent purchases also will take bills, and it's a more appropriate thing to do. MR. OLLIFF: All of the machines are being retrofitted to take bills. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, good. MR. OLLIFF: We had installed change machines at all of the beaches, but we found that the change machines are down as much as they are up, and so it caused a lot of problems for the public going there. So they're all being retrofitted. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. That's just a report item. We don't need action; is that correct? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I've got one last question. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Sure. Go ahead. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Smykowski, the summaries on the quarterly budget items, they don't look anymore like they're exactly one-fourth, one-half, and so forth of the annual budget. Have you adjusted now for seasonality on them? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you. Thank you. MR. SMYKOWSKI: You're welcome. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I noted that when I came down here that the relationship was not exact halves. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And I really want to thank you for that because I think it makes these reports meaningful to us. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Thank you. I appreciate it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item is 9(A), the -- an emergency ordinance concerning a half cent sales tax for jail expansion. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me. We'll take a short break; then we'll take that item. I was just announcing the item. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. (A short break was held.) Item #9A EMERGENCY DECLARED. ORDINANCE 96-31 RELATING TO ONE-HALF OF ONE PERCENT LOCAL GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE DISCRETIONARY SALES SURTAX FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS OR LESS TO FUND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TO CONSTRUCT AN EXPANSION TO THE COLLIER COUNTY JAIL AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WORK RELEASE AND RESTITUTION CENTER, AND RESOLUTION 96-300 CALLING A REFERENDUM ELECTION ON THE ONE-HALF OF ONE PERCENT ADDITIONAL SALES TAX PURSUANT TO SECTION 212.055(2), FLORIDA STATUTES FOR NOVEMBER 5, 1996 - ADOPTED WITH CHANGE CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll reconvene our hearing. And we're on item 9(A), which deals with the -- the jail expansion proposal. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, the county attorney office has drafted an ordinance and a resolution that are relating to a one-half of 1 percent local government infrastructure surtax proposed to fund capital improvement construction in the Collier County Jail expansion and also constructing a work release and restitution center. Provided with the ordinance that was drafted is a draft resolution which orders and calls a referendum election to be held November 5, 1996, for the half cent sales tax question, and within the resolution is provided the question. I had provided to the board members and to Judge Brousseau and Sheriff Hunter on Friday our draft of the resolution and ordinance, and I have some additional ones here. We had placed some outside for the public this morning. If any commissioner or -- or interested party needs an extra copy, I do have one here as well as, Commissioners, a copy of my memo to you of this Friday, which also went to Judge Brousseau and Sheriff Hunter. I don't want to speak very -- very long on this, just to say that this has been drafted pursuant to statutory requirements. And the -- if a sales tax mechanism is used, the sales tax may be imposed for a term, based upon what we have provided in this ordinance, of up to or not to exceed five years. I would expect that depending on the projects to be -- that would be potentially included for this referendum and proposal -- if both projects are included, that is the jail expansion project as well as the work release center, that would tend to lead one to a longer duration of the sales tax imposition as opposed to if just merely jail expansion or just merely the work release and restitution center is the sole object of the sales tax that would potentially be imposed subject to successful referendum November the 5th. I remind the board and the public that this is the last date of regular board meetings where the board could approve an item and a resolution to make it in the November election, and there are no regularly scheduled elections for 1997. If there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer them, of course. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have a couple. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, if work is performed prior to adoption of the sales tax but is directly related to the expansion, whether it be architectural services, whether it be whatever else may fall into the planning category, can those funds be reimbursed after the adoption of the sales tax, or can the sales tax -- do you understand the question? MR. WEIGEL: I believe I do. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Am I clear? Okay. MR. WEIGEL: I think so. We just have to keep in mind that the sales tax, if it were to be adopted, is to be used for capital improvement infrastructure or purchase. It's not an operations and maintenance type of funding mechanism. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: But that would include architectural services, site planning, and the necessary elements to get you to capital improvements, I assume? MR. WEIGEL: Yes, correct. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The only question along those lines is if it should fail, how do we reimburse? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And let me be very specific about this and kind of put it on the table up front. I haven't heard from the sheriff, and I see Greg and Chris Nind here today. I haven't heard from the sheriff whether or not he wants this on the ballot for the jail expansion definitively one way or the other, and I think we need to know that. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Dying to know. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. But the second item in here -- there are two separate items that are being lumped together, and I don't want the success or failure of a single question to be applied to both. And let me state specifically about the work restitution center. There have been secondary plans put in the works by Judge Brousseau and Mr. Putzell regarding obtaining what I will call private funding, but funding that is paid back through dedication of ad valorem or tax dollars for the construction of the facility. I'm a believer in the work release center, and I'm going to call it probably five different things by the time I'm done speaking. I'm a believer in that. I think it's something that would benefit the community, and I've asked previously if we could find a way that it would be funded by daily charges and a payback for the building construction, because I'd like to find a way to move ahead without pledging ad valorem dollars. And to do that -- what I don't want to happen is if this ballot question should move ahead and if it should fail, that the work release center be eliminated from the consideration by this board. And what I'm being told by Judge Brousseau -- and I'm probably going to tip your hand a little bit, Judge, if you don't mind -- is that by going the private funding route, no monies would come due until fiscal year '97-'98. So we're not dealing with the budget year that we just went through and toyed with and played with. I don't know what that amount would be if we were going to deal with a bond issue or repayment of private funds, and I'll have to hear that from you. But, again, I'm just trying to make sure that the two ideas, although lumped together, that the work release center can live on the path of its own should this question fail and what can this board do to -- to promote that if it's the board's desire. I'm speaking obviously as an individual. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: All the same issues. And, frankly, I am anxious to hear from Judge and Mr. Putzell and from the sheriff's office before I can -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just for clarification, though, the only issue we'll be dealing with taking a vote on, or the only issue that's listed on the agenda anyway, is whether or not to put these items on the ballot, and all those are -- are relative but COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It is, but to me -- but the question of should that not succeed, what do we lose in the process, and what do we want to maintain? And maybe -- maybe you're right. Maybe it's appropriate to bring it back on another board agenda to have that specific discussion; but since the parties were here, I thought that at least 10 or 15 minutes on the matter would provide some clarity. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: For what it's worth, I couldn't agree more. And as interested as I can be in the jail expansion -- but I don't want to see this work release center fail by virtue of being tied to anything else. That's -- my highest priority of the day is to be sure that we get funding for the work release center, because I think that would be approved by the voters in a slam dunk. So I don't want to do anything to disturb that possibility. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Should there be two separate questions then? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, that's part of what I want to know. But first I want to know from the sheriff's office if he even thinks of putting the jail in the sales tax is a good idea. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, let's hear from the sheriff. Commissioner Matthews, did you have -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, I've got two really quick questions, and they deal with the wording of the ballot question. Mr. Weigel, when -- when we were going through all that sales tax stuff about the bridge, we were being continually told that the sales tax had to begin and end with a quarter, calendar quarter, beginning and ending. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No, it could begin at anytime. It has to end on a quarter. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, this is an ending of January 31, which is not a calendar quarter. MR. WEIGEL: You're both close. The semantics are obviously very important. It cannot be imposed for less than a quarter; that is three months of a year. And, therefore, we can get into a problem with talking about initiation on a calendar quarter typically thinking of the January, April, July, et cetera. But there is provided by 212.055 of the Florida Statutes -- it's required that it may not take effect until at least 60 days after a successful vote on the referendum. So from a practical standpoint, if the board -- upon successful referendum the board determined to go forward, it could be initiated, the tax imposed, as early as February 1st and could run for three months or longer as the board determines. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. That's fine then. I'm just confused then with what we were talking about with the bridge. My other question is that this -- this construction in the jail -- and I think Mr. Dotrill can probably help with this one. This includes a significant amount of administrative area, doesn't it, the -- the proposed 25 million dollars? MR. DORRILL: About a third of the 24 1/2 million dollars is for three additional floors to the sheriff's department, the sheriff's administration section of the building. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Because then to me this is a little bit misleading because it talks only about a jail and a work release and restitution center. It doesn't talk about administrative offices as well. MR. DORRILL: Good point. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Why don't we go on with public speakers then. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have some speakers? We have a representative from the sheriff's department. MR. DORRILL: The captain is here. The other speakers that I have are Mayor Putzell and also Judge Brousseau. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is any -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Can we hear from Greg first? CAPTAIN SMITH: For the record, Captain Greg Smith, Collier County Sheriff's Office. I have briefly discussed with Sheriff Hunter concerning the -- the proposed referendum. The sheriff doesn't indicate that he would be opposed to it appearing on a ballot in November. We -- we recognize that there are two issues here that we are dealing with in the work release restitution center and the proposed jail expansion. I think that it -- it's very responsible of -- of the board to adopt the position or to look at priorities in having to deal with criminal justice issues. I -- I commend you on that, and it's certainly not up to myself or the sheriff or -- to recommend to you a funding source. If it goes out to referendum and, indeed, this does fail, the need won't go away. There will have to be an alternative funding mechanism for that. So at this point it's -- it's not met with any -- any displeasure from the sheriff as far as appearing on the ballot. It's strictly your pleasure. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think a good point was raised that probably creates a lot of support on this board, and that is that our constituents need to understand that this will either show up on their ad valorem tax bill when the state mandates the construction of the jail or as a sale tax. And it's really their choice as to which way this project is to be funded, because there will come a time when we don't have a choice whether to expand the jail or not. And I think that's part of -- if we do put this to the ballot, I think it should be done so with a majority support of this board because when I'm asked the question, what I'm going to tell the voters is it's your choice. You can either pay for it through the sales tax, which is not all just local people who live here, or at some point it will show up on your ad valorem taxes. If it's not a sales tax, it will have to be funded with a bond issue and be paid back with ad valorem taxes or other sources I'm unaware of. That's a -- that's really -- we're giving the voters a choice which way they want to pay for it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Greg, based on your current occupancy in the -- in the jail and the -- and the probability, based on what I'm hearing, that the work release and restitution center will be built one way or another, what is -- off the top of your head, what is the earliest time that you believe that additional beds will absolutely be necessary? CAPTAIN SMITH: The current strategic plan shows a shortfall of a hundred beds by the year 2000. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We would barely have time to get it built by that time, I would think. CAPTAIN SMITH: That's correct, Mr. Chairman. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: When do the feds get mad enough at you to make you build jails, a hundred -- CAPTAIN SMITH: I really can't speak to that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What is the pattern? CAPTAIN SMITH: I can tell you that if public sentiment grows in its current direction, there are some significant factors that are going to impact upon jail populations: the 85 percent sentencing cap, increased awareness in domestic violence. There's a lot of things that are going to drive our populations up in the years to come. And I think that, you know, as we stand posed ready to embark upon the next century, I think the proposed expansion along with the work release center, which is a very crucial component of that, is going to put us in pretty good stead posed and ready to enter the next century. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, the work release center specifically would address or, you know, is designed to consider the domestic violence, for example, so that the violator could continue to keep his job and support the family while keeping them separate and safe. Mr. Weigel, I have talked about law enforcement impact fees and want to continue to talk about that, but as a potential funding source for this jail deficiency, am I -- I think -- am I right that you have to make up your -- your deficiency? We couldn't use impact fees to make up our present deficiency. We'd have to use either sales tax or property tax for that; and then going forward for future we could use impact fees, but I don't think they're available for this jail expansion project or for this work release center, but I want to know that before we put it to the public. MR. WEIGEL: I -- I believe you're correct in your statement there, and it would appear that there's a possibility that a shortfall in a particular point in time in the jail facility may be partly required to be funded by something other than impact fee, and yet the project is big enough that it gets into the projected shortfall as opposed to actual shortfall and could have an impact fee infusion of fund, too, you know, from a legal standpoint. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I have one more question for -- for Greg. Part -- part of what drove the county toward looking at a regional jail and the -- and the efforts in other counties around us to look at building a regional jail is Lee County's difficulty with its prison bed availability. And how long have they been on the front burner, so to speak, with the feds in doing something about their jail population? CAPTAIN SMITH: I'm -- I'm not sure, Commissioner, if it's the federal government or the State Department of Corrections who are at the -- at the forefront of the action in Lee County, but I think it's been just a little over a year. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Just a little over a year? CAPTAIN SMITH: Yes, ma'am. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So when we reach that hundred-bed deficit, the clock is ticking and ticking and ticking. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's when they start getting really mad at a hundred beds? That's what I'm trying to find out. CAPTAIN SMITH: Well -- and if I may, I think there's been some leniency on the parts of those officials because we have been working towards a solution. Lee County was involved with the regional jail study, and certainly I don't think it's their position, as long as you're showing a good-faith attempt to try to rectify the situation, to come in and impose some kind of stringent mandate. I think they work with you in that regard. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's see if we can't keep to the issue of whether we're going to put it on the ballot or not. CAPTAIN SMITH: If it -- is there room for interjection of some personal sentiment? I can say from the perspective of a property owner and resident of Collier County that a sales tax seems appropriate because the people who are filling up our jail spaces, the people who require intervention in their lives, if you would, the large majority of them we find do not own property in the area. Therefore, they're not paying ad valorem taxes. They probably aren't going to ever be served by an impact fee. However, they do -- they do buy and consume in the county. I think that's one way to make them pay for their required interaction in their lives. So from a personal standpoint, my personal standpoint -- I speak only for me in that regard -- but I would like to see those people who require such facility pay for such facility. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. CAPTAIN SMITH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next speaker, please. MR. DORRILL: Mayor Putzell. HAYOR PUTZELL: Good morning. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Good morning. HAYOR PUTZELL: Thank you for letting me take just a couple of minutes. I really am acting in the role of advance man for Judge Brousseau who is certainly much more articulate and knowledgeable on this than I. But I would like to talk, if I may, a couple of minutes about the work release center. Three very responsible contract -- building and construction contracting firms in this community have estimated the cost of our ll0-bed facility to be in the range of 2.6 to 2.8 million dollars. This is a very minimal commitment by our -- our community in terms of the problem and solving it. The -- from every conceivable angle past experience has shown that this type of facility makes a very large contribution to the community in terms of not only the individuals who might be committed to it, but also their families and society at large. But to me most importantly is the fact that throughout the nation it's been proven time and time over again that incarceration is not the answer to solving the problems of crime in our community, and the great hope is that treatment, appropriate treatment, and education are the two basic hopes for doing something about it. So we have proposed, as you know -- and Judge Brousseau spoke just a week ago on the importance of this and the future of it. I'd like to suggest that in addition to the consideration which you now have before you, that you also give thought to instructing staff, your staff, to proceed immediately with steps for the -- looking towards the design and construction of this facility, which would take some 15 to 18 months in contrast with a larger and more complicated one, and that it be pri -- the construction be privately financed, reimbursement to be paid by the county to those who do finance it locally out of sales tax revenues or such other source of revenue as might then be available in the next fiscal year. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think it would be just stupid not to ask our staff to explore that when we have an offer of a private financing, to at least pursue the -- the idea, flush out -- we have questions about if -- what interest rate and how long. But it -- we have to accept that, you know, we don't get a lot of those private funding offers. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, we know we'll hear from Judge Brousseau, unless he wants to talk us out of it, then proceed with a motion, something along those lines. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Once again, our agenda item here today is whether we're going to put this on the ballot today or not, not how we're going to finance a project privately. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: And my question for Mr. Weigel is based on what Mr. Putzell has just told us, and that is that there's private funding available and that they be reimbursed either from this funding source, if it passes, or from some other funding source, would we have to include in the ordinance that's being approved that the county repay any monies advanced for the restitution center with these funds should it pass. It's one of those questions COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just say we charge Mr. Weigel with -- with determining the answer to that prior to -- you know, he doesn't have to answer it on the spot, but it's a very important issue. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But I think it's one of those questions, again, can we -- can we use money authorized at some future date to pay costs that were incurred at some date prior to that. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That's what I had asked initially. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: And that's -- if that's what we need to do and include it in the ordinance, then we'd like to do it. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All we're being asked to do today is put this on the ballot, yes or no, and give staff direction so that they can go out and take a look at various alternatives, and we can start moving forward. I'm not ready today to say we're going to spend -- if it doesn't go, we're going to spend certain dollars from certain funds. I think that's going beyond what today's agenda item is. All we're being asked to do is put it on the ballot and give staff direction so they can go ahead and look; and if private financing can do it less expensively than government financing can, we'll have all those answers, and we'll be moving. But I don't think we need to go beyond that. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I'm not sure that we don't need to go beyond that, because if we're going to put a question on the ballot authorizing the collection of sales tax monies to be used for a specific purpose and then the county in the subsequent weeks determines to go with the private funding with the assumption that we can pay it back when -- because it's not in here, we can't. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Wouldn't the time to address that be in those coming weeks when the county decides whether or not to go with the private funding? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Our citizens need to know what they're voting on. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel had already answered my question about can we reimburse for those expenditures in relation to the construction of a work release and restitution center with the sales tax if it's approved. And the answer to that question, if I remember correctly 15 minutes ago, was yes. MR. WEIGEL: Yes, that's correct. And to further respond to Commissioner Matthews, for a comfort level we may want to work a little bit on the question, the referendum question. Obviously what's important in the order of things today is if the board is going to go forward at all, first it adopts the ordinance, and then it adopts the resolution that creates the question and calls for the referendum ballot to go forward. But I think the answer is yes, and I would -- would agree with you that it's probably a more appropriate thing, if not even the legally required thing, to make the question as clear what the county's intentions would be as far as that goes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dotrill, do we have any speakers? MR. WEIGEL: We've got space on the ballot to do it. MR. DORRILL: Judge Brousseau is your only other speaker. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. MAYOR PUTZELL: Okay. JUDGE BROUSSEAU: Good morning. For the record my name's Ted Brousseau, and lest the public misunderstand some of Mayor Putzell's comments, we believe in treatment of some defendants and that that will decrease crime in the future and have good payback. However, one of the immediate benefits of having this work center is to get tough on crime, and that is that if half of the beds were filled by people that are now sitting in jail -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. JUDGE BROUSSEAU: -- then that's 55 more beds that we have to put people in and keep them there longer. So the end effect of this is that we get to keep the people that we really want off the streets off the streets. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I hope that's the case, but in -- when we had this discussion a year ago or whenever it was last year, the sheriff indicated to me in a one-on-one conversation that the majority of those people that would go in this center are not currently put in the jail. And so if the idea is to have them somewhere as opposed to -- like you said, so you still have those families safe and all, that's appealing. But from what the sheriff told me, it is misleading to indicate that half or more are going to now free up jail beds, because he said the majority of the people who fall under this category are not sitting in that jail anyway. JUDGE BROUSSEAU: Okay. Majority is a fine point. Fifty-nine percent -- I mean, forty-nine percent is not a majority. You have Captain Smith here, and I think he can address this. They run estimates from time to time, and I've seen anywhere from 25 to 45 beds as the current estimate right now. So if you want to fight over 10 beds, then that's fine. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I mean, I hope he does. JUDGE BROUSSEAU: But, anyway, part of the objective of the center is to get more violent criminals off the street and keep them off the street. Secondly, addressing -- which is a very appropriate comment, and that is what are we here for this morning, and that's a sales tax issue. My question -- and I would -- and I would appreciate it. It sounds logical that you can't bring up something that's not on the agenda; and, therefore, to take action on the contract and to -- to go forward this morning may -- may be out of order. And I'll leave that to you and your county attorney to decide. But if it's out of order, I would at least ask for a straw vote as to what you might indicate you would do come, say, July when you come back from your -- from your vacation and recess, because if you are going to go forward with this project with the private funding that we've put together and build this and simply ask the public how they want to vote for it, then leave it the way it is. Put this whole package on the ballot. If you're not -- if there isn't a majority that's going to support that, I would ask for 90 days half cent, and let's get on with it. I'll prove that the public wants the work center and support it and go out and raise the money. I don't want to see this go down, and I would hope it wouldn't. I would hope the public would be wise enough to vote for both of these, because I think it's good for the community, and it's probably the best way to go. But I don't want to see this -- we've been -- we've been doing this for too long, and we just keep coming back like a basketball. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: This is exactly the reason I was endorsing what Commissioner Hancock was saying when we first started this discussion, is I think we have to -- we have to anticipate -- well, for my vote I need to know whether or not a majority of the board is willing to let the staff go forward and begin to develop agreements with the private-funding sources for repayment either through this revenue source if it passes or otherwise. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me -- let me be a little more -- and do we have any more public speakers? MR. DORRILL: We have one. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Oh, do we? MR. DORRILL: We do now, Mr. Jones. JUDGE BROUSSEAU: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because other -- if we're not willing to make that commitment, I'd like to separate the referendum issues. MR. JONES: Bill -- Bill Jones, 3000 County Barn Road. I'm the representative with CBIA, and we've been assigned a special task force to help the judge. We think it's a worthwhile project and we've gone -- and I don't want to belabor this, but we've gone to a lot of meetings and a lot of extent to hold an actual straw ballot of our own. By doing that, we took BCB, Kraft, and Carlson-Harris and put out bids on the proposed plan as if we had it in a preliminary stage. We came back with budgets. We've provided those budgets through Form B, and we've worked with some of your staff in going through the whole procedure of this thing to bring it up to you. So, in effect, we have a pretty good idea of what this would cost from that standpoint. One of those members has agreed to come in and actually -- he'll come in today if you'll sign a contract, and he'll start it today. He'll finish it in 15 months to 18 months and hand you the keys, and then you got to pay. He doesn't want any money between now and then. That's a pretty good design/build concept approach, I think. Also, he'll even go ahead with some reservations at this time, but he had made this offer earlier, and give you another three- to five-years financing. So as a builder I look at that. Boy, if somebody is going to give me a chance to go ahead, I'm going to come up with some bucks. You've hung the balance of this on a sales tax, and that may be -- that may be the great thing, but somewhere in that sales tax it's going to get mumbled up into a whole bunch of other things. And I'm sure that the last thing that will come out of there probably is benefit for the judge's restitution center. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's not accurate at all. MR. JONES: Then if it is set up that way, sir, that was my concern. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah, the ballot is very specific. There's two items here, the jail expansion and the work restitution center. MR. JONES: Perfect. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There's nothing else that -- these funds can't be used for anything else. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I think the question, though, Mr. Jones, because I have the same concern, is what if I want to vote yes for the restitution center but no for the jail, and that's what could get confused. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In the way it's drafted right now I don't have that option, and I'm satisfied not to have that option if we as a board are going to direct our staff to go forward and begin, you know, this 15 months, no -- no payment plan. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we need to recognize that if we -- if we take parallel courses and go after two funding sources for the same idea at the same time, we are going to render a tremendous amount of confusion -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that will serve to jeopardize one or both courses. We have to pick a direction here, unfortunately. And as much -- what I'm trying to do is I'm trying to couch this in such a way that should this referendum question not succeed, that plan B is available and that this board at this time has the intention of pursuing. The problem right now is we haven't had a complete review by our staff on some of the questions that have been brought forward. So let me see if I can put this in a motion that incorporates many of the comments I've heard today. One is to place a ballot question to approve the resolution -- I apologize for that -- to approve the resolution before us and place the ballot question on the November ballot. The second part of the motion is to direct staff to work on -- on the questions that have been raised last week and this week on the manner of financing and course of action for a work release center, whether it can be funded by -- by fees of those who use the center or by -- if it was to be funded by private funding, what would the repayment methodology be, and bring that back to the board at another point so we know what the alternate course of action is. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, why would anyone vote to raise their sales tax if you were going to fund it with private funds? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, repayment. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We need to make a decision, though, how you're going to do it before you decide the ballot question. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, we have to pay back the private funds, Commissioner Norris. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, I understand that; but, you know, if I'm a voter and I'm saying -- and I'm seeing the county commission say we're going to fund this with private funds but we want you to raise your sales tax to pay for it, I'm confused, and I'm not going to vote for it. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, we can be clear on that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me put that in the form that we're actually -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We're going to borrow the money is what we're going to do. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're providing more information. You're giving people a choice. They know if they're going to support this sales tax that they're either going to pay for the jail through a sales tax or through ad valorem, and we've heard impact fees are not an option. By proceeding on this other staff level, people will know they can either -- if they want the work release restitution center, they can approve this question, or they can pay for it through whatever methods are out there. They don't have that information right now. They don't know if that's a possibility. I look at it as gathering information the public would want to make a decision. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to second the motion for the following reason: I want to see the question on the ballot and give the public that opportunity. I like the second part of what you said in that plan B is available as an option. We don't have enough information to say, yes, we're definitely going to do that or, no, we're definitely not going to do plan B today. And it would be irresponsible to say, yes, we're going to when we don't have that information. But your idea to have staff go gather that information and bring it back to us so we can make that informed decision is a good one. So I will second it, say let's put it on the ballot, and let's give staff that direction to gather the information. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: And does the motion -- I think I heard it, but let me -- let me clarify. Does it include directing Mr. Weigel to tweak the wording so that we include administrative offices and -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- because that's what's in the cost; 25 million dollars includes administrative offices. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, how about to tweak it if he deems it appropriate, you know, because we don't know if it's sufficient the way it is. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How about he doesn't tweak it. I think if you have a jail, you can assume there are going to be a few people that need to administer that jail. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There are -- there is administration necessary in conjunction with a jail facility. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Greg, I assume you have an office. I know you have an office in that building, and in any jail you're going to need to have a couple of offices here and there. That's, I think, a common-sense item. I'm not in favor of tweaking the language. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'm not either unless Mr. Weigel tells us that we can't then use the money to build the administrative space -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: He's trying to break in and tell us something. MR. WEIGEL: Actually I'm trying to tell you about something else, but I think that you're making a good record today of what the intentions that you have are and what you believe that this question is supposed to mean. So, no, we don't have to change it, although as I mentioned to Commissioner MAtthews, we've got up to 75 words that we can place in a ballot question. We're at about 55 right now, so I could add the words easily enough, sheriff's administration facilities or related sheriff's facilities or things of that nature, if you wished for us to do that for clarity. But what I -- what I did want to mention is that the order of things is, is that you will need to, first, declare an emergency and by a four-fifths or better vote to waive notice of intent of hearing and then approve the ordinance, and then subsequent to that would be the motion on the resolution that approves the ballot question and orders and calls an election for November 5th. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, I make a motion to table the current motion. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I make a motion we declare an emergency. How's that? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, we have to vote on -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We have the other one first. I'll second the motion to table. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We have a motion to table, takes precedence over all other motions. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Point of order. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I don't think there's a point of order COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Point of information, excuse me. Mr. Weigel, again, clearly the purpose for tabling is to -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- declare the emergency. MR. WEIGEL: You have to declare an emergency and adopt the order before you get to the point where you can adopt a resolution ordering and calling an election. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: For the record you can indicate that, you know, the reasons for the emergency are by virtue of the fact that this is the last scheduled meeting, and the election is November 5th, and there is no opportunity after this meeting to hear this matter or advertise an ordinance. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion to table. All those in favor signify by saying aye. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A motion to declare an emergency for the reasons articulated by the county attorney. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion to declare an emergency as -- as brought forward by the county attorney. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? None. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Motion to untable the tabled motion, whatever it is you do. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I hope Robert's happy. I'm sorry. I just -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: A motion and a second. MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, the next order of proceeding then would be to actually have the hearing on the ordinance itself and either adopt it or fail to adopt it by your vote. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. So we have to have a public hearing now? MR. WEIGEL: Yes. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: So open it. COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Open the public hearing. MR. WEIGEL: On the ordinance itself. You may go into public hearing -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll open a public hearing on the ordinance, and do we have a motion on this public hearing? Are we untabling a prior motion now? MR. WEIGEL: I think that prior motion was about the resolution, so -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: -- you need a motion to adopt the emergency ordinance. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Close the public hearing. So moved. MR. WEIGEL: Also, so the record -- the record should indicate that this is an ordinance providing for the tax of up to five years. I mean, that's the way it's drafted, just so the record indicates that. MR. DORRILL: And I have a question on that. The way that I have read it is that it's just a flat five years. Are we going to incorporate the "up to" language? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I certainly like "up to." MR. DORRILL: Yeah. Our preliminary projections are that you could theoretically raise 75 million dollars in five years for these two with some small escalation at less than 3 percent a year. You can theoretically raise 75 million dollars. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Why do we have five years in here? MR. DORRILL: That's why I'm jumping in here. I think it should be up to and only reflective of the final process and the actual cost as a result of whatever sealed bidding method that you use. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Agree on that, and I'd like to not include the administrative offices if it's not -- leave it? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Leave it alone unless it's absolutely necessary. MR. WEIGEL: When I said up to, I mean, that's your choice, but I would -- I would respectfully request that the ordinance have a fixed time. Now, we can do many things at the county attorney office, but we can't run numbers to determine the tax -- how the taxes come in over time. And so the five years was there to give a not-to-exceed figure for which you could choose. You would probably have a surplus of time, but I would suggest that you pick a time which gives you a little buffer -- it may be three years, it might be four years -- as a fixed time, but making intent on the record here that the tax will be terminated upon the -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Collection. MR. WEIGEL: -- collection of enough funds to take care of these projects which are so specifically enumerated. I think you're going to need to pick a fixed time of three or four years or whatever is the appropriate time, and that kind of input I can't give you as to how much you generate over time. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What do you project for three years, Mr. Dorrill? MR. DORRILL: I've got approximately 75 million dollars. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: For five years. So three years would be 45. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's a half cent. Are you sure? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: One cent was going to raise 23 million -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That was true. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- for five months. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My point is if the ability to collect $75,000 (sic) is out there, I would hate to see what happens to the plans for the jail. They might begin growing. MR. DORRILL: Forty-one point nine million dollars. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: More than adequate, I think. Then the motion is to -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I didn't hear the number of years. MR. DORRILL: Three. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Three years raises over 41 million. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's two years raise? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Take one year off of -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think I'd like to withdraw my motion, and let's start over. The Keystone Cops come to mind. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it's actually called Roberts Rules of Order, no matter how awkward. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Two years will raise an estimated 27.4 million, which is a little bit less than the projected costs of the two facilities combined. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So a third year should give us enough leeway and cushion, and as I understand right now is that the -- is this the ordinance or the ballot question we're voting on? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The ordinance. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The ordinance. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: For the purpose of the ordinance, I'll make a motion to extend a period of up to three years with a date ending January 31, nineteen nine -- or the year 2000, excuse me, January 31, 2000. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think Mr. Weigel is still looking for a fixed date. The question that immediately comes to mind, if we can clearly and easily fund this in three years, why was it drafted at five. In other words, I just -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: He just said he doesn't know. He didn't know what the numbers were. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This is to adopt the ordinance, the emergency ordinance. MR. WEIGEL: Yes, that's correct. That's right. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have a second? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock, your motion is for three years -- up to three years ending January 31, 2000. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to adopt the ordinance. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Do we have a motion to untable the resolution? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I would make a motion that we take the motion to adopt the resolution off the table and have a vote. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? MR. WEIGEL: And I would expect that that record shows then that the ballot question on the resolution is three years as opposed to five as drafted -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That's correct. MR. WEIGEL: -- just so the record is very clear. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And that the language says -- in the resolution says "up to." COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was part of the motion. MR. WEIGEL: No, it's going to be three. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It's going to be three. MR. WEIGEL: It's going to be three, a definite time. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, I see. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right. We have a -- we have untabled a motion, amended it, and it's on the floor. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: By the way, the second accepts the amendment. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. That did it? We're through? MR. WEIGEL: Yes. CHAI~ NORRIS: Okay. Good. Item #10A RESOLUTION 96-301 APPOINTING ROGER SUMHERVILLE AND THOMAS WATTS TO THE FOREST LAKES ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE ADVISORY COMHITTEE - ADOPTED Next, appointment of members to Forest Lakes Roadway. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock, do you have a recommendation on this? COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you have a recommendation on this? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: As shown. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I make a motion that we appoint Roger Summerville to a four-year term on Forest Lakes Roadway. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There are two. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me. MS. FILSON: We need two appointments. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, Roger Summerville for a four-year period and the second gentleman, Thomas Watts, for the remainder of that term for two years would be my suggestion to the motion maker. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Motion maker accepts. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #11A BCC TO SERVE AS LOCAL COORDINATING UNIT OF GOVERNMENT AND EXECUTE THE APPLICATION FOR U.S. DEPT./JUSTICE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM - APPROVED We need to make a little announcement on scheduling here. We're -- the whole board is supposed to go outside and have a photo made at quarter till 12. We're down to the point of public comment. We have this one -- before we do that, we have ll(A), that U.S. Justice block grant. We need a motion on that? MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, this was delivered this morning. I don't know if there's someone from the sheriff's department -- or I presume that we're just the sponsoring end of the CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve item 16(H)(1). COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? PUBLIC COHMENT - REVEREND ALLEN REGARDING HEALTH CARE Public comment, do we have some? MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: How many? MR. DORRILL: Just one. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Just one. Okay, that's perfect. MR. DORRILL: Reverend Allen. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Then we'll break for lunch. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What is a green tax? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Huh? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Where is the green tax? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It's down there yet. We'll be breaking for lunch after this item for those people who are here. REVEREND ALLEN: Good morning. My name is Howard Allen, and I'm pastor of Glendale Baptist Church in Immokalee and also the president of CURE, Collier United for Rights and Equality. I understand from the paper I'm getting here just a little bit late on this item. I understand you all voted on it yesterday, and you had a pretty good round, from what I can understand, on taking $500,000 out of health care and causing -- according to the paper that will be 16 full-time jobs lost, and that's something that we can kind of make up for that. But what I'm looking at is the rest of what will be lost by not allowing the $500,000 to be a part of the budget. If -- according to the paper, you have about eighteen hundred people that won't receive dental care, and these are not adults. These are children that lives in and around Immokalee that are there, and you will have loss of counseling for the AIDS victim, also for the testing for those mens and womens who might have AIDS, and by lose -- by not having that and not having the counseling, when these mens and womens then can go out and not have any counseling how to help themselves and how not to pass the disease on to somebody else, then that won't be there. And I noticed that in the budget you upped the sheriff's budget another million dollars, and you took a hundred -- $500,000 from health care. You also just voted a few minutes ago to -- for $170,000 or a hundred and some thousand dollars to build a roller ring for -- and I'm saying -- I'm not saying that's not important, but I think our health is -- is just as important as these things. Now, you've been authorized to build a jail and then going to charge us for building -- adding a jail, and I know criminals need a place. We need a place to put criminals. You're all going to have a place for them to rehabilitate. And I'm sure all of these things are important, but I think health care should be one of the top items on the county commission's agenda. And I know the three gentlemens voted to not to -- to take this out of the budget. And I know we mens, we don't like going to the doctors, and we have to be urged to go to the doctors, but it's important that -- that -- that we go. It's important that we have health care. It's important to the Immokalee area especially, because when you move this and these -- the same care that they was getting there at the clinic and in the other areas there, they'll have to try to come to Naples or -- or go to Fort Myers or Lehigh to receive that same care. And most of these peoples who go to the clinic do not have transportation, because if you -- if you would come to Immokalee or we would go to Immokalee today, you would see them standing in certain areas along where transportation can come along and pick them up, take them up to the clinic, and they receive the care and then come back home. We know that a lot of our peoples come from other countries. We have the Hispanic. We have the Haitians. We have the Guatemalans, and then some of the Americans and the Indians all are there; and they need dental care. Now, you may not -- may feel that it's not our problem; but if we get an epidemic of AIDS, hepatitis, or other kinds of disease that the clinic normally catch before it starts to spread, then it will become the county's problem. We are not in the health business, but we need to state that you all did this when the clinic was closed. The commissioners voted to reopen it, to fund it, and I think that you should continue to do it as a preventative measure rather than saying that we are just putting money out there for some -- something else. So a scripture always leaves with you. When we are here talking that the Bible teaches us that he that shutters up his ears at the cry of the poor -- one day they will cry, and they will not be heard. And so, you know, you're -- we don't want you to cry and nobody listen, or you don't want to cry and nobody listen. And I don't know why we always start with the poor. You go to Washington; you see the congress and the senate. When they want to save some money, they start with the poor. And we had worked right on down to the county government that -- that we want -- we want to prevent them. And I asked the question when we was talking about this last night: Why -- why is the poor always the one that gets the cut? And it's simply because they don't have anyone to speak for them. They don't -- they don't call you up. They don't stop by the commissioner chambers. They don't come to Naples and talk to you, so you don't have to face them when -- as you do the others that you would meet on the golf course, at dinner, or wherever when you vote to do that. I'm sure there's -- there's some money -- there's some money there for the health care, and I guarantee if there was to come a storm, a Jerry or a Sam or a Joe, and take away part of the beach, within -- a number of you would have enough money to renourish the beach so that you could bring the tourists in. So I would ask you all as a commission and as a citizen of Collier County that you go back and revisit that and put this money back in and find some other area to take the money. Health care is very important, and we need that in Collier County. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Reverend Allen. Let's reconvene at one o'clock sharp. We'll go down now -- the whole board needs to go down now for the photos. I guess you all know that. (A lunch break was held from 11:45 a.m. to 1:07 p.m.) Item #12A1 AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PERTAINING TO THE AREA OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN (ACSC) TO REINSTATE THE AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION AND TO MODIFY THE SITE ALTERATION REQUIREMENTS FOR SOUTHERN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES - CONTINUED TO 7/23/96 AND STAFF TO BRING BACK A RESOLUTION ON 7/16/96 CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll reconvene the county commission meeting. Our first item on our afternoon agenda -- By the way, we should note that we finished our morning agenda in the morning today, and we're starting our afternoon agenda in the afternoon. It doesn't happen very often but -- COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's the first time in how long? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I don't know, but it certainly is a pleasure. 12(A)(1) -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think Mr. Perkins said he had a public comment in. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, Mr. Perkins missed his opportunity because we've already had public comment, sir. I'm sorry, sir. We're -- We've passed that point. MR. PERKINS: Mr. Dorrill -- Dorrill -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, Mr. Dorrill doesn't run this meeting, sir. I do. And -- And we've passed that, and we're moving on to 12(C)(1) -- 12(A)(1) here. Hiss Cacchione, you had something to tell us? (Commissioner Mac'Kie entered the board room.) MS. CACCHIONE: For the record, my name's Barbara Cacchione of your comprehensive planning section. The item before you today is a request to continue the area of critical state concern amendment which is to reinstate the agricultural exemption. The reason for this continuance is because the Regional Planning Council has not found our evaluation and appraisal report sufficient, and I'd like to seek some board direction this morn -- this afternoon in regard to possible avenues we might take to get that EAR into sufficiency at their next meeting on July 18. There are two -- There are two alternatives that we can look at. One is to supply additional information to try to justify removing the southern Golden Gate Estates and deleting that from the comprehensive plan. The DCA has found that we have not presented sufficient information on that item as part of the EAR. The second alternative option would be to delete that proposed amendment from the evaluation and appraisal report, and pending board direction, track it separately, and that way it would not hold up the area of critical state concern amendment or other amendments we may be looking at down the road. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The one that you're suggesting might be deleted is the one that has to do with southern Golden Gate Estates? MS. CACCHIONE: That's correct. Basically the board directed staff to include in the evaluation and eva -- excuse me -- evaluation and appraisal report -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: EAR. MS. CACCHIONE: -- the deletion of southern Golden Gate Estates and the goals, objectives, and policies which were part of a stipulated settlement agreement. The DCA had found that insufficient, and although the region has control over the sufficiency finding, they are leaving this issue up to the Department of Community Affairs. We continued it from the June 20 meeting to July 18. And in terms of a way to process these things, one may be to take it out of the evaluation and appraisal report and process it as a separate amendment in this cycle. It would run along the same time frame, but I think it -- there could be some potential problems down the road into separated -- as a separate amendment would not hold up any other EAR-based amendments. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: First of all, I'm not interested in separating the two out. I think if we do that, we'll lose the intent, and we were very clear on our direction we wanted to take on the southern Golden Gate Estates, and we need to stick to that. Secondly, though, I think the -- there's a chance anyway the RPC may decide to take that back and -- and get a little more aggressive on it once Commissioner Norris and myself have an opportunity to speak to the rest of the council. Obviously we weren't there at the June meeting because we had budget hearings here. I suspect both of us will be at the July meeting, and I have some level of comfort that perhaps once we've had our chance to explain the entire issue to them, that the RPC may wish to be more aggressive with that. So I don't know about the rest of the board, but I'm not interested in separating the two out. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Neither am I. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a few board members that are saying -- that are interested. Mr. Saadeh, do we have any public speakers on this item? MR. SAADEH: Yes, Mr. Chairman, three public speakers -- speakers. First, Mr. Clifford Fort, followed by Jack Stanley. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. FORT: For the record my name is Clifford Fort, coordinating -- coordinating director of Broken Wing Ranches. Again, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the commissioners for your most courageous and appreciated stand regarding the position of the people in southern Golden Gate. I mean, I can't say enough. I'm here representing probably close to 10,000 acres of people that are at a standstill right now hoping that we'll be able to go one way or another. Larry Fitzpatrick who represents Land Use Consultants was unable to appear. He represents over -- well over 5,000 acres, I believe. Some of the concerns -- I -- I won't waste time going through all the events that surrounded the removal of the agricultural exemption; however, if you'll notice, I have given you a letter that I had written to Mr. Bob Blanchard in 1993 addressing all the concerns, in very specific questions I might add, regarding the nature of the removal of that agricultural exemption. And I know everybody here is trying to fix this thing, and I've got confidence y'all are trying to fix it. So I don't want to spend time on water over the falls. However, as someone that really has suffered financially -- and there are other people here that have experienced the same thing today -- you know, it would kind of be nice if we kind of get maybe an answer to some of those questions that have laid unanswered since 1993. You know, I'd kind of like to be able to say to some of the people that asked me why did this happen and how did this happen and what members of staff orchestrated this language and what was their specific intent when it was done, because right now it is 1996, moving rapidly into 1997 and when I -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Cautero -- I just wanted to interrupt to ask Mr. Cautero if -- if he could become aware of -- Obviously this predates you, a letter from 1993, but if there's an unresponded-to letter that's three years old, I bet you will want to respond to it. Yes? MR. CAUTERO: Well, I -- I would assume so, yes. I know that there's been a lot of correspondence -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I know that Mr. Cautero goes through the files and finds every letter -- MR. CAUTERO: I'm sorry. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that wasn't responded to. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So -- so I -- I just want you to know that -- that you can -- you have confidence in us. We appreciate it, but you should also have it in Mr. Cautero, that if you will bring it to his attention, I bet you he'll respond. MR. FORT: Well, I -- I certainly appreciate that. I -- I spoke to Hiss Cacchione outside, and she expressed her interest to try and get this agricultural exemption possibly back as quickly as possible, and there -- there's a number of bureaucratic problems that I'm not real clear on and I don't understand. All I know is the necessity as quickly as possible to see if we can get it reinstated. And one of the questions is, in the meantime -- Since 1993 we have had virtually no use of our land other than 10 percent. If I want to go out there and bush hog and try and drag and put a little seed to feed a few cows, basically according to the code I can go to jail for that. Is there any mechanism that may be available that the board could possibly give us some relief so if I came to you like -- I don't know if it's a special petition. I don't know the process. But I can say, Hey, could you guys just kind of let me use my land a little bit, like run some cows, do some bush hogging, try and control my cabbage palms until these people get it sorted out? You know, the analogy is almost like the people of Sherwood Forest going to the sheriff of Nottingham and asking them if they can use the forest. I kind of look at the DCA as the sheriff of Nottingham, and I'm not real confident those guys are real excited about giving us back the agricultural exemption, and I can pretty much be assured that I'm -- I don't want to hold my breath waiting for it because this managed to be stalled. If everything went great, maybe September. It's going to be after that. Man, that's four years. So maybe you all could think of something within the law. Maybe legal counsel could help you to figure out if some of these come and say, "Can we use our land? How could we use it," you know, not going in there and laying it all down. How about just bush hogging between the trees or something? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As I read the executive summary -- Miss Cacchione, maybe you can help me -- page 2 of the executive summary, bottom paragraph, It should be noted that as part of the evaluation and appraisal report, BCC recommended that goal two be deleted. This proposed change will allow for -- this is the part I'm asking you to help me with. This proposed change will allow for clearing greater than 10 percent in limited circumstances until the EAR amendments are processed. What does that mean they can and can't do while they're awaiting that change? You say in limited circumstances. What are those circumstances? MS. CACCHIONE: Basically that applies to estate-zoned property in southern Golden Gate Estates, and in that area they can clear more than 10 percent for fire breaks, environmental reasons. If the agricultural exemption is reinstated, they can, of course, use more than 10 percent. And we've also provided that wording that that would occur now in -- in southern Golden Gate Estates, that for those reasons they can clear more than 10 percent until procedurally we can go through and do as the board wishes which is remove goal two completely. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, hypothetically if the board decided today that that was the direction that they would like to take so that the property owners could actually use more than 10 percent of their own land -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Imagine that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- what would be the fastest possible way to achieve -- to -- to come up with that? Does that have to be part of the Land Development Code cycle? Is there a quicker way to do that? How -- How could that be done? MR. WEIGEL: Well, we've got limitations on the Land Development Code cycle that indicate that only unless -- unless there's an emergency, and you have to have a certain bases to -- to come to that finding. But other than that, I cannot think of any way other than the regular Land Development Code cycle. Obviously even that has its contentious relationship with DCA and the state if we go this route. MS. CACCHIONE: Both of those regulations are in the comprehensive plan and in the Land Development Code, and if you take them out of the Land Development Code, the comprehensive plan still applies. We are in the process, and what I've asked is that we just continue this until July 23 which is just a few days after -- after we have our hearing in front of the Regional Planning Council. At that point it is a final adoption, if the board so goes in that direction, to finally adopt and reinstate the agricultural exemption. Then the Department of Community Affairs has 45 days to find it in compliance or for any third party to bring that issue up. So we're very close to reinstating the agricultural exemption if that's the board's direction. July 23 is your final hearing on that. The other process will take a lot longer because we're at the beginning stage of that. It will take us approximately a year to get that completed. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It seems we're taking two separate actions that are conflicting on the same property owner, and what I hear Mr. Fort saying is that if we pull out the south estates and let it stand alone, it gives the ACSC modification a chance to go through so some use of that property can occur. We can fight this battle independent -- Like you, I don't want to pull it out because now the DCA is doing to us what they've been doing to them. They're holding all of our EAR-based amendments hostage just as they've been holding private property rights hostage. So I don't want to take that out, but it seems that the property owners that that would benefit if Mr. Fort is representative of them is asking for us to allow the ACSC to continue so some uses can occur, and it just seems like a -- you know, a decision we're going to have to make and I -- I -- You know, my personal preference now is to let the ACSC go through and separate the south estates but with the same conviction that we put it in in the first place. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My concern is if we separate it out, the county itself loses some of the incentive, and we may have all the best intention in the world, but we don't have the same stick over us, that if we want to get everything through, it should be -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Point well taken. MS. CACCHIONE: We would process the southern Golden Gate Estates amendment in the same time frame. So we do have three public amendments submitted in this cycle. We would put southern Golden Gate Estates into that cycle and process it. Along the same track, if the board directs us to do that, is the EAR-based amendments, but it won't hold up your EAR-based amendments because I think there will be issues at the time of adoption with regard to that amendment. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sure there will be, but, again, not only is that a stick over us, but it's a stick over DCA. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If they want to try to withhold every change we want to make over that issue, then it will bring that issue to the forefront that much stronger. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That -- That's exactly how I feel about it too, is that let's -- let's, you know, not bow to the threat. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And you've got a point. And, again, I was trying to solve one problem by making a change in another. I have to agree with you though. Maybe united we stand is a better approach. No -- No relation to Ross Perot at all intended. But, you know, maybe we -- together we have a better -- better chance to forcing them to put up or shut up where the south estates are concerned. MR. FORT: Hay I ask one last question, please? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You're -- you're -- You've had a little more than five minutes. MR. FORT: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I know we've asked you some questions, but if you wrap it up real quickly -- MR. FORT: Okay. Quickly, if the DCA objects -- objects to this, what happens then, and -- and what time frame could we possibly be looking at? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This means war. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Actually, I -- I had the same question for Miss Cacchione. If she could tell us the time frame for the war, I'd be '- MS. CACCHIONE: If -- if -- If we are found by the Regional Planning Council -- and they've left this issue to DCA because it was a stipulated settlement agreement -- it is unclear exactly what happens, and maybe Miss Student can address that. But there is still -- They have delegated this to the Regional Planning Council, and it seems that it's the sole authority, but if the Regional Planning Council gives that authority to the department, there is some confusion. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But the -- but the -- But the RPC has not made that decision. MS. CACCHIONE: No, they have not. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: They continued the item, and we -- we will wait until next month to make that decision. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And in the event the RPC decides to hear it and approves it, the whole argument becomes moot. MS. CACCHIONE: Well, I'm not sure about that. MS. STUDENT: The law -- Mr. Chairman and members of the board, Harjorie Student, assistant county attorney for the record. The law is not clear on what happens when you come to a law jam with DCA on sufficiency, and there's some idea that perhaps it could go to mediation and perhaps ultimately end up in an administrative hearing, and then you're looking at maybe a couple of years down the road if that's event -- in that eventuality. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If -- Well, okay. I guess I'll wait and ask this after we see what the RPC does. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next, please. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We'll have to see what the RPC is going to do. MR. SAADEH: Jack Stanley followed by Michael Simonik. MR. STANLEY: If you're going -- For the record, Jack Stanley, vice chairman, Florida Wildlife Federation. If you're going to continue this, I will have additional comments at that time, but for the record I'd like to have it noted that the Florida Wildlife Federation is opposed to any changes in the current status of the land regulations in the area of critical state concern in southern Golden Gate Estates. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, sir. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I just ask you a question? Does the -- Does the Florida Wildlife Federation have any idea when or how the individuals who own this property are going to be compensated? MR. STANLEY: No, sir. We are working very carefully with the -- very closely with the state with DEP in their land acquisition program, and we are urging them to move with all deliberate speed to resolve these problems because we -- we realize there are legitimate concerns of the property owners in this area. And most of us being property owners ourselves, we're sympathetic to them. But, as you know, the state has a program to acquire this property from willing sellers, and we're assisting them in every way we can. We're trying to speed the process up. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the key there, you said "from willing sellers," and those people who are not willing sellers ought to still be able to use the property they own, and they can't under the current scenario. MR. STANLEY: In -- in a -- In a sense or fashion that's compatible with the overall use of the existing area as -- as it will become a state forest, of course. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: With all due respect, it's a get-out-your-checkbook issue or leave them alone, and that's just as plain as I can say it. I genuinely mean no disrespect but -- MR. STANLEY: Well, we -- we -- We concur in that. We're trying to get the state to move as rapidly as possible through us and with us with our help to acquire these properties and resolve this situation. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Please do your best. MR. STANLEY: Thank you. We will. MR. SAADEH: Michael Simonik followed by A1 Perkins. MR. SIHONIK: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Michael Simonik. I'm the environmental policy coordinator for The Conservancy. I'm here speaking on behalf of The Conservancy and the Audubon Society. We have consistently opposed the reinstatement of the agricultural exemption in the area of critical state concern, and we are here to oppose it again today as a matter of standing. The agricultural exemption does not adequately protect the natural resources in these areas. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Simonik, is The Conservancy then willing to step forward in the absence of state funding and -- and go ahead and compensate these property owners? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Same comment. Get out your checkbook. MR. SIHONIK: The Conservancy is -- is not affiliated with The Nature Conservancy who purchases land as far as -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That was not the question at all. That was not the question at all. You represent -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If the group that you're here representing -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me. This is my question. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sorry. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You -- You stepped forward and said that you're representing The Conservancy and the Audubon Society. Are either one of those two organizations that you represent willing to step forward and purchase this property so that these property owners are completely compensated for their property? MR. SIMONIK: Within our means, we're doing our best possible to facilitate that acquisition. We do not have the funds to do that at this time. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Then -- Then what you're saying is that you want control of someone else's property without compensation, and you had no intention of helping with the compensation. Is that what you're saying? MR. SIMONIK: We're just opposed to the reinstatement of the agricultural exemption as it stands on the laws right now. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But it's not your property. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's kind of akin to me going to a car dealership and telling them, "Don't sell that car." And they say, "Why? Are you going to buy it?" And I say, "Well, I might down the road if I can get the money." And they ask me, "When," and I say, "I don't know, but if I can get the money, I want that car. So don't sell it to anybody else." MR. SIMONIK: But you can also ask them -- ask them not to damage the car in the meantime. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, the point was, it wouldn't make any sense for them to hold onto the car if I'm not making a commitment to actually buy it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. SIMONIK: Thank you. MR. SAADEH: A1 Perkins followed by Barbara Cawley. And that would be the last speaker, Mr. Chairman. MR. PERKINS: A1 Perkins, Belle Meade Groups, Citizens for Constitutional Property Rights. You people have just put your finger exactly on the spot where it's at. John, you've done a real -- you've nailed it down. You put it right where it belongs. These people out here who do not own the land who do not -- have invested in the land who don't do anything about the land except tell other people how they should manage and live their lives on that land, and worst of all they're using taxpayers' money in forms of grants and gifts which are tax deductible to use it against these people. I'm in total -- We are in total agreement with Mr. Fort about reinstating this agricultural exemption. It makes a way to at least pay the taxes on the land. Don't forget. Whether you know it or not, that land has to be worked some way or the other. People make it work. It doesn't go by itself. On many occasions I know that there's been people out there, myself for one, have offered to the State of Florida to trade out land acre for acre, improvement for improvement. Well, it's three years later, and I have yet to have anybody knock at my door or send me a letter telling me that we'll even consider it. And if you don't think I can't get a little hostile about that, especially when the people in Tallahassee are dictating to me when we live down here -- With this, I'm bringing up another issue. To devaluate the property value, all you have to do is flood it. This Friday in this room at nine o'clock in the morning, the Big Cypress Basin Board is going to have its meeting. You people at home and you people in the audience and you commissioners ought to be here. It ought to be a real free-for-all because I'd like to see some legal action taken against these people for their actions. Do you realize that they not only backed the water up, they flooded the people out, they've created hardship, they've ruined and killed animals, and they took and put us into FEMA, which is federal funds. Now, we're paying and paying and paying and paying, and we're paying the characters who are doing it to us. I can get real hostile about that part of it. Let's hold the line like you've said you were going to do today. Get tough. You've got nothing to lose. Get tough. Thank you. MR. SAADEH: Barbara Cawley. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is this the final speaker? MR. SAADEH: Yes, Mr. Chairman. MS. CAWLEY: Good afternoon, Commissioners. As you know, I was probably the one that started this thing by submitting this amendment to get this agricultural exemption reinstated; however, I think right now we're in sort of a different situation in terms of how we're going to handle this EAR, and it really is sort of irrelevant to what's going on with the ag exemption amendment. I'm a little bit concerned about delaying the EAR process and having it wallow into administrative hearings and -- and take two years before we kind of get this thing resolved and I -- it -- It's very confusing, I think, to all of us. And I'm trying to figure out if we segregate this issue and go forward with the EAR, get it deemed sufficient, and then we can make this amendment, which has already been -- received an ORC report from DCA and everything, go forward on its own, these folks are going to get what they want without having this south Golden Gate Estates issue thrown into it because the ag amendment will give them the -- the land clearing that they need for agriculture. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I -- I have the same concern you do about the quagmire. I don't want to get into it. But if -- if we can send our able representatives up to the RPC and they can persuade them in July to go forward, then at that point, you know, then we won't have this problem. At that point if, you know, some bizarre thing happens like they didn't agree, then I'm going to be -- want to go talk about it. MS. CAWLEY: That -- That's the point, I guess, that I -- At that point, I guess, then we need to readdress this and figure out where we're going. I -- I -- I think you guys are doing absolutely the right thing, except I'm concerned about maybe delaying this thing two to three years because of this battle that we're having with DCA. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I think you hit it correctly. I think we're a little premature in deciding today whether or not a separation is necessary. Let's let it run its course. And if -- if we have to make that decision, the item will appear back before us and we'll do that, but today I think we're saying we're going to stick together and pursue it all in -- in the same group, and if we are forced to consider otherwise, we'll do so. MS. CAWLEY: And, again, I appreciate your support on this because I think that it's -- it's a -- it's a quandary to the county then in terms of taking private property. We don't want to get into that position, but right now we're in this technicality position with DCA and what do we do with the EAR and all of that, and we just need to be patient a little bit on that I think, and I -- I appreciate what you're doing. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. Is that the final speaker? MR. SAADEH: Yes, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We'll close the public hearing then. What's the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to wait and see what the RPC does with it next month. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that a motion? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I think -- Actually, rather than a motion, I think direction is what was being sought here -- MS. CACCHIONE: I think -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- since we're not -- we're not being asked to approve something if I'm not -- Am I correct? MS. CACCHIONE: There were two things, one, basically to continue this item to July 23 to a date certain, and the second item is direction from the board on how you'd like your staff to proceed. Basically one other item -- One other alternative we have is for us to provide additional information on why removing goal two is appropriate, and we can do that and provide that additional information through a resolution to this board on July 16 if -- if you so deem it appropriate to sort of beef up our EAR in this regard. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, it seems to me that we're -- we're premature in any kind of action until the RPC hears this item. They haven't done that yet, and that's the next step in the process. So my suggestion would be that we just -- we just sit tight until the RPC hears it. We'll rehear this, then, on the -- the 23rd. So what I think we need is a motion to continue until the 23rd. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I would like to make a motion to continue this item -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- to July 23. MS. CACCHIONE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to continue this item until the 23rd of July. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to give further direction to our staff that they beef up the EAR report with reasons for removing goal two and that they bring this issue back to us on the 23rd with a report from the RPC as to what was accomplished. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Did you say beef up with reasons for removing goal two? I thought we wanted to do just the opposite, present the case that we don't want to remove goal two, that it all will be presented as one -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. We're removing goal two from our plan. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Okay. I'm sorry. I -- Thank you. I -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Double negative. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MS. CACCHIONE: Based on discussions with the Department of Community Affairs, they had said that they would like to see some additional information, and we thought we could bring that to you on July 16 before that meeting and that it would help the board's position in front of the Regional Planning Council. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. I'd like to further amend my motion that a resolution be prepared to accomplish exactly that and brought back to us on July 16. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? MS. CACCHIONE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Miss Cacchiene. Item #12B1 ORDINANCE 96-32 RE PETITION PUD-89-3(2) QUAIL WEST PHASE I AND III, WILLIAM R. VINES, REPRESENTING QUAIL WEST LTD., FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE QUAIL WEST PUD - ADOPTED Next item is 12(B)(1), petition PUD-89-3(2). MR. NINO: Ren Nine for the record. The petition before you would have you amend the Quail West PUD. Quail West -- The approval of Quail West came about in two different phases. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll tell you what, Mr. Nine -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This is -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: On a very packed agenda, what I see is we're not changing the number of units but allowing them to be flexible, whether they exist in phase one or phase two and what number. Are there any substantive changes -- MR. NINO: No, there aren't. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- to the PUD outside of that? MR. NINO: No. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, close the public hearing? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have any public speakers on this particular item? MR. SAADEH: No, Mr. Chairman, no public speakers. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. I'll -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Motion to approve. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #12B2 ORDINANCE 96-33 RE PETITION PUD-96-1, AMENDING ORDINANCE 91-102, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREINE DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM "A" TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS VETERANS PARK MEDICAL PUD ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF IMHOKALEE ROAD AND VETERANS DRIVE - ADOPTED 12(B)(2), petition PUD-96-1. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I think I might save some staff time on this one too. This is brought back basically because of the technicality of transmission; is that correct, Mr. Weigel? We've already approved this? There's no substantive change, but it's back here because of a transmittal difficulty? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. MR. WEIGEL: Correct. MR. HULHERE: I missed the ten-day -- ten-day period. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Motion to approve -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- PUD-96-1 -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Wa, wa, wa, wa, wa, wa. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sorry. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have any public speakers? MR. SAADEH: No, Mr. Chairman. No registered speakers. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Quick Draw Hancock. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve PUD-96-1. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Approved. Item #12B3 PETITION R-96-3, DEBORAH A. STEWART OF PARKS, BENNETT AND STEWART REPRESENTING THE ESTATE OF MARY JOSEPHINE MILLER REQUESTING A REZONING ACTION FROM RHF-6 TO C-3 FOR PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 6, 7, 8, 9, 16 AND 17, BLOCK E, SHADOWLAWN AT NAPLES - DENIED 12(B)(3), petition R-96-3. MR. NINO: Ron Nino for the record. If you want to interrupt me and pass it, it's all right with me. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think you might slow down on this one. MR. NINO: The petition that's before you would have you rezoning property currently zoned RHF to the C-3 classification. The property is located with frontage on Bayside Drive, Shadowlawn Drive north -- north of the trail, Tamiami Trail. It is immediately behind or to the north of the Bel-Air Motel property which is located on this property. And there are some cottages. Actually, there are some cottages on this property as well that are rental properties. The surrounding property to the north and to the west -- to the east is zoned multi-family. To the south and to the west, the subject property is adjacent to commercially zoned property. If this property were rezoned, it would be consistent with all elements of the Growth Management Plan. You'll note from our staff -- staff summary that we had suggested to the petitioner that in the event only the subject property -- the subject rezoning property were to be developed independent from the property that was part of the Tamiami Trail which is owned by the same party, that under that scenario, we would be concerned with all of the uses that are permitted in the C-3 -- C-3 zoning district. We didn't think it appropriate, for example, the businesses that had nighttime operations would be in that relationship with a contiguous residential property. So the proposal was made that if the plan were developed as a unified plan that included the Bel-Air property, that under that scenario we wouldn't have a problem with extending all of the C-3 uses, provided it was -- the property were developed as a unified plan of development with a site development plan that would be reviewed by staff and approved to ensure that those relationships that would mitigate the nighttime uses are adequately addressed. That was our recommendation. The petitioner accepted it, and the planning commission in reviewing that unanimously concurred with that recommendation. There was no opposition to the petition. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, I have a question on this particular petition. In the past both specifying a unified plan of development or common architectural theme sounds good in the public hearing. We know what we're trying to accomplish, yet in reality it isn't being produced on the landscape. As an example, the intersection of 1-75 and Pine Ridge, to the south side, that entire development was supposed to be a common architectural theme. Cappy's Pizza, Super America which is now ETD, Knight's Inn -- there isn't a common architectural element, other than asphalt, among those four or five different uses. MR. NINO: I -- I am unaware -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And -- But the point being that we have no mechanism to follow up on these requirements of common architectural theme. So they're presented here in a public hearing, and we all know what we're trying to accomplish, yet we don't have the mechanism through community development to -- to produce that. Same thing here. We talked about a single site plan. I'm looking for the -- the enforcement on that, the -- You know, who carries that out? What is the mechanism? I need to make sure that if we're going to consider this, that it will be followed through, and we have the mechanism to catch that. MR. NINO: That's the responsibility of -- of planning services' staff to do that, and if we fail to do that, we ought to be chastised, I guess. However, I'm unfamiliar -- I'm familiar with the Southerland PUD, and with all deference, I -- I -- in -- in all the times I looked at that PUD, I didn't note any requirement for architectural uniformity. On the other hand, we did have that requirement at Carillon and at Pine Ridge which to my mountain -- to my knowledge, is -- are the -- are the first two PUDs where an architectural uniformity requirement was made. And we think that, by and large, we achieved that in those two quadrants. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I reserve the right to be wrong, but -- but the -- the point's the same, is that -- you know, it's a concern on follow-through, and we need to address that concern if we're going to make those requirements at these public hearings. MR. NINO: I think I can assure you on behalf of my supervisors that that will be done. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Nino, what is the -- The little parcel in the notch, is that developed at the moment? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the Bel-Air -- MR. NINO: You mean right in here? (indicating) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes. MR. NINO: Yes. There's a cottage on that, and then Bel-Air Motel is over here. (indicating) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There's a what? MR. NINO: A little -- a little residence. It's a rental. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Oh, okay. It's a -- It's a residential property at the moment -- MR. NINO: Yes. Correct. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- but it's already zoned C -- MR. NINO: C -- C-3. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: C-3. Okay. MR. NINO: Yes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right. Other than -- what -- What is the purpose of the -- the zoning request here, the fezone request? What -- What is the intent? I mean, other than increasing the value of someone's property, what is the purpose of -- of rezoning the property? MR. NINO: I'll let the petitioner speak to that, but I -- I believe it's because they see the opportunity to -- to achieve a commercial type of development. They -- They do speak to a higher level of development. They've indicated in their application that they're looking at office-type buildings, but the petitioner would have to speak to that directly themselves. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- I have a question for Mr. Nino. That little notch with the cottage on it, the rental piece of property, is that common ownership with this piece? MR. NINO: Yes. All of that property is common ownership. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It too is C-37 MR. NINO: Yes. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's the same as the Bel-Air? MR. NINO: All of this -- All of this property between Shadowlawn and Bayside north of the trail to this property outlined in red is all under the same ownership. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. MS. STEWART: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Deborah Stewart. I'm with the law firm of Parks, Bennett, and Stewart, attorneys for the petitioner, Addison Miller, who is also present, along with a senior member of our law firm, Benjamin Parks. We're ready to address any concerns you may have about this petition. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. My -- My question is, what are the plans that we're going to do with this property? Do we have something we're going to do with it? MS. STEWART: Yes. We envision in all likelihood the motel will be taken down, and the entire parcel -- that is, the lots that front on 41, along with the lots that we're requesting a change, will be developed together and, as Mr. Nino indicated, probably as a professional office building. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Can we get a firmer commitment on that than that's what we're thinking about doing. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's such a critical piece of property in this area. I -- I couldn't agreement more with Mr. Norris. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask you a question of -- of either you or our staff. What all is allowed in C-37 CHAIRMAN NORRIS: C-3 is -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- a lot. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- a lot. Yeah. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And what I'm thinking -- MR. NINO: Generally the entire -- I'm sorry. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What I'm thinking is if there are certain things in C-3 that are objectionable, perhaps as part of that you would agree to rule out certain uses that wouldn't bind you to a hotel/motel but would -- if there was something terribly offensive -- COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Would you like to hear my list? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Also I'm interested in the sign ordinance, Mr. Nino, and what the -- whether or not we have any anticipated changes. You know, I just want to be sure we do all the aesthetic improvements possible to this property as it's considered for development. MR. NINO: Well, they would be required to comply with the sign ordinance. We couldn't ask them to do anything more -- anything more than that. In terms of the C-3 zoning district, the -- the C-3 zoning district primarily includes retail. It's -- It includes the entire range of retail and service uses and restaurants. It tends to be -- You know, it's -- it's the mid-commercial range of five commercial ranges. Typically the uses associated with C-3 do not have -- are dependent upon outdoor storage or outdoor activities with any great extent. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask this. As far as impacts, traffic impacts, water and sewer impacts, that type of thing, greater, lesser, equal, RHF-6 to C-37 MR. NINO: Well, I would -- I'd say the C-3 has greater impacts with -- on -- on all of those levels of service. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I guess therein lies -- My biggest concern is the increase. I -- I don't have a big problem with some of these uses but just the -- the impacts on traffic and some that particularly -- that's about three-quarters of a mile from the worst traffic area we have in the entire county as far as concurrency. MR. NINO: However, we must appreciate that out of all of those uses, office is probably the highest generator of the traffic. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And, likewise, though, the good news is that would be residential dwellings that won't be built. We talked about density reduction also. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah. Let me see if I -- maybe I can explain my concern a little bit more. We -- I think all of us would love to see redevelopment or quality development come into this particular area. This is -- This is an area that sorely needs it, and any kind of reasonable proposal to do that I think is great. But to give straight C-3 zoning with no commitment on what we're going to have there could be a mistake because -- For example, you've got videotape rental down there. So are we going to have an adult videotape store? I mean, it's possible, and that's not what we're trying to achieve down there. So before I'm willing to commit to fezone the property, I need a commitment -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A1 Perkins got very excited there for a minute. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I need a commitment before you -- you __ MS. STEWART: Mr. Chair -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- go much farther with this. MS. STEWART: -- if I may, this is Addison Miller, the petitioner, and I -- I'm sure he'll be happy to address your concerns. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Miller, maybe you can help us out here a little bit. MR. MILLER: Well, sir, I can tell you ex -- I have three people interested in the property if it is rezoned to C-3 and sold as a unified parcel. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. MILLER: One won't tell me what he wants to do. Two tell me they want to put office spaces there. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. MILLER: You know, a four -- four-story office building, office complex. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Suppose -- Let me throw this out for the board's consideration. Suppose we conditionally approve this request under the condition that an office building be built on it? Can we do that? MR. MILLER: No. Then you '- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or C-2. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: First of all, can we do that? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What about C-2 instead of C-37 MS. STEWART: If I could interrupt -- interject, if you put -- We feel that if you put those types of restrictions such as going to C-2, which originally we did talk about that, then you're going to -- we -- We think that that would create a problem in developing as a unified parcel because you've got C-3. If they're going to take the C-3 property in front and try to develop the lots in the back, there may or may not be some inconsistencies with trying to develop a unified project. I would also like to point out that the property is located within an activity center which allows for C-3 zoning. It's -- It's fairly surrounded by C-4 zoning at the current time. We had applied for and received a waiver of the traffic study. The staff found that there would not be a significant traffic impact with the C-3 zoning. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah. Miss Stewart, an activity center allows C-3 zoning here -- MS. STEWART: C-3. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- but it doesn't require it, and the -- the other -- the other side of this coin that we need to keep in mind too is that we have existing residential units all around this property, and before I can in good conscience allow a use to go in there that would be detrimental to those residential neighborhoods, you know, we've -- we've got to get these commitments on board. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me make a point that I think seems obvious but might simplify things, and that is it doesn't appear there are going to be four votes for straight C-3. I -- I think all of the board, though, has expressed an interest in trying to find some quality way to redevelop this. We're looking to you to find out, okay, short of C-3, what would you do that might be acceptable. MR. MILLER: If it's -- The people that I've been dealing with, if it's not C-3, they don't want it. It's that -- It's that fact. We have agreed with everything that the planning commission or planning board came up with and Mr. Nino's people came up with as to developing it as a unified parcel and not selling it off piecemeal a lot of the time. We agreed with the wall they want, the landscaping, traffic control through east and west movement, hooking into the sewer system, et cetera. I've complied with everything that's been requested, and that's -- I'm asking for C-3 zoning on that basis. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, Mr. Miller, we '- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. MILLER: With the people that have -- Like I said, I have no idea what the first gentleman wants to do with it. He is being very closed mouth and won't say. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And that's our problem, and I'm sure you can understand that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. MR. MILLER: But -- I mean, the only thing it could be would -- The best use out of it for them would be office space. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, Mr. Miller, what -- what this board has had a problem with in the past -- and I'm going to go back 20 years ago. Spec zoning has destroyed a lot of areas of this town. Now, people came in and requested commercial zoning without any idea of what the use was physically going to be, and the impacts of those use are -- uses are being realized now, not 20 years ago when they were specked out. What we have asked -- at least in the year and a half I've been on the board -- is when someone comes in for a fezone, to have an intended use, something we can understand, we can view the impacts, we can directly relate those impacts to the surrounding area. What you are -- in essence, are asking us to do is take residential and spec-zone it to C-3 for whatever use is available under C-3 -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And won't tell us. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and -- and don't want to get any more specific than that. I'm not comfortable with that. I'm not comfortable with all the uses in C-3 in this location. There are some physical characteristics that have been addressed and some that I'd like to address further, but we have to get past the question of use first. And whether it's limiting what's presented in front of us, taking items out of C-3 that we don't feel are appropriate here or whether it's a reduction of C-2 I think is the discussion. If you're not willing to entertain either of those two items -- MR. MILLER: Well, I can't -- the -- the -- The first item of -- of taking things out I can go along with. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And -- And that's all I was suggesting. I'm -- I'm trying to rescue it here, and it appears -- if it -- If it's an all or nothing thing, it's going to end up nothing because -- MR. MILLER: No. I mean, I have agreed with everything that they've come up with. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, the -- the -- you know, the board apparently has some concerns over and above. I know you -- you tried to cooperate with staff, and I appreciate that, but it appears the board has some concerns, and my suggestion is there may be some items here that you would be willing to take out. If it's all or nothing of what is in front of you, it appears you're not going to get four votes, and my suggestion is let's try to find a way to do this, but we're going to have to find out -- and -- And if you're not willing to compromise anymore, then maybe we can't but -- MR. MILLER: No. I'll -- If I can get C-3 which is what is needed, I will go along with almost anything you come up with. MS. STEWART: Let me interrupt there. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My question '- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Surprisingly enough, your attorney wants to speak. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Stop me. MS. STEWART: What -- what I'm thinking -- are -- Are you in a position to -- to give us those items -- those uses today that you want to take out? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I was trying to go down the list myself, and I need some help because they refer to those dadblamed sick codes. MS. STEWART: And then I have another question. Just in the future -- Let's say we take an item out. Now, I -- we always have recourse later in the event that it might meet your approval later to CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Can I make a suggestion? MS. STEWART: Sure. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think it would be much easier for you to procure a buyer under the condition that they will get the rezoning once they have a specific project to present. I think that's real easy. MS. STEWART: We're having trouble finding a buyer on that basis. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MS. STEWART: They want to see the zoning -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Well -- MS. STEWART: -- before they put down their deposit and go through that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You -- You have mentioned on several occasions during your presentation that you have at least two buyers who want to put an office building up there. If -- If you're willing to commit to an office use on this, I'll be willing to approve the zoning but we're not going to -- MS. STEWART: We're -- we can -- We're willing, but we're not going to be the ones -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Your reluctance to do that causes me great concern, and I'm not about to go for it. I'm sorry. MS. STEWART: We can't commit for -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So let's -- let's go forward. MR. MILLER: I mean, if -- Where was that one in here that they showed? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: While they're looking, Mr. Nino, what are -- what would fall under miscellaneous retail? Groups fifty-nine twelve through fifty-nine sixty-three except pawn shops? MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, what is it you want to take out of there? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, that's what we're just trying to figure out. MR. MILLER: Oh. MR. NINO: Drug stores, proprietary stores, liquor stores, used merchandise stores. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. You've gone far enough. Thank you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That one's out. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Which one is that? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Miscellaneous retail. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm -- I'm working a list here. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Fifteen is the one I definitely want out. I don't want a liquor store there. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Marinas, I don't want that there. MR. MILLER: I guarantee you, it won't be a marina. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: A small possibility but -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: For the balance of the board, I've already got a partial list. Why don't I hit on it. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Item number three, auto and home supply stores. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is this to go out or stay in? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Out. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Out. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Item number six, food stores. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agreed. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Go slow, please. What's business services and eating places? That's just restaurants and office supply stores? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Eating places is 5812 only. MR. NINO: Business services includes advertising agencies, radio stations, direct mailing, collection agencies -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. NINO: -- photocopying, secretarial -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And then what's 5812, eating place? MR. NINO: I beg your pardon? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: 58127 MR. NINO: Restaurants. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And restaurants. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Restaurants. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Go ahead, Commissioner Constantine -- I mean, Hancock. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I had mentioned that I would like to see food stores out because I didn't think a convenience store was exactly going to beautify that area or be an attribute to it. MR. MILLER: No. I can agree with that. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, okay. MR. MILLER: That's not going to -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: The next one I jumped to was marinas because -- Now, you'd mentioned general merchandise. There are some elements of general merchandise like liquor stores and so forth that -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- we don't need there. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. So I -- I don't know what the -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll tell you what. Let me -- Let me do this and just -- If I skip over one that you think we should do, then hop in. I had -- Like Commissioner Hancock, I had 3, and I had 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 23. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 6, 7, 10, 12, 13 -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 14, 15, 18, 23. MR. NINO: What were those deletions? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry? MR. NINO: What were those deletions? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: The deletions were -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 3 -- 3, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 23. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: MAtched up with mine except for I don't know what a membership organization is. Is that like the Elks Lodge or something? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Where do we go? I'm sorry. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: He just read off a list of numbers. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Three times. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Did you have 14 in there? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Fourteen is out. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One more time. Okay? 3, 6, 7, 10 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, and 23. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I had 21, retail nurseries, lawn and garden supply stores. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What's bad about that? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, if you drive by the one on Airport Road or, you know -- You like them? Okay. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's an office building. They don't need it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, it's outdoor storage, and it can get a little unruly. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agreed. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm comfortable with that list. What about 25, any use which was permissible under the prior general retail commercial zoning district and which was lawfully existing prior to the adoption of this code? Was that the motel that we're talking about basically? MS. STEWART: Well, the motel is not the subject property here that we're requesting the rezoning for so -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Well, what is the -- what -- What was permissible under the prior general retail commercial zoning district? Because it was zoned RHF-6, so what do we care? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why do we need to leave 25 in, gentlemen? MR. ARNOLD: If I might, Commissioners, Wayne Arnold for the record, planning services director. Just one issue that -- that this brings to mind is that we are dealing with a request for straight C-3 zoning, and that would appear on our zoning map as C-3 just as the adjacent parcel. For some future staff persons in the next five years, ten years, whatever, when they come to develop this parcel, there's really no mechanism under our code for straight zoning for someone to know to go back to this specific ordinance and pick up these specific uses that are not permitted within that district because you're going to have development occurring on the front side of that that's adjacent U.S. 41, not knowing that some other uses are prohibited from the rear of that under PUD zoning, for instance, where there's a master development plan filed or if we could somehow get a master development plan filed potentially with this, but, again, our zoning district will just show C-3, for instance, and someone will look to the C-3 district and say, "Ah, these 25 uses are permitted," only to find out after the fact most likely that we only had three or four uses that were. I -- I think the direction we're headed certainly appears to be more in line with what we get with our PUDs. We can bring in that element of design and architectural compatibility. I don't know what the potential sale time frame is, but you may have an opportunity to bring this back in a different form as a PUD with some very restricted uses. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can be real clear. My vote will be either for a PUD with some architectural design features that were just discussed or for C-2. MS. STEWART: It's my understanding a PUD requires five acres or more. Is that -- I -- I -- There was a reason why we did not or could not apply for a PUD. MR. NINO: No. There's -- There is no reason why you couldn't apply for it. MS. STEWART: Oh, okay. Another suggestion, going along with what he was saying, if you granted a straight C-3 zoning today, isn't it possible for you later to restrict one or more of those uses at a later date? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. We would have to process a fezone on your property in order to do that. MS. STEWART: Just deny this -- Just deny a site development plan that would be presented to you based on whatever uses COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Or you can continue the item -- Well, let's see. If they want to change the application, the PUD would have to be readvertised? MR. NINO: I believe it would -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would it? MR. NINO: -- have to be readvertised. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So a vote today for C-2 or reapp for PUD is my -- my vote. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because of the -- the operational problem that's been presented to us by our staff, we -- we're going through an exercise that has no validity, no application because we don't have a way to flag the zoning with the specifics that we've sited here. Is that a correct statement? So -- and staff is -- is nodding yes. So as much as we're trying to meet your request with our level of comfort, it sounds like there's no vehicle to do that. MR. NINO: Additionally, is the -- is the petitioner saying that they'll give up the C-3 in this -- under your scenario, or are they saying under your scenario they only want the land that is the subject of this petition? We end up then with a C-3 district and the hybrid of some other C district. Is that where we're going? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're going to -- As Commissioner Hac'Kie, I think, has pointed out, we're going to C-2 or resubmit with a PUD application -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, and the -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- so that we can -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the feature that I may have overlooked that Mr. Nino is pointing out is that I can't pull their C-3 out from under them on the existing C-3. MR. NINO: Unless they agree to that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So '- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, that's -- that's fine, but we're not talking about that piece of property. We're talking about the one that's presented here today. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It sounds like your options are either to go as C-2 on this parcel or withdraw your application and resubmit as a PUD for the entire parcel. MS. STEWART: Okay. May -- May we request time to confer with our client and -- and come back to you sometime later this afternoon? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I move we continue this petition until later in the afternoon. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That will be fine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that. That's fine. COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll second. MS. STEWART: Okay. And if I could be clear, then, the -- the option is C-2 -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll just -- We'll just table this for the moment and -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There you go. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're correct. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Table your motion. MS. STEWART: C-2 or come back and apply for a PUD. Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion to table this temporarily. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Item #12C1 ORDINANCE 96-34 AND RESOLUTION 96-302 RELATING TO A ONE-HALF OF ONE PERCENT LOCAL GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE DISCRETIONARY SALES SURTAX TO FUND THE ACQUISITION OF LAND AS GREEN SPACE AND ORDERING AND CALLING A REFERENDUM ELECTION FOR NOVEMBER 5, 1996 - ADOPTED Okay. Next item, 12(C)(1). Representative Saunders. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Good afternoon. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I see we have two options. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Yes. For the record my name is Butt Saunders representing the Don't East Coast the West Coast Committee. I want to thank the commission for giving us the opportunity to be here this afternoon. I'd like to withdraw 12(C)(2) and consider 12(C)(1). 12(C)(1) is the issue dealing with the one-half cent sales tax for a period of four years for an urban green space program. So if we -- For the record if we could focus on 12(C)(1). COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Representative Saunders, one of the questions that have come up -- maybe this is part of your presentation anyway, but was putting a cap on the amount so that this wasn't having an impact when somebody had a $5,000 purchase. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: That's automatic in the sales tax statute that items that cost in excess of $5,000, only the first $5,000 is taxed. That's -- That's automatic in the -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know. I think the question was, though, was there the ability to do that, and I think there is the ability to do that at a lower level. I know you can do it -- You can do it at any level, but as low as 500 had been suggested last time, and you were going to do some research on that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the reason being, if the voters approved both half cents that -- that may appear on the ballot, somebody goes to buy a car is going to pay 50 bucks more. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's it. The thought just being we don't want to send somebody to Lee County on a big-dollar item just because they're going to save 50 bucks. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: The -- I think the -- the position of the committee would be to keep it at the level that's permitted in the statute. That's an issue obviously that we can discuss during the public hearing. What I've handed out to you is a corrected copy of the resolution and the ordinance, the ordinance and resolution that were advertised for today. We had to get that out rather quickly in order to meet the advertising deadlines, and I want to go through each of those changes. There are a couple significant issues. Number one, the program sunsets in four years. What that basically means is that if the program is to be continued -- assuming that it's successful, if it's to be continued, that requires another referendum, would require another ballot question. There's also -- It's clear that this is supposed to be a pay-as-you-go program. There is not to be any borrowing associated with it. The ordinance provides that the county commission will establish a land acquisition technical advisory board, and that board will make recommendations to the county commission on acquisition, and only those parcels recommended by the citizens -- the committee appointed by the county commission, only those parcels can be considered by the county commission, and the county commission will have total control of that program. I wanted to -- I have a copy of an article that was in the Gulf Coast Business, June 1996, dealing with this particular issue, and Commissioner Constantine had indicated that this was a program that would be run by a small group -- hand-picked group of citizens that would control the expenditure of tax dollars, and I just want to make clear that that's never been the case. This is a committee that would be appointed by the county commission, and the recommendations would be to the county commission, and you as the elected representatives of the citizens of Collier County would make the total decision as to what parcels, if any, are to be purchased. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Obviously whatever's been proposed in the past is moot, but it's changed several times. So I -- I appreciate the clarification, but I don't -- REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Yeah. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You know, you don't need -- REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Okay. Well, just -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- to be pointing any fingers. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: No. Just -- just -- I wanted to clarify in case you were confused on that. This has never been a situation from day one that would have been anything other than the county commission making the decision. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's not what we were told, actually. It doesn't matter at this point because we're not deciding on what was told in the past, but that's not what we were told in the past. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, there are some changes to the ordinance and to the resolution that I would like to go through. I don't think if it's necessary to go through each one of these. I'll -- I'll defer to the -- the chair on that. I can go through each one for the record, or we can just consider the drafts that are in front of you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's go through the drafts. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Just the draft, please. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Okay. The -- Then we won't go through each -- each individual change. One other -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This draft that you handed us is what you're proposing to do? REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This draft that you handed us is the -- is what we're going to vote on today? REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: That -- That's the ordinance and the resolution. And, again, this is a four-year program, one-half cent sales tax for four years for lands primarily in and around the urban area of Collier County. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What -- What does "primarily" mean? REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Okay. I'm going to have Dr. Fran Stallings define that, and if you could defer for just a -- just a moment, he'll -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Fine. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: -- spend quite a bit of time on that issue because it's a very important one. The ordinance provides that the county will establish criteria for the evaluation of lands to be purchased. In the criteria that we provided to you -- and obviously these criteria can be changed by the county commission and can be changed by the advisory board that you appoint. In the criteria that we provided to you, we had some weighting factors on pages 11 and 12. It's the committee's recommendation that the weight impacts themselves. These factors would still be applicable, but giving different weights to those factors would not be applicable, and these would all be weighted the same, and so we'll provide additional information on how that weighting -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't have a page 11 or 12. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: That's in the -- I'm sorry. This -- This is just something that was handed out to the board at the last meeting. You probably don't have that in front of you. It's not part of the ordinance, but I just wanted to clarify for the record that the weighting criteria that the committee had originally recommended, they are currently recommending that -- that there not be this separate weighting criteria in there. In reference to the City of Naples under section 212.055, Florida Statutes, the one-half cent sales tax surcharge that's collected in the cities is to remain with the cities, is to be shared with the municipalities. That has to be done pursuant to an agreed formula, or if there's no agreed formula, then you would do it pursuant to the formula that's contained in the statute. You currently have a formula for sharing of sales tax with the City of Naples, and it's my understanding that they are perfectly happy to continue using that -- that formula that you currently have in place. So there won't be any requirement to negotiate a new formula or to use the new -- the formula that's in the statute. What will happen -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excuse me. Representative Saunders, of the two formulas, the state versus our local, which works to the city's advantage? REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: The -- The formula that you are currently using actually works to the advantage of the county -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: -- and to the disadvantage of the city. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not -- I was just curious, not that it would matter one way or the other. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was just curious. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Since it works -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Not that you care. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Since it works out that way, it doesn't matter. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Since -- Since that's the answer, yeah. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The formula -- the question -- the formula, the portion the city would keep of what it's collected? REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would they still participate in the program -- REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- or they could do with it what they -- REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Okay. The city would be constrained to use the funds that would be raised and shared with the city, constrained to use those funds for the same purposes that the county commission is constrained to use those funds, and that is to acquire lands primarily in and around the urban area. It cannot be used for anything else. I've spoken to Dr. Richard Woodruff. There are several parcels that he feels would be excellent parcels for them to consider, and so there's not going to be a problem in finding appropriate land in the City of Naples, and the city -- city manager has -- has already expressed an interest in a couple of parcels. I'd like to, just for the record, read the ballot question, and then I would like to ask Dr. Fran Stallings to come forward and talk a little bit about what is meant by "primarily in and around the urban area." The ballot question that's proposed is, "Shall an additional one-half of 1 percent surtax sales tax pursuant to ordinance number 96, blank, be levied in Collier County for a period of four years commencing February 1, 1997, and ending January 31, 2001, to purchase lands primarily in and around the urban areas of Collier County for passive recreation, conservation, and protection of natural resources and to preserve biodiversity, air and water quality, ground water recharge, flood control, aesthetics, and density reduction?" And, again, Dr. Stallings can discuss what is meant by "primarily in and around the urban area." CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. DR. STALLINGS: For the record, Fran Stallings representing the Don't East the West Coast -- Don't East Coast the West Coast Committee. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: See, even you can't say it. What a name for a group. Sorry. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Better than the Chicken Little Group. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not much. DR. STALLINGS: In the earlier consideration or the first time you considered this, we had included a statement of proposed policy and implementation strategy, and this is the formal policy that was adopted by the committee, and I have copies here for you. I'll sort of go down the list here. It is the purpose of this program to promote the acquisition of land primarily in and around urban areas of Collier County from willing sellers. As you know, we have a variety of land acquisition programs that are operating in the rural parts of the county. We don't really have any land acquisition program in the urban part. So the thrust of the committee was very clearly that we want a land acquisition program that focuses on the urban area. Now, we didn't pin it down as tightly as we could have because the urban area is subject to change. And if you limit it to parcels strictly within the urban area or within the city limits or something of that type, you would end up spending an awful lot of money for a fairly small amount of land. So the idea was to work on the growing edge of the urban area. That would be the area of primary focus. So that's around -- That's either within or around the boundaries of the urban area as it tends to grow outward, and as it does expand, we would end up with these green areas within the urban area that would add up to an improvement in the quality of our community. So that's -- that's the thrust. Now, we have this technical advisory committee -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we get lucky, the urban area won't expand despite the efforts of some locals. The -- there -- there's -- I don't know. DR. STALLINGS: But we know in the long run that the county is growing quite rapidly, and obviously there's -- has to be some kind of accommodation of that growth. But this land acquisition advisory committee will take into consideration parcels of lands that would be nominated for purchase, and we've got a list of criteria here. And, again, it's weighted in favor of the urban area. For example, if you have parcels of land that rate out approximately equal, those in or nearest the urban area would be purchased first. And we also are suggesting a provision that we look at the different urban areas and the ones having the least green space be raised in priority for the purchases. So it is focused on the urban area. But in all fairness we have not totally excluded the rural areas. But that ultimate judgment is up to you as the Board of County Commissioners in the sense that the land acquisition advisory committee reviews potential parcels that could be purchased, and these parcels are put before you, parcels that we would have the money to buy, and then you can say, "Well, we don't accept these. Come back with others." So there is a check there. Yes, sir? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Something I'm curious of. You have -- The committee has developed a set of policies and -- and procedures, I guess, or -- or something to that effect, but that's not what the ballot question will be involved with. The ballot question will be involved with -- with the imposition of the sales tax to fund it. So my question is -- let's -- Let's assume for the moment that the -- the referendum would be successful. Then the county commission is going to be charged with making the decision, so the county commission could write their own policies and procedures or -- DR. STALLINGS: Theoretically I -- I think you're right. In other words, we have this committee. The committee has made a series of recommendations. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But the committee has no -- Well, my point is, the committee has no technical legal authority -- DR. STALLINGS: That's right. The committee -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- and that's what I'm trying to get -- get into. DR. STALLINGS: You're -- you're -- You're right. That's a very good point. The committee has a series of recommendations. We have been presenting these recommendations to you, but you're the elected officials who has to put the recommendations into effect, and as I understand the procedure, we can't lay a whole complete package in front of you to be adopted all at once. We have to do it in a series of steps. So the answer to your question is -- is that, yes, you could accept, or, yes, you could reject the recommendations of the committee as to how this would work. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Or we could form our own committee. DR. STALLINGS: Or you could form your own committee. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Early on in this process when this discussion first came up, we were given a list or -- I think printed list but also verbally told who all was representative on -- represented on the Don't East Coast the West Coast Committee. Is -- Is that membership the same now as it was then, and are they all endorsing this? DR. STALLINGS: I'm not aware of any changes that have taken place in the membership from the time we've presented the list to you and the committee -- We have presented the formal recommendations of the committee. Not every single person on the list was present at the last meeting when we did this. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can I ask how many people were there, total bodies, warm bodies? DR. STALLINGS: We had around 20 people there. So we had about three-quarters. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I wanted to make sure there weren't six people. DR. STALLINGS: Yeah. We had a broad cross-representation, so we feel very comfortable about the committee and who it represents. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I said before earlier in the discussion, you know, whatever the committee wants to -- for us to put on the ballot this November, I'm certainly willing to do that. I just -- As a point of curiosity, I wanted to see how you thought all this was going to work in the end. I -- it -- It really doesn't seem to have much of a structure at this point that -- that could -- that has to be adhered to. It's -- I said if the -- if the referendum question was -- were to be successful, then the money would come to the county, and from there the county commission could pretty much do what they wanted to with it, and that's -- that's one of the problems I see here. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Okay. That's a good point and one that we've tried to tie down. The ballot question says if you could purchase property primarily -- for land primarily in and around the urban area, and it lists the purposes for which you can acquire that land, and the list is pretty specific. It would be -- From my perspective and my opinion, it would be illegal for the board, for example, to take that money and buy a park with it because that would not be one of the permitted uses in the ballot question. You would be restricted by the language of the ballot question. The other thing I think it's important for the board to understand is that we discussed different ways to structure this. One -- One question was debated early on, should we try to come up with a list of properties and say to the board, "Here are four properties we think you should consider acquiring," and it was decided very strongly that we should not do that because, number one, it would be very difficult to determine whether there really were willing sellers. The valuation would be a very difficult thing for us. But also perhaps more significantly, it had the potential impact of affecting individual property owners' property values by identifying them as lands that were targeted for acquisition. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: In other words, we could be doing what the state has done to southern Golden Gate Estates, and I want no part of that. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: That's correct. And so the committee decided not to take that approach. The second approach was to develop criteria for consideration by the county commission but fully understanding that the county commission has to make the final decision as to what the actual criteria will be. The county commission has to create the committee that will make the recommendations because we -- we felt very strongly that you as the elected representatives of the county are the ones that need to control this program, but that's the reason why we don't have a specific list. We do have a specific program and a specific purpose and a specific mechanism that we've recommended for you to evaluate -- to find parcels, evaluate those parcels, and make a decision as to which ones to acquire. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But it -- But it still would appear, then, within the -- within the boundaries of the ballot question, the limitations set forth by the ballot question, the county commission could do whatever else it wanted to with it. I mean, it could set up its own committee. It could make its own selection criteria. I could do all of these things and do the selection and purchase the properties without regard to the Don't East Coast the West Coast Committee's input. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Well, as long as the language in the ballot question is complied with which is to acquire those properties for those specific reasons. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, that's my point. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: And you're absolutely correct. There -- There has to be a certain element of -- of good faith involved in that, and we believe that the county commission is the right entity to make those decisions. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Personally -- REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: We have confidence in the county commission. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry. I'd be concerned if they were trying to -- You know, first we're concerned that they might be given too much power to some hand-picked group of politically -- politically -- political appointees. Now we're concerned -- you know, I don't -- I think the last thing people have to worry about is whether or not we as Board of County Commissioners have some bad motivation for selecting a piece of land because they can throw us out of office just as fast as possible. And -- And this ordinance just like any other, just like the tourist development tax and others, you know, it defines what it can be used for, and I think it does that adequately, and we would be required to -- to purchase it only for passive recreation, conservation, and protection of natural resources, and to preserve biodiversity, air and water quality, ground water recharge, flood control, aesthetics, and density reduction so -- DR. STALLINGS: But we worked very hard to avoid the problems that we've seen in the Belle Heade and those areas, and this is something we have to do together. If -- if -- If it's approved by the voters, we have to work together on it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I didn't mean to imply, Commissioner Hac'Kie, that -- by my comments that the county commission was the wrong place to have this authority -- COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- for some negative reason. I'm just pointing out that -- that -- the simple fact is that the committee that brought all this forward potentially could have absolutely zero input in the process. Now, whether that's good or bad may depend on your point of view, but -- but I'm just pointing it out as a simple matter of fact. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: The committee's objective was to -- to do two things: Number one, to put together a program and get it on the ballot; and number two, to provide the effort to get this approved. This particular committee was not set up for the purpose of making recommendations on tracts of land to be acquired. This committee, the Don't East Coast the West Committee -- Don't East Coast the West Coast Committee -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I know you didn't pick the name. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: -- will, as far as I'm concerned, cease to have a function after the November 5 election. Now, a lot of the people on that committee may want to be on this technical advisory committee, but that will be up to you commissioners to make that decision. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a question and a comment. The question is -- and this may be one, Mr. Weigel, that would require your input. One of my concerns about any acquisition program is what I call the tri -- the -- the three-way costs. You have the initial acquisition cost, reduction from the tax rolls, and long-term maintenance. This ballot question does not mention perpetual maintenance. My -- The only way I feel that people can be supportive of an acquisition program is that when property is purchased, the money is then set in escrow or in trust to pay for the perpetual maintenance of the land so it doesn't fall to the ad valorem tax responsibility of the -- the -- the general county. We can go out and buy all the land we want, but the maintenance costs are significant, and the more lands you buy, the higher those costs go, and I don't want to be in -- in a position of pledging ad valorem dollars to maintain property that was purchased through this program. So my question first is, can -- if this is approved as -- the form that it's presented to us, can the board require that funds be set aside for perpetual maintenance to avoid an ad valorem responsibility of -- of that particular element. MR. WEIGEL: I -- I'll start, if I may. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: That is, the -- the sales tax, surtax can only be used for infrastructure expenses or capital expenditures. It cannot be used for maintenance or operations. We find this in any project that we go forward with. Thinking about this very question you were going to ask, though, raises kind of an interesting possibility, and that is that in the willing seller/purchaser arrangement, a contract for sale could be devised so that certain elements affecting the property which would become responsibilities of the county as an owner could be taken care of in the sale, the acquisition process, such as if it was property that had exotics or needed some kind of cleanup be brought up to snuff just as it would for any type of a closing where you have an inspection and things need to be done. Our inspection characteristics could be, oh, yeah, we've got, you know, 10 acres here, 5 acres here, and we see that it's got an exotics problem, and it shouldn't have anyway perhaps, but the fact is if it does have any of those things, they could be made part of the condition of sale. Thereafter there may be some county responsibilities for this property that comes off the tax rolls, although -- and Mr. Saunders, I think, will be telling you that the -- the uses of the land are -- are -- are passive, essentially passive and density reduction and aesthetics and things of that nature. So ostensibly the -- the -- the, quote, "maintenance cost," would be relatively little but -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Three words, Clam Bay system. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you have any idea how many acres realistically ball park figure we might end up with with four years' funding? REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Any number I would give you would be a pure guess because we don't know what the -- obviously what the price per acre is going to be because of the site selection scenario. On the management issue, that's a very critical issue. And, Commissioner Hancock, we had discussed this quite a bit in the committee, and the committee's desire was to use a certain amount of the sales tax dollars for long-term maintenance and -- and management. We were advised by the county attorney's office -- and you have a copy of the memorandum to me from County Attorney Dave Weigel indicating that because of some legal problems with section 212.055, that we cannot simply take a portion of that -- a percentage of that fund and say it's going to be for long-term management and maintenance. I've had some very, very preliminary discussions, but just to put this in some perspective, the piece of property that the -- that may be of interest in the City of Naples is not very far away from The Conservancy. Perhaps The Conservancy as an organization could say, We will take care of the maintenance and management of this tract of land. It's not going to require a whole lot of effort. It may require the removal of some exotics. It may require checking out the site periodically, but it's not a massive expenditure of time and dollars. There may be other parcels in the community where other organizations may say to the county commission, We'd be more than willing to provide some on-site management by going out there periodically and reporting on the conditions of the property. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just as a follow-up to Commissioner Hancock's comment -- and your point is very well taken because I remember in this very room in 1993, the basin board was here having a hearing, and someone from Palm Beach, some expert from the water management district came in, and the number stuck in my head because of what it added up to. They were talking about 50,000 acres out in the CREW area, and they were saying maintenance each year to administer that was between 18 and $22 per acre, and what -- what that money goes toward I don't know, but 18 to 22. So I said 20 times the 50,000 is a million bucks a year to have 50,000 acres of swamp land, and -- and I asked that question that day in 1993. They couldn't tell me specifics. I followed up a couple of times. Nobody ever could, and -- and those are the kind of worries I think you're legitimate -- you're -- you're right in asking in that if it turns out to be 20 bucks an acre -- and that's why I asked the acreage. I mean, we have 10,000 acres we end up with or 1,000 acres we end up with or whatever, those are big costs down the road that someone has to bear. DR. STALLINGS: Well, Commissioner Constantine and Commissioner Hancock, I think your points are very well taken, and what I could see happening as a potential solution is this, that when a particular piece of property is proposed for purchase, that this maintenance question be brought to bear at that point in time, and if the maintenance is simply overbearing and can't be handled, then we don't buy that piece of property. On the other hand, if we're able to work something out where the Division of Forestry or an environmental organization or someone else takes care of the maintenance, then we can resolve that issue at that time in regards to that piece of property. So I really think that's the battle that we don't have to fight today, but we need to know it's there, and we need to have a mechanism to do it, and I think that mechanism is to look at each piece of property individually, and that will -- should certainly be one of the factors we -- we would have to consider. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, you do have some speakers. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Let's go to the speakers. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Stanley. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: How many do we have? MR. DORRILL: We have half a dozen. Mr. Erlichman, you'll follow this gentleman. MR. STANLEY: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Thank you. My name is Jack Stanley, and I'm vice chairman of the Florida Wildlife Federation. I would like to thank Representative Saunders and Dr. Stallings and all the members of the committee who put in so much hard time and hard work to come up with this presentation for you. We feel that their product in general is -- is worthy of your serious consideration; however, we would -- we would be supportive of it if -- if the references to "primarily in and around the urban area" were deleted. We feel that you're tying your hands in a way and tying the hands possibly of future boards by removing the flexibility of purchasing, say, opportunity purchases that might be without the urban area and the rural areas somewhere. To give you an example, reading from a document prepared by your planning staff on an issue you'll be addressing shortly, TDRs. On the other hand, is there a greater public benefit by providing some incentive to have these properties preserved in some sort form of public trust. These are policy decisions that need evaluation and in this context may support a finding that TDR provisions need to be revisited to determine a more equitable tradeoff between ST land purchased for TDR and the location of the ST land relative to the urban boundary or other locational consideration such as the utility of the ST land relative to its potential development. In other words, we're suggesting that you retain the flexibility in this program of purchasing environmentally sensitive land based on its merits as an acquisition for conservation, water recharge, passive recreation without regard to its location within or proximity to an urban area. Certainly there are valid pieces of property in the urban areas that need to be acquired, and there's -- their very proximity to population centers is going to give them a certain amount of preference over remote pieces of land, but we would hate to see you give up the flexibility of being able to purchase a good piece of land just because it isn't in one of the urban boundaries. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Stanley, you're aware there are state and federal programs that are purchasing land -- a huge chunk of property or chunks of property outside the urban area already? MR. STANLEY: Yes, indeed. In fact, we're actively involved in one of them and -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You don't consider that would be duplicative to do it on the local level as well? MR. STANLEY: No, sir. Actually, you can -- you can leverage your funds by -- by obtaining matching funds from state and federal agencies. You can leverage your funds into buying more, and in some cases better, land in the -- in those areas where the acquisition programs are actively proceeding than if you were to, say, take an isolated piece in the urban area and purchase it solely with your own money. Now, there is money available from the Florida Communities Trust to match your funds and purchases in the urban areas, but you can leverage -- By matching funds with the state and federal agencies, you can leverage those purchases into rather substantial pieces of property. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But you don't think those purchases -- Leveraged or not, you don't think those purchases are duplicative of the effort that's already being done individually by the state and by the federal government? MR. STANLEY: In a sense of the word, yes, they are duplicative because all -- let's say two or perhaps even three agencies, state, federal, or local or county, are working on the same parcel of -- or major purchase of land. So in that sense, it would be duplicative, yes, but it would -- it would accelerate those purchases in many cases if the county had some matching funds, and if state, federal, and county funds were all applied, say, to the southern Golden Gate Estates area, this -- this could expedite that process considerably. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Could I just ask one -- one -- just a brief question because I'm curious having had Dr. Stallings associated with your group and now no longer. Are there Collier County board members? Are there -- Do you represent any Collier County residents in stating the opinions you have today? Are there Collier County members of your group, Collier County -- MR. STANLEY: Yes, ma'am. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- board -- Are there -- MR. STANLEY: Yes, ma'am. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Are there Collier County members on the board? MR. STANLEY: On the board of -- On our board of directors? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, sir. MR. STANLEY: Yes. The chairman of the board, Franklin Adams, is a Collier County resident. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. I was just -- MR. STANLEY: And we -- we have -- we have a number of members in Collier County. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Erlichman. Ms. Leinweber, you'll follow Mr. Erlichman. MR. ERLICHMAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Gil Erlichman, East Naples, speaking for myself. I'm going to read a few quotations now, and I will give the names of the people that the quotes are from. If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels. Prince Phillip, founder of World Wildlife Fund. The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans. Dr. Reed F. Nause, the Wild Lands Project. We reject the idea of private property. Peter Burro, president of the National Audubon Society. There are quite a few more there, but I'm not going to take your time up with that. First of all, I would like to make -- state again that I object to people coming here from outside of Collier County, specifically people that are on a committee representing themselves say as a green -- as the green space committee. Dr. Stallings does not live here in Collier County. He lives in Lee County. Also I noticed that Mr. Klause is not here today because both of them were introduced as co-chairman, I believe, at the -- on Hay 14 when the green space committee was addressed here by Mr. Saunders. And Mr. Klause is busy with the Key Island construction set to begin which is in today's paper, and Mr. Klause is a partner in the -- in this -- the Key Island partners. Now, Key Island is a barrier island, and I believe that these barrier islands are where turtles nest and lay their eggs, and if they're going to be building and developing Key Island or Keewaydin area, they're going to be bulldozing probably a lot of turtles' nests and killing a lot of turtles by removing their eggs. So, therefore, I -- I don't -- I don't understand how people can be on a committee, this green space committee to tell us that they want to serve and -- save and preserve the green space and the lands around Collier County when -- you know, that's -- and other -- Other jobs or other avocations that they may have are in direct conflict with that. According to the -- According to the items that were listed in the Hay 14 presentation, the land acquisition advisory board I remember consisted of five lay people from -- one from each district in Collier County. The remainder of the board, I think, was ten other people if I'm not mistaken, and they were environmentalists, a lawyer, biologist, et cetera. In other words, the commissioners have to pick from those various -- those various titles -- people to be on board; so, therefore, you're restricted to pick an environmentalist or biologist or water expert, whatever. Only five lay people on the board -- on this advisory board. Now, I know -- I was very interested in that -- This green space committee refused to really define primarily lands in and around Collier County. And, of course, you just heard the gentleman preceding me talk saying he didn't like that. He wants them to include all the land in Collier County. Well, I know this is -- I know that this probably will be given a referendum vote. In other words, you either have the 1 percent sales -- pardon me -- the half percent sales tax or the -- the one mill ad valorem tax. So it's an either/or, and it's a Hobson's choice for you people if you want to put this on the -- as a referendum. So I am willing to accept the referendum, but, by God, the taxpayers are really going to vote it down. Thank you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One thing, Gil, you said at the end there that this is an either/or, either a sales tax or an ad valorem, and -- and I don't see it that way at all. If -- if -- If this gets on the ballot and if it fails, I don't see ad valorem monies going to doing these purchases, and maybe that's not what you meant to say. MR. ERLICHHAN: No. What I -- What I meant to say, sir, is that -- is it going to be presented -- I mean, is -- is this referendum going to be presented as an ad valorem tax, or is it going to be presented as a sales tax? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I can answer that. The -- MR. ERLICHHAN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The committee -- Representative Saunders immediately in his presentation withdrew the second item which is -- deals with the ad valorem version of this. MR. ERLICHHAN: Well, that's something I didn't know. Thank you, Mr. Norris. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Leinweber. And then, Mr. Simonik, you'll follow this lady. MS. LEINWEBER: Judy Leinweber. My copy machine is bad. I'm sorry. But if you don't read anything in your life, please read this. I am a farmer's wife. I believe in the Constitution of the United States. I believe in the private landowner. Our government now wants to take that liberty away from the public. I believe a man or a woman needs to stand up for his beliefs, his words, his actions. They tried green space in Romania, in Russia. Look where they are now. The American working man and woman needs to take back their constitutional rights. Butt Saunders, you stand for green space and the environmentalist. Now you can stand behind their words. Don't mess in our nest, and please make a better republican than a democrat. Election is around the corner. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Simonik and then Mr. Agoston. MR. SIHONIK: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. For the record again, my name is Michael Simonik. I'm the environmental policy coordinator for The Conservancy, and I hope I'm here on a more agreeable note this time. Personally I do live in the county. I'm in district five, and I am a republican voter. I am speaking on behalf of -- behalf of The Conservancy's 5,000 family members, 400 volunteers, and 30-member board of directors. The Conservancy supports a referendum for the acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands as recommended by Don't East Coast the West Coast Committee for all the reasons stated in the -- in the committee's mission statement. The Conservancy's mission itself states that we will work to conserve the biodiversity, environmental quality, and natural resources of Southwest Florida's native ecosystems for present and future generations. We understand that the committee's recommendations for the ballot language heavily favors land in our urban areas, and we are comfortable with this language, especially given the political will of Collier County residents at this time. We believe it is essential to acquire environmental lands wherever they may be; however, we would hope that the nominated lambs -- lands will be prioritized according to their environmental value as well as the proximity to populated areas according to the evaluation criteria recommended by the committee. On a lighter note, I guess I would like to address some of the controversy surrounding this issue. It may have appeared as though members of this committee were at odds doing the initiative to failure, but what else can we expect when we fill a room half full of developers, half full of environmentalists, and a politician leading the way? Needless to say, we had a few issues to discuss. The bottom line in this issue is that a diverse group of people have joined together to create a program that will benefit all the residents of Collier County. Again, The Conservancy supports placing environmental lands acquisition referendum on the November ballot, and we believe the voters will agree in November. And thank you for your support, Commissioners, on this. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have a question for you. Can we -- I -- I -- I guess it's already obvious -- a supporter of -- of this initiative and certainly supporter of it on the referendum, but I'd like to know if The Conservancy will go on the record as saying it's going to participate in campaigning and getting out some information to the public to try to help with the success of the referendum if it makes it to the ballot. MR. SIHONIK: We're publicly supporting it today. We're going to take it to the board to know whether or not we will actively support it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. I sure encourage you to do that. MR. SIHONIK: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Agoston and then Mr. Perkins. MR. AGOSTON: My name is Ty Agoston. I live in Golden Gate Estates, and I speak for myself. And, by the way, I don't get paid for speaking here like most of the people supporting this project. I was here originally when this project was being sold, and like most liberal projects, this was sold for the children. They avoided following your rules of gathering signatures to put something on a referendum because this was for the children that were going to have some passive park space where the children could walk or drive and enjoy the environment. Well, it changed the next meeting that I attended, and Mr. Stalling had brought in the aspect that, well, in order to acquire larger pieces of land, the acquisition area may have to be further out in rural areas. I kind of smelled a rat then, and, you know, I'm from New York, and it came across as a hustle to me, kind of confirming my opin -- my original opinion. I would suggest to you, why not limit it to the urban area. There are many, many large pieces of land out that's being green and someone is already buying it. As far as the committees that are being set to give you guidelines for purchasing, most committees are loaded with environmentalists with their agenda. Nobody can hold them responsible for whatever they do because they cannot be voted out. I think the actual decision and the direction should be by you, not by a group of environmentalists. Thanks very much. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Agoston, just a follow-up on Commissioner Hac'Kie's previous question. If this should happen to make it on the ballot, will TAG be campaigning to make sure that your views are out to the public and -- and clear so that the public can make an informed choice? MR. AGOSTON: Sure. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Do we have -- MR. DORRILL: Mr. Perkins is your final speaker. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. PERKINS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. A1 Perkins, Belle Heade Groups, Citizens for Constitutional Property Rights. Constitutional property rights, you're going to hear it until I take and drive it down your -- in your head. The constitution, people. That's what it's all about. Well, you've heard the smoke and mirror bit and the urban sprawl, and we are going to save the world as long as somebody else pays for it. Commissioner Constantine, you wanted to know where the $20 went. You ought to look in the pockets. Right now we stand -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: What $20? MR. PERKINS: We stand to take and lose 83 percent of this entire county. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: A1, what $20? MR. PERKINS: It cost -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Twenty dollars per acre per year. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh. MR. PERKINS: Okay? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. PERKINS: Nothing is for free. It is a vehicle that they can get rich. At the present time, we have deed restrictions on a whole lot of property. We have zoning that we're down to 5 acres. In the estates alone, we have our own parks in our back yards. But that doesn't mean that if you want to live in a condominium on the beach, then why should I take and provide a park for you in the estates. The choice is up to the individual. At the present, we have the Everglades restoration, the CARL project, the CREW project, Fish and Game, forestry, Audubon, Conservancy, Department of Environmental Protection, South Florida Water Management, Preservation 2000, and the Wildlife Federation buying, and these are only the ones I can think of without going into it in detail who are buying land and taking it off the tax roll. Now, in case you don't know what that means, you're going to -- somebody is going to pay for the land, and you're going to pay the taxes that you're not going to get from it. As far as buying -- buying land versus spending the money on the schools because the schools need money, the sheriff needs money, everybody needs money, just to take and keep what we've got and to make it better, to add to the burden of maintenance repair of any empty lots or property is ridiculous. If there's exotics on there, then the next thing to do is get on a bulldozer and bulldoze them down and get them out of there, and now we have totally defeated the purpose that we're -- you're -- you're talking about. In case you people don't know it, Preservation 2000 is a $3 billion project that you never had a chance to vote on with a $9 billion debt service. You're going to pay for it all. I don't want you people to Elliot or Rostenkowski the people of Collier County. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is that the end of the public speakers? MR. DORRILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may, Mr. Chairman, one of the -- When this was brought forward, it was called an urban green space tax. I mean, that was the original moniker, and one of the reasons was we were going to buy land in the urban area because of growth and all these projections of 600,000 people coming and so forth and so on. I did a little math, and at $50 million over four years, assuming a conservative estimate of 15,000 an acre -- and if you go out and try and buy land on Oaks Boulevard, 15,000 an acre, you know, you're not going to get it, much less in the urban area, I mean, moving in closer. But let's assume 15,000 an acre. You can buy a whopping 3,300 acres. At 4 units an acre in the urban area and 2.2 people per dwelling unit, you can keep 30,000 people out of the county for $50 million. That works out to $1,666 per person to keep them from moving here. So I don't -- I don't say that the density reduction is -- is a bad idea as a motivation in the initial stages, but it's not accomplishing it. So now we go to the passive recreation side and -- and just having green space in the urban area. Granted, our development code already requires 30 to 60 percent open space for every single development that comes in from here on forward. But that 3,300 acres based on $20 per acre for maintenance is $66,000 a year that we'd have to find a way to fund, assuming the agencies that have been proposed would not take it for maintenance purposes. What -- What I'm saying here is that I told -- and as -- as Commissioner Norris did, bring the question forward. We'll put it on the ballot and see if it lives or dies, and that may be the way to go here. But in just a matter of 15 minutes with a calculator and -- and some information, you know, this is going to be out there. This is the information people are going to be concerned about and -- because they want to know what they get for their 50 million and what are you left holding. And the fact -- The fact that the ordinance doesn't have structure as to how it goes about -- I was actually looking for more structure, not less. I don't think -- I don't think it's a strength to have less structure in the proposal. So I'm just concerned that maybe -- maybe we're a little early on this. You know, if this is what you want to go to the public and ask them to approve, I'm afraid you're going to be wasting a lot of time, and maybe you don't feel that way. Maybe you feel stronger about it. Maybe I'm wrong. But if we're going to have a green space tax, an urban green space tax, I'd like to get -- have one that has a chance. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I've got to agree with you, Commissioner Hancock. You said, What are we going to be left holding. And I'm afraid what we're going to be left holding is the bag. The idea of saving green space is admirable. It's one -- I don't think you'd find anybody, even -- Gil, you mentioned the developers. And, Ty, you mentioned the developers on the committee. I don't even think most of them would argue that you need to set aside some green space and save it. Nobody argues that. But this vehicle, the Saunders tax as presented, it's weak. It doesn't define how much would be in or out of the boundary. And, as you said, it was first brought to us as an urban boundary thing, but in this format theoretically none could be in the urban boundary. You could have zero of that. DR. STALLINGS: Twenty percent automatically goes to the City of Naples, and if there were to be none in the urban boundary, it would only be because you all chose to have it that way. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But 20 percent -- DR. STALLINGS: So -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Again, you -- DR. STALLINGS: It comes to you. So -- So you ultimately are the ones who say we buy this land or we don't buy this land. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'm sorry to interrupt and continue my comment but the -- You have a committee. You have a formula proposed that, you know, will -- will weigh one way or the other, and you mentioned the city, but the city -- Again, Commissioner Saunders said -- I'm sorry -- Representative Saunders said they'd be looking at those same properties, and so you could end up with zero of this being -- which would have even of less of an impact as far as density and those things. The policies and procedures are very, very vague. They're at the whim of the commission, and -- and this is a sound-good thing. Itws a feel-good thing. Do we want to have green space? Of course we do. But therews no meat to this. Therews no substance to this. And -- And I think Commissioner Hancock is right; if you lay it out there in this format, itws destined to fail. And -- and I think the public would be better served if we didn't rush this thing through and put some vague nondescript thing on the ballot and -- and put something of substance of meat on there down the road. Do a -- Do a ballot in the spring. Do a ballot next year that can be usable to the public, but this -- this just doesn't work. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have some -- is -- Is it my turn? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Sure. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just as I close my comment, if the concept is to simply get something on the ballot and say it's a green space something, then we can go ahead and do that, but this one just doesn't make any sense. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think that this makes sense, and I think that the problem with this is that there are -- we're -- we're taking a radical first step, and it's a -- it's a step toward the middle. There are going to be radicals on the left who think that this is not nearly enough and radicals on the right who -- Please, A1, stop saying that this is against constitutional property rights. What the constitution says about that is you can't take people's property without just compensation. This is what the constitution says you should do when you want to protect private property rights. MR. PERKINS: Can I respond? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: No. DR. STALLINGS: One comment I would like to make is that we put together what I would call a blue ribbon committee -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. People -- DR. STALLINGS: -- that cuts -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- from both sides have come together on this. DR. STALLINGS: -- right across the fabric of the community. And this committee had at the forefront the idea that we want to make this a better community. And, admittedly, we're not going to set aside thousands and thousands of acres, but we've got to start someplace, and we do believe that if we can build these open areas and these green spaces in as we go, that we will be doing something for the community, and a lot of the things that happen are going to be decisions that you participate in. It's got to be a joint effort. We just all need to sit down together and figure out how to best do this for the good of the community, and that's really what we're asking. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. If there's really no further questions, let's -- let's go ahead and close the public hearing and see if we can vote what we're going to do on this thing. I -- I said all along that whatever the committee brings to me, if it's even halfway reasonable, I'll put it on the ballot. I have no objection to putting this on the ballot. I think the way it's written -- all due respect to Mr. Stanley. I know he wants to -- to buy land in the -- in the rural area, but the -- the thought of people taxing themselves to buy swamp land I think is just -- it's not going anywhere, frankly, and so -- you know, I -- That's my personal opinion, humble as it is, but, you know, if you want to put it on the ballot, that's fine with me. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm -- I'm going to -- Assuming that this is the format that the committee is comfortable with and wants to see on the ballot, I'm going to move to -- to put it on the ballot. I feel like I've pointed out -- I tried to look at it constructively and say where are the weaknesses and where are the problems, point those out to you, and if you want to move ahead and still place this on the ballot, like Commissioner Norris, I'm -- I'm going to stick by my word and say, okay, put it on the ballot, and let's see what happens. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And -- and I -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll tell you what -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is that a motion? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll tell you what the -- the -- All this does is strengthen the argument that we should adhere or should have adhered to our program to have people -- have a particular format to get things on the ballot. We made a commitment to do otherwise, and we can do that, but this has absolutely no meat and no substance to it. It's -- it's -- It's not going to pass, and if it does, it's going to be on the feeling good kind of thing because it doesn't have any substance to it. But we can go ahead and put it on the ballot, and the people can shoot it down. I think putting it on in this format is doing a disservice to the public. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't have any comment. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No more -- No further comment? We have a motion to -- MR. WEIGEL: Commissioner -- Mr. Chairman -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do we have to go through that again? MR. WEIGEL: This is similar to before in the sense that you have an ordinance, not an emergency ordinance. This was an advertised ordinance, but you have an ordinance and then a ballot resolution to be followed afterwards. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. And Commissioner Hancock's motion was to -- to do both at once. Can we do that? MR. WEIGEL: We need two votes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. My motion -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Two votes. Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll clarify. My motion is to approve the ordinance presented to us today. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. And the -- to -- Just to clarify for the motion, that -- that -- the motion intends to submit the ballot language as presented to us in the updated draft copy that was presented to us at the early part of the meeting by Representative Saunders. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: (Nodding head.) COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's correct. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And the second accepts that? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just to clarify, to support putting that on the ballot, not to support the language. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: To support -- to -- to -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: For putting it on the ballot. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Putting it on the ballot. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Putting it on the ballot. We have a motion and a second to adopt the ordinance. All those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I will then make a motion -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All those opposed? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, sorry. I will then make a motion to adopt the resolution presented to us today in revised form. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That passes. We need to take a break for the -- REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Can I make one -- one quick comment before you take a break? I just want to thank the county attorney's office and especially Ernestine for her efforts on getting all the documentation together as directed by the county commission. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Please go right ahead. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: I just did. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: She's great. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll -- We'll break while the stenographers change here. (A short break was held.) Item #1283 CONTINUATION FROM ABOVE OF PETITION R-96-3 - DENIED CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We'll reconvene. We're gonna go back to the petition we were working on a little earlier, and that would be petition R-96-3. MS. STEWART: Thank you, commissioners. First off, I'd like to point and remind -- oh, I'm sorry. For the record, Deborah Stewart, Parks, Bennett, and Stewart. Yes. I wanted to remind you that the -- the owner of the property of the front lots, that is, where the Bel Air Motel currently is, that's currently owned C-3 zoning. And I think that the favorable result here would be to develop the front lots and the back lots as a unified parcel. And we feel that by not obtaining a C-3 zoning here today for those back lots that in effect what's happening if you want it developed as a unified parcel, the entire parcel will then be restricted to C-2 uses. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: But there's another thing you could do, and that would be to unify it to RHF-6. MS. STEWART: Yes, we could do that. I am not sure that that would be the best way to go for that particular area. I'm not sure that anyone would -- residential would do well on -- fronting on 41. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So if I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that after all the time and discussion from what we had previously, you are simply asking that your C-3 zoning be granted and that the discussions we had regarding some uses that in all likelihood are not compatible with what's adjacent to you, that that be ignored and we grant the C-3 zoning. MS. STEWART: I'm sorry. I understood the first part of that sentence. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The first part is that you're asking for C-3 zoning, period. MS. STEWART: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Nino, I have a couple questions for you. Adjacent to the proposed property are existing single-family dwellings to the north and to the east; is that correct? MR. NINO: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would you in your professional planning opinion deem a liquor store a compatible use next to a single-family dwelling? MR. NINO: Well, it would all depend how it's handled I would suggest. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, we don't have those controls available to us today, so let's assume minimum setback standards. MR. NINO: Without -- without the controls that we're suggesting, the unified plan of development, our overview, our oversight of a site development plan, I would -- my answer would be ~o. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would you consider a adult videotape rental establishment to be consistent with a single-family residential home -- MR. NINO: No. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- located immediately adjacent to it? MR. NINO: No, not under the -- not unless we have the controls that we -- MS. STEWART: If I could interject there, I was looking at the C-2s -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: No, no, ma'am. You can't. Let me finish. Would you consider a bulk storage mulching facility typically associated with a retail garden supply store a compatible use adjacent to single-family dwellings? MR. NINO: I would consider anything that is -- has evening hour -- hours attendant to its operation would be incompatible. Otherwise, I think the uses that -- that -- who operate from eight to five would generally be compatible, again, appreciating that even without the restrictions we've asked for, any commercial use would still have to come before our -- our office for site plan approval, and -- and -- and there are buffer requirements that are attendant to that approval process. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: But there -- MR. NINO: So our concern is primarily that activities that tend to have evening hour ac -- hours associated with them -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Are any -- MR. NINO: -- would not be compatible. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Are any of those uses allowed in a C-3 district? MR. NINO: Yes, they are. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Are -- are you considered to be an expert in these matters? MR. NINO: Oh, I hope so. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. MR. NINO: I've been at it for four years. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I'm asking you a tech -- question to be put on the record, Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Yes. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Are you considered as a -- technically as an expert in these matters? MR. NINO: Yes. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd make a motion we recognize Mr. Nino as an expert -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- in the matter at hand. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion to recognize him as an -- Mr. Nino as an expert. All those in favor signify by saying aye. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Nino, based on that I have two more questions. Then I'll -- I'll be done. You've stated that evening uses are not compatible with -- you don't believe are not compatible -- you don't believe are compatible with the single-family residential. MR. NINO: Yes. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Under number 6 in a C-3 zoning is food stores, many of which have nighttime, possibly all-night operations. Would you deem that an incompatible use with single family? MR. NINO: I didn't hear that, Commissioner. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In C-3 zoning under number 6 on page 6 of our agenda is the item food stores, many of which have evening operation and sometimes 24-hour operation. Would you deem that an incompatible use with single-family residential? MR. NINO: Yes, I would. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Under item number 3, auto and home supply stores, many auto stores and home supply stores such as Western Auto, Home Depot and so forth have evening hours. Would you deem that an incompatible use with single-family residential? MR. NINO: To the extent that they're open in the evenings I would. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So basically the C-3 zoning as it's presented to us has contained within it uses that are indeed incompatible with adjacent single-family residential uses. MR. NINO: Yes. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask Mr. Arnold to come up for a moment? Mr. Arnold, would you consider yourself an expert? And if so, would you tell us a little bit about your history even though I think all five of us know it? MR. ARNOLD: For the record, Wayne Arnold, your planning services director. I would consider myself an expert in the field of planning. I'm a certified planning, AICP. I have a master's degree in urban planning. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. I'd like to make a motion we recognize Mr. Arnold as an expert in the field. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Arnold -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Arnold, would you concur with Mr. Nino's -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Assessment. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- assessment in response to Commissioner Hancock's questions as far as compatibility? MR. ARNOLD: I would outside of any other controls. I would certainly consider all those uses to be incompatible with adjacent single-family development. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And a site development plan does not have the ability to set operating hours for uses; is that correct? MR. ARNOLD: That would probably be beyond the scope of a site development plan review, yes. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. I don't have any further questions. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Any further questions? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I -- I had just one. And I guess it was answered, but I wanted to hear more from the petitioner. As -- as we did this table and -- and you guys went out and discussed, did you basically come back to the position that it's really C-3 or -- or we're going away or -- I was hoping that you were going to come back and say you'd like to do a PUD because that's -- I want to encourage the redevelopment of this piece of property. MS. STEWART: Well, of course we do too, but we feel -- our position is that we meet the requirements of the C-3 zoning. We understand the concerns about certain uses being next to residential properties. However, I would remind the board that this property is located within an activity center. And an activity center is intended to be mixed use commercial and residential. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But mixed use -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: And it is residential at the moment. I'll point that out one more time. MS. STEWART: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It allows it. It doesn't require it, as Commissioner Norris pointed out before. And what we often do is have transitional uses as you go through there. If you got residential on one side, C-3 on the other, C-2 seems to make logical sense in between. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Or higher residential. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Or higher residential. MS. STEWART: Another point that we were discussing is if things remain -- if we accepted the C-2 zoning, what would be to prevent the current owner or future owner from fully developing the front parcel in all C-3 uses and simply using the back as a parking lot, for instance? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because you cannot transfer an associated parking lot of a C-3 use on to less intensive zoning. Am I correct, Mr. Arnold or Mr. Hulhere? So basically they could shove all the parking in the rear and put it on the C-2 parcel? MR. HULHERE: Subject to water management and setback requirements, yes. C-l, C-2 allow parking facilities as permitted uses. So you could put the parking in support of the C-3 uses. But again, they would be subject to development standards. You know, I don't know -- I'm sure there's some room for development on that parcel. They could put all the C-3 uses with parking on the C-2 in the back. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's a good point to not consider C-2 zoning for the property. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It sure is because I don't want to see the parking out. MS. STEWART: Okay. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But why is a PUD a bad idea? Could you -- I mean, I understand it's time. MS. STEWART: At the beginning of the application process it was just -- with meetings with the staff it was decided that -- that this would be the most favorable way to go, requesting a C-3 zoning. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why is it right now, not at the beginning of the process with staff, but right now, I mean, it's the board you need to get this past, and obviously the board has a problem with C-3. And -- and all of us have said we'd like to see this redeveloped and have reached out and tried to find a way to do that. Why do you continue to say, no, C-3's the only way to do it? Why is PUD right now at this instant a bad idea? MS. STEWART: Well, one of the major reasons is, of course, time. Again, I am not sure that, you know, we meet all the criteria for C-3 zoning change. So I'm not sure why we need to go back and do it all over again. The staff has not recommended that in the past, and here we are. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Let me close -- do you have anything further? MS. STEWART: Yes, I do have a few other things I wanted to get into the record if I could. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. MS. STEWART: I -- as I mentioned before, we meet all the criteria of the comprehensive plan with our petition. We have your staff approval of a C-3 zoning change certain to certain -- subject to certain conditions. We had received unanimous approval of the planning commission. To my knowledge there's no one here from the public to object as of this morning. And we would respect -- respectfully request that you approve our petition as presented. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Did we have any public speakers, Mr. Dorrill? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We didn't have them earlier, did we? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. I'll close the public hearing then. We need to put a couple of findings on the record, I think. MS. STUDENT: Mr. Chairman, before you close would the board kindly make any ex party disclosures that may be necessary as to whether there were any site visits, communications, either -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: That's a -- MS. STUDENT: -- oral or written? CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: That's a good idea. MS. STUDENT: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I don't think we have to do that during the public hearing, do we? MS. STUDENT: Yes, Mr. Chairman. It should be done -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. I'll reopen the public hearing. MS. STUDENT: -- in case anybody needs to rebut. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I'll reopen the public hearing, and I will state on the record that I have had no contact, written, oral, telephone, or other, on this. And I -- this issue, and I am making my decision based solely on what I've heard here today. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't believe I've had any contact on this. But my -- regardless, my decision will be based solely on the information as part of this public hearing. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Exactly the same for me as Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Likewise my decision will be based solely on the information presented today. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I too solely on the position presented today. I've had no contact to my knowledge in any way. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't recall any. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I'll close the public hearing. I'd like to put on the record that -- that based on testimony from two expert witnesses from our staff we find that there could be incompatibility between straight C-3 zoning and the surrounding residential neighborhood, existing residential neighborhood. I would also like to find that -- that at several points in the discussion an alternative to straight C-3 zoning, specifically PUD method, was -- was offered and suggested to the petitioner. And thirdly, it is of opinion that perhaps the zoning request is speculative in nature and not specific. And any further question or comments from any of the -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll add one to the comment. We have a little bit of a conflict. But verbally it was placed on the record by one of our staff members earlier that there could potentially be increased impact in the various areas. And I heard petitioner say something different. But the question was raised. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed. And I think an additional finding is that the staff-imposed conditions regarding a -- a development plan does not answer for several of the uses in the C-3 zoning that are deemed incompatible. And based on those findings as stated by Chairman Mr. Norris and Commissioner Constantine -- MS. STEWART: Hay I interject, please? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Close the public hearing again. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They already did. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I believe the public hearing has been closed. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Based on those findings, I'm going to recommend denial of petition R-96-3. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for denial. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? That petition has been denied. MS. STEWART: Is this -- may I at this opportunity request that you now consider C-2 zoning? CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: You'll have to ask our legal staff, but I believe at this point you gotta go back all the way through the process. That was what we were trying to get -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Once -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: -- you to do earlier. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Public hearing was closed. We've taken our vote. MR. WEIGEL: You have -- you do have the option of reconsideration if you wish to do so even during this -- this meeting before it adjourns. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Say that again, please. MR. WEIGEL: You have the option of reconsideration of the item just taken by a member who voted in the majority. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question. I know that there are limitations on reapplications for a property. If this property owner is interested in applying for a commercial PUD, are they allowed to do that, or do they have to wait six months? MR. WEIGEL: Whom are you asking? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You I guess. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't know. Whoever knows the answer. MR. WEIGEL: I guess my answer is no unless someone else pipes up. I don't think there's any problem. MR. MULHERE: As long as there are some changes in the petition. In this case there would be a substantial change going to PUD rather than C-3. They could submit. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't really have an interest in reconsidering now because we were told three minutes ago on the record from that very podium that C-2 couldn't possibly do it. And there's a time to hold and a time to fold. And after the game is over, you can't say, wait, I'd like another card. MS. STEWART: I understand that. My client had a change of heart when he saw the direction that it was going at the last minute. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The direction's been clear -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- for at least an hour and a half. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I appreciate -- I appreciate your position, but I -- I think the board's direction has been rather clear in the incompatibilities, and I don't believe C-2 zoning is -- in my opinion it's just not an option at this point. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We would encourage you, however, once tempers have calmed a bit to reapply under a PUD zoning. I think perhaps, you know, there's something of merit that could be brought to this corner so -- MS. STEWART: Thank you, commissioners. Item #12C4 ORDINANCE 96-35, AMENDING ORDINANCE 91-102, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AS SPECIFICALLY AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 96-21, AND MORE SPECIFICALLY TO CORRECT SCRIVENER'S ERRORS - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Our next item, item 12(C)(4), an ordinance amending ordinance 91-102. MR. MULHERE: Yes, commissioners. This is an ordinance to correct several scrivener's errors that were contained in the most recent Land Development Code amendments that were transmitted to the Secretary of State. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Just scrivener's errors? MR. MULHERE: Yes. A cup -- the majority of them were a result of transferring from All In One to the new Microsoft word document. There were strike-throughs and underlines that were in the wrong places. There were -- there was some human error as well, but we've corrected that, and it won't happen again. So we're asking to transmit this. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, if -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Speakers? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- you'll -- MR. DORRILL: No, sir. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And this will allow us to once again enforce some of those things that aren't being enforced now. MR. MULHERE: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #12C5 ORDINANCE 96-36, THE BILLING AND COLLECTION PROCEDURE FOR COLLIER COUNTY AMBULANCE SERVICES - ADOPTED Our next item, 12(C)(5), has the companion 8(D)(1). We'll take those together. MR. YONKOSKY: Mr. Chairman, commissioners, good afternoon. My name is John Yonkosky for the record. Agenda item 12(C)(5) is a recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to modify ordinance 94-44 to be compatible with the board's direction that you gave staff on -- I don't remember the exact date. It was about three months ago. The ord -- there's a -- there's a major change in this concept that we're presenting to you today. The ordinance is going to become, if you approve it, what we call a generic type ordinance and whereas it outlines parameters wherein you can direct staff and with a little bit more flexibility in some of the areas in ambulance billing. There is one item that's in this ordinance that I would like to point out to you that was not in the prior ordinance, and that's section 4, page 3 of the ordinance. I mean -- I'm sorry. It's page 2 of the ordinance, section 4. There is a new item that's in there that defines waivers for you. And I'd like to read that into the record. Waivers are limited to a valid public purpose that's defined by either you or the county administrator at your direction. Estates that have no assets -- and that has not been in there before. If there is an estate for which there were no assets, we're stuck. We've been had -- we've kept that on the books, kept it on the books, and there was nothing we can do with it. So this is a little bit of housecleaning. And then the processing of hardship cases and payment plans under state law is a definition that as we get into the resolution that we will be asking you to approve. That's the major change, and -- and it's actually putting the broad basis of the administrative direction in the resolution and removing it from the ordinance so that you will have more flexibility. And basically that's -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Beyond that, that's -- that one substantive thing you've changed, this is really just direction -- continuation of direction that was previously given; is that correct? MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that's correct. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Speakers? MR. DORRILL: There are none. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Questions? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've got a question. Oh. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Yonkosky, has the EHS advisory committee reviewed what's presented to us today, and have they issued a statement of support or problem with this? MR. YONKOSKY: The major review that came about with the EHS advisory commission dealt with the change in the resolution itself, and they approved during their Hay meeting unanimously to -- with the direction or the recommendation of staff. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And does this allow the county as Hedicaid ratchets up what it allows for charges for us to ratchet up commensurately? Is that -- is that one element of this? MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, sir, it is. And as we get into the resolution, the rate that we're asking you to set today will be a rate that will allow us to maximize over the next cycle with Hedicare, maximize your reimbursement from Hedicare, and it is the process that implements the direction the Board of County Commissioners gave us on March 12 at the budget -- when it gave us budget directions. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews? COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Yonkosky, I'm -- I'm looking at the resolution, and a couple of questions on it. You have user fees here for special events. I -- I presume they -- they could be nonprofit or profit making. And you have a cost for 2 medics and 1 vehicle of $75 an hour and a cost for 1 medic, no vehicle, $40 an hour. I'm not sure how that equates. MR. YONKOSKY: Perhaps Miss Flagg could answer that question because we did -- we've looked at it, and the decision was made that because of her cost parameters that we would recommend to the board to continue the 75 and 40 so -- MS. FLAGG: Commissioners, Diane Flagg for the record. The -- there's actually two aspects of a special event charge. There's the group of events that historically the board has determined to waive those fees because there are nonprofit charitable organizations. But all the other events, i.e., the filming of the movie that took place in Everglades City, we charged $75 per hour for that and commit quite a -- it's all paramedics on a unit down in Everglades unrelated to what our responsibilities are for emergency calls. Those fees at $75 per hour covers our cost to provide that service. In addition, the $40 per hour is for those events -- we have corporations, Ford Motor Company, GMC, they come in and they do events like on Keewaydin. And they don't -- obviously you can't get a medic unit over there. They just need a medic with the full capabilities to provide ALS care if something happens. They do the Olympics kind of things. So then we charge $40 an hour which covers our cost for those. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Something -- and if I may, something specific such as a high school football game, in the past we have just stationed a unit there, and that's been subsidized by the taxpayer. MS. FLAGG: The Collier County public school board is billed for those services. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: They are, okay. MS. FLAGG: Yes, sir. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have -- one other question is item D under section 1, and that's interest on past due accounts. I presume that 1 percent is monthly? MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It doesn't -- MR. YONKOSKY: It certainly is. And actually it will equate to the maximum, as I understand it, that the board is allowed by law which is 12 percent on a per annum basis. That has not previously been in as part of the billing arrangement. There has not been interest charged. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Weigel, shall we have stated in here that that should be monthly? MR. WEIGEL: I think we can make that very easily. MR. DORRILL: No speakers, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Close the public hearing. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. We've got -- Mr. Weigel is going to make us take two votes. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Withdraw my motion. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: What about our companion item, Mr. Weigel? Are we going to have to take a third vote on that or -- MR. WEIGEL: No, no, no. Just two votes, and one is on the ordinance and then secondly on the resolution. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve the ordinance. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to approve the ordinance. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #8D1 RESOLUTION 96-303, APPROVING USER FEES FOR THE BILLING AND COLLECTION PROCEDURE FOR COLLIER COUNTY AMBULANCE SERVICES ORDINANCE - ADOPTED COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve the resolution. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second on the resolution. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, at the conclusion of today's agenda, I'm going to ask a question that you can prepare yourself for, and that is why we can't possibly make one motion to approve the ordinance and the resolution at the same time. Don't answer that now. Just be prepared at communication. MR. WEIGEL: Sure. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: And -- and, Mr. Dorrill, as a reminder there, we requested yesterday about -- I think it was two-wrap up budget items to be discussed at the end of this meeting. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're going to cut that one again? CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Do you recall that? Anybody write that -- MR. DORRILL: The issues pertaining to county -- under the county attorney's hat? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, yes. Article 5 costs, that -- that element that were under county attorney? CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: No, no. That's -- that's a discussion for another day. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The sheriff's budget and healthcare, weren't those -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: No. Does anybody remember? If nobody remembers -- MR. WEIGEL: I remember. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Call Mr. Smykowski, and we -- we told him to bring two back. You remember both of them? MR. WEIGEL: You asked me to -- to be able to respond to -- somewhat in regard to ad valorem responsibilities for development services and permit fees up there. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: So that's what I thought was -- Item #12C6 RESOLUTION 96-304, RE PETITION AV-96-012, EDWARD GRIFFITH, P.E., REQUESTING VACATION OF PORTIONS OF DRAINAGE, ACCESS AND MAINTENANCE EASEMENTS LOCATED ON PORTIONS OF THE PLATS OF PELICAN HARSH GOLF COURSE PHASE TWO - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Fine. Yeah, that was it. The next one is 12(C)(6). It's a long day. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, yeah, that was it. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Petition AV-96-012. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, we can probably save a lot of staff time. This appears to simply be a melding of -- of property lines with easement lines so that they run parallel and not askew to each other. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Is that about it? MR. HULLER: Something very close to that. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Identify yourself, please, for the MR. HULLER: Oh. For the record, Russ Mullet with transportation staff. Yes, it's -- it's a drainage easement or drainage access and maintenance easements that have been incorporated in a -- in a subsequent plat, Pelican Marsh, unit 12. And letters of no objections have been received from Collier County storm water management, engineering plan review. A resolution was prepared and approved by the county attorney's office and in accordance with Florida Statute 177-101. Based on the letters of no objection and no county maintenance responsibility, staff rec -- recommends approval. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Any speakers? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve petition -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- AV-96-012. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for approval. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #12C7 EMERGENCY DECLARED; ORDINANCE 96-37, AMENDING ORDINANCE 91-102, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND EVELOPHENT CODE, SUBSECTION 2.2.24.10, TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS - ADOPTED Next item is item 12(C)(7), ordinance 91-102. This has to do with transfer of development rights? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. Wayne Arnold for the record. This is bringing you back the emergency ordinance amendment to the transfer development rights section of the Land Development Code based on direction at the June 11 board of county commission meeting. County attorney's office and development services staff have worked to make some revisions based on that discussion. Those have been stricken and underlined to -- to indicate those changes in your attachments. Of most significance is probably the fact that we've taken away any -- any administrative ability to effect transfer of development rights, and that now is definitively going to require the board of county commissioner action. Additionally, the increased density over base density that you can achieve on any receiving zone has been reduced by one-half. And that would be a first step in at least shoring up the ordinance in a form until we can bring back any more substantial changes to you at the next amendment cycle. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Arnold, there's -- I guess there may be still a couple of small requests in the pipeline. Will this change affect those that are already being applied for? MR. ARNOLD: There is one request still in the pipeline that was scheduled to come to you on July 16. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: What -- what -- MR. ARNOLD: The county attorney's office informs me that that should not -- that this ordinance amendment should not affect them. And, in fact, it wouldn't. Even the change doesn't really affect them. They are requesting a single unit to be transferred. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Which petition is that? MR. ARNOLD: And you heard -- I don't recall the actual petition number, but that was the one where Mr. Cooper spoke on public comment last week to you -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Wasn't that on Marco? MR. ARNOLD: -- regarding a transfer on Marco Island. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: There's one on Marco? MR. ARNOLD: That is it. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: It's just for one unit; right? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct, that's for one unit. And they would be transferring the single unit that they currently have in their conservation designated land to the receiving unit which is, I believe, zoned RHF-12 with a cap of 6 on Marco Island to round out, as he indicated, his building so that he can build his four-plexes on this parcel. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: And that's the last one. MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. So after that one then this -- this will take effect, and they'll all come to the county commission. Okay. MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. Well, Mr. Cooper's will as well for his ordinance to be authorized by you on the 16th of July. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, we have a speaker on this o~e. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Stanley. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Public speaker. MR. STANLEY: Jack Stanley, vice chairman, Florida Wildlife Federation. I'm sure you'll be glad to know that this is the last time you have to look at me today. I'll be brief. The federation supports the recommendations of staff that they have given you on this issue, and we'll be monitoring any changes in the future. But as I'm sure you know, we do support this concept of transfer of development rights from ST-type land into higher densities. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that a Seminole vest? MR. STANLEY: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've been wanting to ask you all day. It's handsome. MR. STANLEY: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You're welcome. MR. DORRILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're done with the niceties. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: If there's no further questions, I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve amendments to __ MR. WEIGEL: Excuse me. This is an emergency ordinance, so it will first be necessary to declare an emergency and to vote by four-fifths or better vote at this emergency. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to move a declaration of emergency as I wrap up my initial statement. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What's the purpose for the emergency? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm getting to that. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Didn't we declare the emergency when we gave str -- staff direction a week or two ago to take this away and bring it back? MR. WEIGEL: We did but not in the public hearing context that we have today. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So now we're reiterating that emergency. MR. WEIGEL: I'd feel much more comfortably that we did. And, in fact, as an extra note of precaution, when we advertised this thing, it didn't get ten days, so it's still technically an emergency. But we want to go forward as carefully as we can, and we're doing so. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Trying to remember why we called an emergency so I can be consistent. I -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why don't you just say for the reasons stated previously. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that acceptable, Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: I didn't hear that, but I expect it is. We declared an emergency because the board was not going to be meeting in the meantime. And we felt that there was some health, safety -- some health and conservation aspects which fall under the Land Development Code and chapter 163. So if you want to reiterate -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We wanted to cut the pipeline off as quickly as possible. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: For the statements reiterated by the county attorney, I'm going to move that we declare an emergency -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- to amend ordinance 91-102. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that eloquent motion. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I beat you. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. We're now operating under a state of emergency. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I am now going to propose that we accept the amendments presented to us for ordinance 91-102. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. There's none. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't need to end the emergency, do I, Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: No, sir. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Emergency has expired. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: The emergency is lifted. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Emergency went away. Item #13A1 PETITION CU-96-5, MR. DARRELL G. BROWN REQUESTING THE APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE FORAN ADULT CONGREGATE LIVING FACILITY (ACLF) LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF TALLWOOD STREET AND HARDLY AVENUE ON MARCO ISLAND - DENIED CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Our next item, 13(A)(1), petition CU-96-5, conditional use for -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good afternoon, commissioners. Chahran Badamtchian from planning services. This is a conditional use for an ACLF located on MArco Island at the corner of Tallwood Street and Hartley Avenue. The site contains 2.3 acres zoned RMF-12 surrounded by 2-story condominiums. The petitioner is requesting a 60-unit which is 26 units per acre. This density is allowed by the Land Development Code. However, they are requesting to build a five-story building over garage, and staff believes that five story is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and recommended that building be limited to three stories. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: What does the code permit in that district for heights? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Code allows for 50 foot. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And what they're asking for is -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They are asking for a 50-foot-high building, but surrounding buildings are all 30 foot. And since they are getting a break in the density, staff believes that at least they should comply with the characteristics of the surrounding area which is all two story or three story. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Are you proposing a -- a zoning map change or something for that generally in that area? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. This is a conditional use, and we can have conditions of approvals or stipulations. That was one of the stipulations of staff to limit this to three story. However, planning commission decided to remove this stipulation from our list of stipulations. Some questions were brought up. One was for evacuation in case of natural disaster. We talked to our EHS people, and they believe that having elderly people cjustered in one location, it's gonna make easier to evacuate them if they were scattered all over the island. Number two was problem with the site development plan, site plan, which is attached to the application. This is only a conceptual plan. And they have to go through a site development plan. Number three problem was that we are calling it ACLF when state of Florida calls it ALF. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But does our code have the -- I thought our code just had group homes. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Under group homes we have ACLF, and they asked for ACLF. Since Collier County code doesn't have ALF, we called it ACLF which is same as ALF. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: However, ALF allows mentally ill people, and ACLF does not, and we think that calling it an ACLF for this purpose is better than calling it just ALF. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wait. Which one allows mentally ills? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: ALF. It's called assisted living facility. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So -- and that's not what they've asked for. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That's not what they have asked for. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: And planning commission reviewed this petition and by a vote of four to two recommended approval subject to all staff stipulation except one relating to the height. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we know what the objection of the two nay votes was? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It was basically the height. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The height? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The height, yeah. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Which is a compatibility issue. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Which is a compatibility issue. Staff has received several letters of objection from neighboring property owners, MICA, and MITA. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you -- can you define several? Five? Ten? Two? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Forty-seven. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They are -- no. Seven or eight. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are any of those representing associations? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: One is representing MICA. One is MITA, and one is a petition signed by seven or eight people living in one building adjacent to the proposed ACLF. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: We have heard the terms ACLF and ALF. Are the two interchangeable? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Collier County code calls it ACLF, but state last year they changed the language calling it an ALF to include other category beside elderly. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do we have a individual definition of ACLF on a local level? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes, we do. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Has there been a determination as to whether or not what is being proposed is truly an ACLF? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Under our definition for -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Under our definition -- our definition is kind of broad. It says food services and one or more personal services. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sounds like a dorm room. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: And if they provide food and one or more personal service -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Like what? A manicurist? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Laundry. MR. HULHERE: I can -- maybe just for the record it might -- it might be beneficial to read our definitions. It's very short. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. MR. HULHERE: Adult congregate living facility, any building -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Who are you? MR. HULHERE: -- or buildings, section of a building, distinct part of a building, residence, private home, boarding home, or other place whether operated for profit or not which undertakes through its ownership or management to provide for a period exceeding 24 hours housing, food service, and one or more personal services for four or more adults not related to the owner or administrator by blood or marriage who require such services and provide -- and to provide limited nursing service -- services when specifically licensed to do so pursuant to Florida Statutes. The facility shall be licensed and approved as such by the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So, Mr. Weigel, what happens when our definition references a state statute that's been modified because I liked our definition just fine? I thought I knew what it is we had until we get to -- until we get to the fact that it says it has to be specifically licensed to do so pursuant to -- MR. HULHERE: I just wanted to interject that regardless, our definition of an ACLF or, if you prefer, an ALF requires licensure by the state according to their standards. If the state standards have changed, nonetheless, we still require licensure by the state so -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So -- so could someone come to the state and say, I have my zoning approval, you know, assuming the state has a little check-off for whether or not they have met the requirements to be licensed? One of them I assume would be zoning. Would Collier County's zoning approval requirement be met for both an A -- ALF and whatever the other one is that Dr. Biles told us about in her memo by approval of this -- under this definition? Do both fall under this one definition? MR. HULHERE: Yes, it would except that the applicant has been more specific. And in their request they have asked specifically for an ACLF or a -- you know, a -- an adult living facility -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. MULHERE: -- and which under today's state statutes is called an assisted living facility. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. MULHERE: We also have the definition of that, and it just -- it's very brief. But just so you can see the difference, just -- the act starts out by saying the purpose of this act is to provide the availability of appropriate services for elderly persons and adults with disabilities in the least restrictive and most home-like environment to encourage the development of facilities that promote dignity, individuality, privacy and decision making ability of such persons and to provide for the health, safety, welfare of residents of assisted living facilities in the state, and it begins to describe it. It's quite a bit longer than that. But the only -- we only wanted to clear up the fact that there is a conflict between what we call them in our code and what the state calls them. But they still would be required by our code to meet the state statutes for licensure. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Could you identify yourself for the record? MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. For the record it's Bob Mulhere, current planning manager. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: If there's no further questions from Mr. Mulhere, could we have the petitioner come forward? MR. PIRES: Mr. Chairman, members of the board, my name is Anthony Pires Junior, law firm of Woodward, Pires, and Lombardo. And we represent the petitioner in this action. Also present today is Barbara Cawley, and I'll ask that Barbara Cawley be accepted by this board as an expert in land planning, land use, and the Collier County Land Development Code. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: On what basis? MR. PIRES: Her credentials and qualifications. I have a copy of her resume. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm familiar enough -- MR. PIRES: And she's been accepted by the board before in prior -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm familiar enough with her qualifications to move acceptance -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- of her as an expert. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We've accepted her before. MR. PIRES: I believe back in February 13, this year I believe before this board, she was accepted as an expert if I recall. The issue that was recently discussed with the -- with the staff before we get into some other aspects of it, I think Mr. Mulhere indicated as well as Mr. Badamtchian that what this -- the conditional use request is for care units. What the Collier County Land Development Code has the definition of ACLFs, what the state now calls ALFs or assisted living facilities are care units, and the conditional use is for care units. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. That's a real important point to me. That's what I was trying to get to before. If have you applied -- I thought it was called a group home. But I need to understand clearly the question, you know, because we may like or not like what's being proposed. But the legal question has to be are you applying for a conditional use for a group home, a care unit, an MR. PIRES: For a care -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- ACLF? MR. PIRES: For a care unit which is the state statutory reference and which was handed out to you I think a copy at the top which is an excerpt from your Land Development Code, and the bottom is an excerpt from section 400.402 Florida Statutes. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But my question is -- MR. PIRES: We've underlined the additional language in the state statute. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: My question is the ACLF definition from our code is a subsection of the definition of a care unit? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Care unit allows also physiological, medical, and therapeutic behavior modification and other services which ACLF doesn't allow. Basically by not calling it a care unit, we are excluding like clinics for mentally ill people to be built in here just -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Help me, Bob. MR. MULHERE: Well, a care unit is broader. An ACLF or an AL -- LS is more specific. And again, in our code a care unit is -- a care unit can be a residential treatment facility other than a nursing home where for compensation persons under care receive food, lodging, and some form of on-site therapeutic care on a daily basis. It says this type of facility shall contain 15 or more persons under care plus residential supervisors and shall permit all of the listed -- all of the list of uses permitted by group care facilities, so a care unit includes all of the group care facility uses and includes adult congregate living facilities and foster care facilities, facilities for the aged, developmental -- developmentally -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a subset. MR. MULHERE: So yeah, it would be more specific to say an ACLF. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Miss Student wants to clear this up for you -- MS. STUDENT: Yeah, I -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: -- if you allow her to do so. MS. STUDENT: If I may, Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney for the record. I want to clear this up for the record, and I think we need to ask Mr. Pires a question here because it's my understanding that this was advertised and brought before you and reviewed by the planning commission for an ACLF conditional use, and I think we have a confusion of terms. So I think somebody needs to ask Mr. Pires for the record -- he's talking care unit, but it, in fact, was advertised as an ACLF, so we need to clear the record on that point. MR. PIRES: We are requesting the conditional use for ACLF, adult congregate living facility, under the Collier County Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which we've now identified as a subset of a care unit. MR. PIRES: Correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- and I'll stop asking that question. I understand ACLF. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Can I ask Mr. Pires a couple of questions? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I may have some interest. MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Pires, as I understand it, an ACLF as defined under our code still has to be licensed through HRS. MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. Well, through -- yeah, through the state agencies, our state agencies, and there's about 35 pages of rules and regulations and a 26-page statutory section that governs the licensing of these facilities. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I'll take that as a yes. MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. So you have to apply to the state for a license. Now let me ask you a seemingly unrelated question. What -- tell us about the units. You're asking for 60 units I believe; is that correct? MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Sixty. What are these units? Are they apartments? HR. PIRES: The plan that was submitted -- and I think Mr. Badamtchian stated that in his prefatory remarks. The plan as submitted was conceptual in nature, and we're planning on having apartment units. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Apartment units. MR. PIRES: Yes. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: And they're all the same? MR. PIRES: I think there will be variations. I think the submittal indicated some would be one bedroom, some two bedroom, and some three bedroom. HR. BADAMTCHIAN: Thirty of them are one bedroom. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Excuse me. Excuse me, please. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I'm sorry. MR. PIRES: And Hiss Cawley may have the actual count, but they're a mixture of one bedroom, two bedroom, and some three bedroom. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. And they have kitchens within them. MR. PIRES: I believe some of them have limited kitchens, yes, sir. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Some or all? MR. PIRES: All. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: All have -- all have limited -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What's a limited kitchen? CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: A limited kitchen. Small. MR. PIRES: Small kitchen. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: But kitchen nonetheless. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Like the one in my condominium. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: It's a kitchen nonetheless. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But it -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: My question is you have one bedrooms, two bedrooms, and three bedrooms. Has the state ever licensed a facility that has multiple bedroom apartments in it, anything other than one-bedroom apartments? MR. PIRES: I don't have that information one way or the other. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, I do. My answer that I got is no, they have never done that. And the -- the question that has been brought up is are we building an ACLF or are we building condominiums. And that's a very pertinent question that I just asked because the state has never issued a permit to my knowledge and according to my research for more. MR. PIRES: One thing -- one thing I think that's important if we can make part of the record are the rules and regulations adopted by the state of Florida as of October 30, 1995, with regards to these type of facilities. They even have a specific definition for apartments: A self-contained dwelling unit with kitchen and bathing facilities and living, dining, and sleeping space that is contracted for use as a residence by one or more persons who maintain a common household. So assisted living facilities, adult congregate living facilities licensed by the state of Florida can be apartments. And it doesn't indicate there's a limitation on the number of bedrooms. The fact that no one else has applied before, once again, a license has to be obtained -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Oh, I didn't say apply. I didn't say applied. MR. PIRES: Or has been issued. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I said issue. MR. PIRES: Has been issued. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Uh-huh. MR. PIRES: The rules do not seem to preclude that. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. MR. PIRES: And a stipulation we'd be willing to make is that if this conditional use is granted, the facility will be utilized, you know, and obtain the necessary licensing by the state of Florida for -- and comply with all the rules and regulations for -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But isn't that already -- MR. PIRES: -- the assisting living -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- a condition of ours? I mean, we can -- if -- if we approve it and they can't get their ACLF license, they can't use it. MR. PIRES: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: But they have built it. Let me ask -- let me ask you some other questions, and let's go to a new subject. What is the property surrounding this used for? MR. PIRES: The residential on one portion of the adjoining property is residential. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: What -- what -- what -- MR. PIRES: I believe it's two-story multi-family is my understanding. Barbara Cawley -- Barbara Cawley I think will testify to that since she visited the site but two-story I believe multi-family, and there's a duplex next door. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Not rental apartments but condominium. MR. PIRES: I believe so. Once again, Barbara Cawley would best be able to -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Could we have her come up then? MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Perhaps I could ask her that question. State your name for the record, please. MS. CAWLEY: Yes. For the record, Barbara Cawley with Wilson, Miller, Barton, and Peek. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Hiss Cawley, you've been recognized as an expert. Do you -- do you recall what those units are in surrounding neighborhood? Are those condominiums, or are those rental apartments? What is that? MS. CAWLEY: The best I could tell -- of course, I didn't go and find out exactly how they were managed. But they -- they basically look like two- and one-story either condos or rentals. There may be some rental units in there. I -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Two story and '- MS. CAWLEY: And one story. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: -- one story -- MS. CAWLEY: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: -- surrounding. Okay. And condominium then would -- would imply that -- that those are people's homes. MS. CAWLEY: Are they -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: And even if they rent it '- MS. CAWLEY: They may rent them. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: -- it's still '- MS. CAWLEY: But yeah, someone lives there. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: -- people's homes. MS. CAWLEY: Yes, that's true. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: And how many sides of this subject property are surrounded by this nature of residential usage? MS. CAWLEY: Directly on the property -- let me go over here, and I'll sort of point that out on the aerial. It may be a little easier to see. The -- the property, as you can see, has a road on three sides. This is Tallwood Drive here. And on this side -- I guess that's one side, although it's kind of in a zig zaggy kind of a format, you do have residential units directly adjacent to that. And on the other side is the road and then the units across the little -- the street on three sides. So you have a street and then the units. This will be -- the way the project is designed at 50 feet, you'll have greater than the required setback for the -- for the building which -- which is 30 feet. And we would be at least 50 feet from the property line plus the right-of-way of the road plus the front yard of the adjacent property so I'd say about 90 feet from adjacent, across-the-road property and, oh, 50, maybe -- maybe 80 feet from the southern property boundary -- or the east -- western property boundary. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I ask a quick question? CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: While we're -- while we're taking this little break here as she comes back to the microphone, I'd like to say that I have had some correspondence on this matter from both sides, and I -- I fully intend to make my decision based on what we hear in this room today. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I will make my decision based solely on that information provided during this public hearing as is required by law. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Ditto. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Likewise I've had correspondence on the matter. Base my decision on what's presented in today's public hearing. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've had conversation on the matter but will also base my decision on the public record developed today. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. I need to clarify. I have had conversation with the petitioner on this matter also. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I've not with the petitioner but with others. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a -- just a question so I can be factoring in one of the concerns that Commissioner Norris was raising. Is your client going to build this building before he gets his state permits? MS. CAWLEY: No. I -- and I -- I probably would need to get him to -- to say this, but I don't believe that any bank is going to finance a facility that isn't licensed by the state of Florida. I mean, we -- we would have to get all the approvals in order to get our financing. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And -- and if we wanted to make that a stipulation or a condition of approvals because there is apparently some concern that if you built it and then you got turned down because of the multiple bedrooms, then you'd come back crying about, well, let us use it for something else. So if we can make a condition of your approval that you can't -- you can't build it until you get your license from the state, that should allay that concern. MS. CAWLEY: Yeah. Our zoning would be for a conditional use for a -- an assisted living facility or adult congregate living facility based on the Collier County code. And that's all it would be. It would not be for multi-family units. I mean, he could go out there tomorrow and build a 50-foot multi-family unit with twenty-eight thirty -- to thirty-two units. So if he wanted that, he could do that so -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And how many units will this ACLF have? MS. CAWLEY: This will have 60, 60 units. And that's consistent with the Land Development Code. And the reason we have the difference in -- in terms of unit count is because an ACLF is such a lower intensity use than a -- a typical residential condominium. These are elderly people. They don't drive generally. They are quiet. If -- if anyone has a con -- has one of these in their neighborhood or -- or goes by them, you can see that there's just not a lot of traffic generated by these types of units. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: As we mentioned, as I talked to you earlier, my wife's grandparents lived at Moorings Park '- MS. CAWLEY: Right. It's very similar. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- before they both passed away. And we talked about the similarities. But some questions have come to mind, and I looked at some of the plans of what's been proposed. I don't see an area for nursing therapy, on-site medical. MS. CAWLEY: Right. This is -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: These are all things that Moorings Park provided that in my -- in my opinion made it what I would call an ACLF or an assisted living facility. These people needed these services, and I don't -- what I see on here is a really small kitchen and a country store. I don't see therapy, nursing, the medical aspect at all. MS. CAWLEY: Well, yeah, this -- this is going to be different than -- that's what you would call an extended congregate care service. I think what's happened is that the state has got so many different types of these things that they've -- they've -- they're permitting because there's so many different lifestyles that some of the elderly prefer to have. This is not meant to be a nursing facility. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And again, I'm either making your point or against it, and I'm not sure. MS. CAWLEY: That's all right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But let me -- let me tell you my observation. If this -- the reason we allow for an increase in density in ACLF is because of the assisted type of living. These people generally are not across the board mobile, able to live in their -- you know, without some assistance. Many of them don't drive and that kind of thing so we allow a higher density because the impacts are less. If this is intended to target a group that is more independent, the impacts are a little greater than what we would expect in an ACLF. They are driving their cars. They are -- and -- and the impacts to me are not mitigating the increase in density. MS. CAWLEY: But let me -- let me sort of tell you what the -- the rule talks about in terms of the criteria that an individual has to have in order to live in an assisted living facility. They're not the same as an extended care facility like a nursing home or -- or a higher level type of facility. They have to be able to perform activities of daily living with supervision and assistance if necessary. So they -- they can take care of themselves. Individual is in sufficient health so as not to require 24-hour nursing supervision, is capable of taking his own medication with or without supervision or -- by trained staff. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock, may I -- may I ask a question specific to that? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How does this differ than from just having an apartment for older individuals? I mean, my condo development that I live in is now restricted to 55 and older ironically. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I'll take it. MS. CAWLEY: You're not -- and you're in there? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How is this any different than having condominium units or apartment units that older folks can move in and live in? I mean -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess that's what I was looking for is where -- where is the ACLF tie-in that I -- MS. CAWLEY: Well, the difference is I don't believe your -- your -- your condominium probably has common dining facilities where people go down and have their -- have their meals together. This is a -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: They do have that grill out back. MS. CAWLEY: This will have a common dining facility. This will have activities planned for the people who live there. My mother-in-law is 86 years old, and she's cape -- she -- she's cape -- perfectly capable of taking care of herself, but she would -- she likes to have activities that are performed with her and for her. You know, they go on shopping trips and, you know, that kind of thing. So she's -- she's not sick, but she's elderly and may not be able to take care of everything in her daily needs. And she needs someone to help her plan her meals and -- and feed her -- have food ready for her and that type of thing because the older you get -- I don't know if you've noticed your elderly parents, they don't want to eat as regularly as they would if they were younger. So this helps them -- them plan their lives better and live in a nice facility where they can do that. And it's not -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Will there be a full-time staff person -- MS. CAWLEY: Full-time staff, that's right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- somebody who, you know, monitors, checks on them -- MS. CAWLEY: That's right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- like daily or -- MS. CAWLEY: That's right, yeah. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What kind of requirements are there from the state on that? I'm getting confused if we're getting into the -- I see -- I see the flags going up here about, you know, concerns. But I'm wondering if we're getting into -- I'm -- I'm going to give this to the state. MS. CAWLEY: That's right. That's the -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If the state gives them an ACLF license -- MS. CAWLEY: That's the difference. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- then they're an ACLF. We can't get into that business. MS. CAWLEY: That's the difference between your condominium and what this is going to be. This is going to be licensed by the state. Your condominium obviously is not licensed by the state. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And if they '- MS. CAWLEY: There are certain things that -- that we have to comply with in order to be different than a regular condo. Sorry. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And if they're not going to build it without the license, then let the state determine if they have provided enough services for an ACLF. But I'd have the same concern if they might build it and then come back crying with, oh, we couldn't get our license. But if you're not going to build it before you get the -- get the license, that seems to allay a lot of those fears. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: How many garages are planned? MS. CAWLEY: Thirty. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thirty. MS. CAWLEY: Thirty. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So you expect -- obviously expect half of your dwelling units to have a car and have their own transportation. MS. CAWLEY: They may. That's possible. That's allowed under the code is to have parking for people. I mean, these people, again, can drive. I mean, they're not -- they're not nonmobile. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did I read that the -- if this were approved it would actually increase the amount of traffic? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, it will not. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm reading in staff analysis, due to the higher density, this will generate higher amount of traffic. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It's basically a wash. Multi-family generates 7.3 unit -- 3 trip ends per day, and the ACLF generates 3.9 or 4 trip ends per day so basically a wash. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. So the staff analysis is in error then? MS. CAWLEY: The way they came up with the density standard was to make it basically a wash, where you had the 26 versus the -- the 12. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I'm sorry. Where in the staff report you are -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Page 5 of the packet, page 2 of the staff analysis. Due to the higher density allowed for ACLF, this use will generate higher amount of traffic. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to ask those of you that are making comments that you all have your five minutes. So if you'd be so kind as to -- to wait until your name is called, I'd appreciate it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that in error? Is that wrong? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, that's not in error. As I said, it's basically a wash. One may generate 10 or 15 trips more than the other. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not trying to be difficult, but -- but the staff analysis says -- let me -- let me just finish. And I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm just trying to get a clear answer. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Sure. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This use will generate higher amounts of traffic than -- and then I'm being told now verbally it's generally a wash. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: You're going to have a slight -- the word slight is missing there probably. Slightly higher than what the condominium would generate. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So the staff analysis is accurate. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It is accurate, yeah. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Public speakers? MS. CAWLEY: I do need to put one thing -- some things on the record if you wouldn't mind. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. MS. CAWLEY: I -- I -- it will just take just a second. Under the conditional use requirement, there are four things that need to be looked at in terms of whether it's -- we've met our challenge or not as to whether this is an approvable use: The consistency with this code and the Growth Management Plan. And we believe we are fully consistent with the -- with the code. The staff agrees with that and with the Growth Management Plan; the ingress and egress to the property and proposed structures thereon with particular reference to automobile and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control and access in case of fire and catastrophe. And we believe we've met those requirements. The state in their licensing makes sure that we have a disaster plan and a fire plan. It's -- we talked to Ken Pineau about that, and we -- we absolutely have to have these in order to get our licensure; the effect the condition -- conditional use will have on neighborhood properties in relation to noise, glare, economic, and odor effects. The use itself will have no impact on any of these items. It's a very benign use; the compatibility with adjacent properties and other property within the district. And we believe that it is a use that is compatible with adjacent properties. As residential this will be a low intensity residential type of use as an ACLF. And, therefore, we believe we are consistent with that. Tony has one other thing. MR. PIRES: Briefly if I may, if we could have the opportunity for rebuttal. Also I guess one question from the form of inquiries from the board was asking nature of ownership in surrounding properties. I think the Land Development Code in section 2.6.17 says you look at the uses that this zoning code shall be construed and applied with reference to the nature of the use of such property without regard to the form of ownership. And sometimes that's where it gets lost in the shuffle. I believe the staff has made a recommendation of approval with reduction in height saying that the use is compatible and meets the criteria for conditional use. And Miss Cawley in her expert opinion has also provided that expert opinion. We -- as I indicated, we are willing and our clients are willing to stipulate that this facility will be operated and built pursuant to this conditional use, will be operated as an assisted adult congregate living facility or assisted living facility pursuant to applicable state statutes and rules and regulations. No construction will begin prior to the issuance of a -- you know, a license from the state of Florida or authorization from the appropriate agency. And we wish the opportunity for some rebuttal if there are any speakers if that's appropriate, Mr. Chairman. I think that's the normal -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I don't think this is a courtroom, Mr. Pires. If you have something to say -- MR. PIRES: Well, there might be some issues that we're not aware of that may be raised by some of the speakers, and we'd like to have the opportunity to address those if appropriate. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We'll -- we'll take that on a -- on a case-by-case basis then. Mr. Dotrill, if you could -- MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. We have six. Mr. Johnson? Ms. Prout, you'll follow Mr. Johnson. MR. JOHNSON: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name for the record is James Johnson. I am representing the Marco Island Civic Association. The civic association has received numerous phone calls objecting to this facility on the basis of its density. We do not object to the notion of an assisted living facility. We do object to the density that this project brings to the neighborhood. The changes in the nature of assisted living facilities and the people seeking such facilities has changed over time. And we're finding more and more able bodied people able to get around that are seeking such facilities. These people generate more trips than is the norm and is reflected in the statistics that were used to evaluate this facility. We, therefore, feel that this facility which looks very, very much like a 60-unit condominium will generate traffic and impact on the neighborhood just as a 60-unit condominium would and should, therefore, not be afforded the density increases that an assisted living facility would be afforded. So we urge you very strongly to reject this request and probably revisit your land use code as the nature of assisting living facilities change and reassess any density increases you allow them because the nature of these facilities are changing. I thank you. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Johnson. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Prout. Dr. Biles, you'll follow this lady. MS. PROUT: First of all -- let's see. The land in question -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Excuse me, Hiss Prout. You have to be on the microphone. Sorry. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There is -- there is a handheld microphone if you're going to use the exhibit. There's a handheld microphone on the wall right there. MS. PROUT: I'd like to. Let me put all -- let me put all my things up there. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. You have five minutes, Hiss Prout. You better get going. MS. PROUT: Well, they took all the pins. See? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel, need some help. MR. DORRILL: I have heard Tony Pires accused of a lot of things, but stealing the thumb tacks is the last straw. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's a conspiracy. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You can take a couple out of the bottom of Mr. Pires' exhibit as are necessary. MS. PROUT: Thank you. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I hope they're wearing thick soled shoes. MS. PROUT: I can't pin it in there. I'm not strong enough. Hello. I'm Katie Prout. I used to own this land in question, and so I know the history behind it. We bought it from Deltona. It was 2.43 acres. It was surveyed twice: Once when I bought it and once when I sold it to Mr. Rogers or whatever, Dartell Brown's partner. That -- that's the whole black around here. Okay. Now, on lot number 3 here they built a four-plex. It was zoned when I -- I got a letter from Ken Baginski. It says 29 acres at RH-12 with 3 TDRs, transfer of development rights, that I got from Deltona. Now, when they built this four-plex on this square, that's why the land is jagged like this. So now they're trying to put -- they're saying this is 2.308 acres. That's an impossibility for a four-plex to be built on .122 acres. That would mean -- I mean, with the setbacks and with the building and with the parking lot, a tenth of an acre just is unheard of. And that would mean the four-plex would be zoned 32 units per acre. So that just tells you the size you've been given is wrong. There's not 2.30 acres. Is this one working now? CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Yes. MS. PROUT: Okay. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Always was. MS. PROUT: Number two, your planner there, he didn't show my letter. I wrote a long letter with a lot of attachments when he took all the letters out of -- for the planning board. And then also there should have been 20 more letters from all the Coquina Garden owners, and this one's addressed to you. It's a blank that was sent to me. I wouldn't sent -- I wouldn't sign this letter because I put my own letter in. So -- and then Mr. Hanfreedi, you didn't mention him. He called you from Ohio because he called me afterwards to tell me about his conversation. So you do have a lot more than seven or eight that complained before this went to the planning board. Now, this is deejay (sic) vu once again. I'm going against deliberate falsified plans and documents submitted by Dartell Brown to the Collier County commissioners. The size I showed you there is not possibly right on the papers, and it's not similar to the existing land uses. As you can see on my cardboard building here, he put all his trees in his picture. I cut his trees away. Here's the building. And look at. There's my pool right there. I own a unit in Coquina, and that's east going this way. We'll never see the sun till maybe twelve o'clock. These are all two level. I used to own this building. This is two level. There's one level. Here's one level Coquina, two level Coquina. This is a one-level storage area. These are all one level across the street. And then there's all these -- all these homes. All the purple over there, the lavender, are all single-family homes. The pink are two-story buildings, and that's all that's in the neighborhood except for Dartell Brown wants to build five stories over a garage. So it's not similar. And yes, it is out of character, and it is not compatible. Green space, baloney. And it's not low traffic volume. I take this road every day, and we all take it now to get away from that Bald Eagle Drive and Elkcam Circle corner going south on the island. Golden Pond. That's a great little idea, Golden Pond. The kids play ball out there. My son drowneded (sic). I don't think a pond is a good idea in a neighborhood with a bunch of kids. He sold all the four-plexes, and he built them -- he's the developer -- where all these kids live. And now he wants to put a dangerous pond there. The Jean Sarasin (phonetic) was supposed to be an ACLU. They constantly sent out interest articles and everything. They couldn't get enough interest, so they never built it. Economic effect, yes. My condo -- well, our condos, a whole bunch of those, just face towards that building in both the buildings, and they don't face the other way. So all they would face is the concrete. And it won't be twice as high. It will be three times or six times as high. Please vote no on this ACLU because it -- it is a condominium project and nothing else but. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Dr. Biles and then Ms. Hagerman. MS. BILES: Katie, take your stuff. Take all this stuff, please. I'll get it mixed up. Fay Biles, president of the Marco Island Taxpayers' Association representing almost a thousand members. We're on our way to a thousand. MICA I think has what? Five thousand members. So we represent a great many people on Marco Island. After the planning commission, I did a tremendous amount of research because I knew right then and there that these were condos and they were not ACLF at that time. I called Tallahassee. I've been in touch with the Florida Healthcare Association, the Florida Assisted Living Association, and their advisory committee. I've talked with the people who license these type of facilities. I have stacks of phone calls, faxes, and everything else. I faxed them all the plans that you have in your charts. And if -- Neil, if you would please give these to each one of them, and I'll go over some of the things that I'm talking about. First of all, when I called, I was informed -- first of all, they said, what -- what's -- what -- what are you talking about an ACLF? There is no such animal anymore. That went out in 1995. Florida now complies with all the rest of the states in the United States that have an ALF. And they said don't use that term anymore because it's out. Then I also got on the computer the 1996 act, chapter 400 which you've already had some quotes from. And I gave you the first page of that nine -- 1996 act in which it states the name was changed to ALF in the Florida statute, the chapter 400, assisting living facilities from now on. The legistate -- legislature further recognizes that ALFs should be operated and regulated as residential environs with supportive services and not as -- and so forth. Activities of daily meaning (sic) mean functions, tasks for self care including ambulation, bathing, dressing, eating, grooming, and toileting and other similar tasks. You'll see on there that there is no way that this building that they -- that Dartell Brown wants to build is an ALF. There is just no way. Assistance with activities of daily living means direct physical assistance which means -- the -- the new term they're using is aging in place. I learned a lot. I learned so much I'm ready to open up one of these things. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: As opposed to aging while moving. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. MS. BILES: Meaning the process by which a person chooses to remain in a residential environment. For aging in place to occur, needed services are added, increased, or adjusted to compensate for the physical and mental decline of the individual and maximizing the person's dignity and independence. Now, when Dartell Brown says he wants to sell condos to able bodied 50 year old and above, that means independent living. That is not an ALF. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Dr. Biles? MS. BILES: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If they -- if they -- if their approval here -- if they can't put a shovel in the ground until they convince the state that they are gonna operate in accordance with the current law -- MS. BILES: That's right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- so that they can get a permit. MS. BILES: You're taking my time. Please. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, he'll give you more time since I asked you a question. MS. BILES: Please do. I talked with the people who license these. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh. MS. BILES: They said yes, they cannot build until they get a license, and they should not even be thinking about a license according to when they looked at the plans, they looked at everything. They said there's no way they're gonna get a license. And I -- I hate to tell you what some of them said about what they were trying to pull. Food service, if you'll look at the drawing, I put a drawing in your packet. Look at the one that has the lobby area. You'll see that they have to have food service 24 hours. It has to be private. And by the way, you look in the first page of the act. One of the things they really stress is individuality and privacy. When you come in the front door of a lobby and over here in the corner is this little tiny eating nook like in a condo, a little snack bar or whatever it is or whatever and over here's a little lounge in this public lobby, now, there's no way that that can be private. The kitchen is so small. In fact, I went to somebody who builds kitchens, believe it or not, and I went to plumbers too. They said, oh, that's no more than ten by ten. And by the time you get your cabinets, your stove, your refrigerator, not even an elf would fit in there let alone it's not an ALF. So -- and they also have to have provided for storage, preparation, serving, and cleaning up food. There is no way that that kitchen can do that. A licensed dietician to plan approved meals must be on the staff, by the way. So the kitchen is not large enough for that -- for a size of an ALF. There's no adequate dining area as I just told you. It's a small, tiny area and a public lobby. That is not a dining room. Leaving the front hall are steps. I did not see any ramps. I'm sure there are elevators. There must be. But going up the steps, they have to go back -- back and forth. Laundry -- these are all in the act, by the way. And I have the act with me. If any of you would like to see it, I'd -- oh, sugar. Here's the 1995. Here's the 1996 act. And I can show it to you where all of these things are listed, the laundry -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman, would you give Dr. Biles a few more minutes since I -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, I don't know about minutes. You took a few -- a little bit. We'll give her a little bit. I don't know about minutes. MS. BILES: All right. Laundry facilities, it's necessary to provide and maintain clean linens, clothing. There's no space identified as a laundry. The medications that they have to have help with, independent living. They have to have some kind of a place where -- where there's a clinic or whatever. If you look at the page where I have -- I've talked with -- we've talked with every single one of the ALFs in Collier County, every single one of them. And they all said the same thing. No more than one or two stories. It's very difficult for five, six stories to evacuate in case of a fire or a flood or, you know, hurricane or whatever. No stoves, no ovens, absolute no cooking. And so when you have one, two, three, four apartments with big kitchens in them, that doesn't sound like an ALF to me. So I still maintain that these are condos. They are not ALFs and they will not be licensed. Thank you for the extra time. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Hagerman. MS. HAGERHAN: Hi. My name is Teena Hagerman. I own the only assisted living facilities on Marco. I could say a lot of these people behind me, their information is wrong. What I think they need to do is they need to either go to some assisted living facilities and talk to people. They need to read the rule. The rule is our Bible. That's what I live by. This isn't assisted living. This is what I'm going to do for your mother when you come and live with me. This is what Jean Sarasin and the hospital's going to do for your mother when they come and live with them. We're not afraid to say what it's gonna cost. Jean Sarasin's not afraid to say what it's gonna cost. We don't know -- when I looked at this building -- they asked me to look at this building -- I said, wow, there's something wrong here. Dartell in his own -- in his own words in his own writing, he says he plans in his plans -- you're going to hear this over and over again -- to build condos for able-bodied adults. Webster describes able bodied as having a strong, sound body -- I'm nervous -- having strengths sufficient at -- for -- sufficient for work. Why in the world would anybody that's able bodied want to live in assisted living? No, they don't want to until their time is right. Let's see. Where am I here? ADLs, we do ADLs for our people every day. We supervise their medication. That's very important. We help them dress when they need it. Whatever they need we supply. Hey, if they're lonely, that's okay because we have a nice little activity room. We're gonna sit and watch TV together. We're not going to be staring at four walls. I don't know why in God's name some little confused lady's going to want a three-bedroom condo much less buy the damn thing. Excuse my whatchamacallit. Anyway, restroom reminders, general help with ADLs means "are you gonna wash your face, Hiss Johnson? Hake sure you brush your teeth, Hiss Johnson." The building, let's go into the building. I just want to know what he's gonna do. You know, he doesn't really have to tell us. But, you know, you're talking about people's lives. I wanna know. It's my business. I wanna know. The building, when I looked at it, they have full kitchens. There's not one ACLF in this -- Collier County that has kitchens that allows people to -- to cook. It's very dangerous. No central laundry room. What are they gonna do? How are they gonna wash their clothes and their sheets? I guess they're gonna -- they want them to do that stuff for themselves. Kitchen, of course, is too small, way too small. The dining area is -- like I said, come through the front door. There it is. I'm sure they're gonna come out here and say -- correct everything we've said. But the thing is we want proof. You tell us. You show us. They're not going to be able to do it because they're wrong in a lot of stuff they've already said. Where am I? They're required to have ten -- ten hours of activities, bingo, exercise. I don't know where they're gonna do it. I don't know. There's not enough common area. You got five stories. There's nowhere for these people to congregate in a -- in a area to say, hi; hi, Mary; hi, Joan; how are you? They all gotta go down to the first floor. There's no patio. My grandma wants to go and take a walk outside. She's going to take a walk out that door, and she's going to walk on asphalt. That's all there is out there, asphalt. Green space? No, it's asphalt. It's a gigantic parking lot. I want to go into -- learn more about assisted living. Dartell Brown needs to learn more about assisted living. Go back to the drawing board because that building is unsafe. It's not -- this is not an assisted living facility. You can see it. Go to Buena Vida. Go anywhere else. Go to Summer House, built in 1996. I'm telling you this is wrong. One-story Summer House has 120 units, one story. Not only is this a scary building for an ACLF, but I'm scared for the people that have to live around it. For God's sakes, I mean, this thing looks like a hotel. All righty then. Activity rooms they don't have. They need more common space. This isn't going to get licensed the way it is. I'll tell you that right now because I know. It's not going to get licensed the way it is. You cannot get your license unless that building's built. You cannot get a license for an ALF unless that building is built because what are they gonna survey? Dirt? They're gonna -- they may look at the building plans, but that's all these guys' problem. The fire department's not going to go in there. They're gonna look, but then they're gonna go in there after it's built and, you know, do all their surveying. And the state's going to survey after the building's built. This is not an assisted living. We want more proof. If they don't know what they are doing now and they gotta take all my information what I'm telling you, then they should have already done it, and we want to know more. We want to know more information. Building's too big. Cut it down. Doesn't need to be that big. He needs to know what assisted living is. This lady right here, Barbara Crowley (sic), she's got her information wrong. She doesn't know what assisted living is. You need to go by the rule. That's our Bible. That's all I have to say. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Did you say all that with one breath? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Probably -- probably get more in if you speak a little bit faster. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But would it be intelligible? MR. SAADEH: Steve Hagerman next followed by Evangeline Hotella. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many more speakers do we have, Mr. Saadeh? CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: How many more after that? MR. SAADEH: None after that. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. MR. HAGERHAN: My name is Steve Hagerman. I'm Teena's husband. I don't think I can follow that. And yes, that was one breath. First thing that I want to say is kind of reiterate what Teena just said about being licensed. You have to -- they have to have the physical building before they can come out and give you a license. You can't say that I will get a license, you know, that the state will give me a license and then build the building. It doesn't work that way. They have to physically come out, look at every bedroom, every bathroom, kitchen, everything before you can get a license. As far as -- as I looked at Mr. Brown's plan there, one thing that he says is that there's a need for an ALF on Marco. And I agree. There is. We have 12 beds right now. And, you know, the phone is ringing off the hook because people have this need. However, the kind of need -- people that have this need aren't able bodied. And the majority, most people need some kind of assistance. The way that he describes people that will, you know, will be moving in as able bodied, you know, it's not going to meet the need of those who really need to be in an assisted living environment. He also mentions that it's going to be for 55 and over. So does that mean if a Marco resident who's 50 years old has a stroke, has a need now for an assisted living environment, does that mean that they cannot go there, that they are going to go -- have to go off the island which is one of the reasons why he says he wants this here on Marco because people have to go off the island. Well, by putting an age limit on it, you know, that's -- that's not being fair. I guess from what everybody else has said -- well, let's get to the oven and stove issues, the kitchen issue. There is not one ALF in Collier County that has stoves or ovens in the units. It's just very unsafe. One of the reasons -- one of the common reasons that people move into an ALF is short-term memory loss. And to have -- have something that has a stove in a unit where somebody ten seconds ago doesn't realize that they turned it on, it's a hazard. It's a very dangerous situation not only for the resident but for the others in the building. So, you know, if nobody has put ovens and stoves in, there's a good reason for that. After looking at the overall plans, you know, I have to look at what the true intention is as well. Is he calling this an ALF to -- to tug at your heart strings so you can -- you know, yes, there's a need for it, you know, let's go for this? Is he using that terminology for that reason? And -- and by using that terminology, he can build 60 units as opposed to the -- the 24 which it's zoned for. I -- you know, that's what I believe. I guess you have to decide if -- really if he's trying to use the letters ALF in an effort to obtain more m-o-n-e-y. That's basically how I see it. And please remember as one wise man or perhaps not so wise man once said, if it doesn't fit, you must acquit. Thank you. MR. SAADEH: Evangeline Horella is the last speaker. MS. HORELLA: Good afternoon. My name is Evangeline Hotella. I'm not here as an expert on anything. But the only thing is that I live right across the street from where those -- that building's going to be on a one story. I guess when we first moved in in Marco, we're so happy to have the sun, you know, and naturally the sky. You go outside. You see the sky. Now what do we see when this building is there? The great -- it's like living behind the great walls of China. It's no more Marco for me. It's China. See the big stucco wall. And, you know, that's about it. So I wish you people vote for the six story high for the no, I mean, a little lower, please, a little lower. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Was that the last speaker? MR. SAADEH: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that was the last speaker. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Does the petitioner have any very last quick comments to go on the record before we close the public hearing? MR. PIRES: Initially if I could -- I didn't see the handout Mrs. Biles had, so I'm not sure what the contents of that was, whether it's actual correspondence from agencies or what that might be. We weren't favored with a copy of that. As to the height issue -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You can have it. MR. PIRES: Pardon? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I -- I have a question too about whether or not you can get an A -- ALF license prior to construction. MR. PIRES: Thank you. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You guys can be looking that up. MR. PIRES: I had understood from Miss Biles that there was correspondence faxed back, and there's nothing there indicating that an agency has reviewed the plans and said they would not allow them or approve them. That's something I think that's speculative. That's something for that agency that -- once again, these 35 pages of rules from the Department of Elderly Affairs, it addresses this issue. I'd like to make it part of the record. That's what will be looked at in the application process and as well as a copy of the statute. There's 26 pages of that which the state will review those. And I'll step back for a second. MR. HULHERE: To answer your question, Commissioner Hac'Kie, it doesn't specifically say in here that they can be licensed prior to construction. It does say that they are required to furnish proof that the facility has received a satisfactory fire safety inspection. I would presume that means after construction. We -- we were -- staff is aware of that. Our recommendation would be that two things occur. It also says that no county or municipality shall issue an occupational license which is being obtained for the purpose of operating a facility unless proof is shown that there exists a license from the state Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. My suggestion is two things: One, that they submit construction and building plans to the state and get at least a preliminary letter that those plans meet their requirements. And the second thing is, of course, that they submit -- I mean -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That our approval be contingent on their -- MR. HULHERE: Upon their ultimately receiving a license. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- getting a license. MR. HULHERE: Right. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If they can't get a license, the approval is voided. That's -- I'll tell you right now that's what I'm going to be supporting. MR. PIRES: We have no problem with those stipulations and, as articulated by Mr. Hulhere, additional stipulation about getting the preliminary approval from the state as to the detailed construction plans. Couple of just real brief comments as to the height issue, there -- the idea of the 50 feet was to achieve greater setbacks and -- required under the LDC. The LDC requires basically 30-foot setbacks, 50 foot height. Well, you can achieve a 50-foot setback providing greating -- greater open space. If that becomes an issue, the building gets spread out. We get closer to the property lines. If that's what the neighbors want to have happen, that's something that we're, you know, agreeable and amenable to that -- to that elimination of that additional open space if they want to have a lower building. I find interesting the comments made by those who are in competition. They say they welcome competition, but I question the motives with regards to the presentation. And they are not plan reviewers for the state of Florida. And once again, they're -- they're talking inconsistently during the presentations. And the state knows what an ALF is. The state knows what an ACLF is. That's what these rules and regulations are for. They're the ultimate arbiters of that. And we ask your approval with the stipulations that we've agreed upon with regards to the approval from the state, licensing from the state, and the reduced height. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: That does it? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I've got a question for staff because right now I'm confused about ALF, ACLF, and so forth. I think I've been to an ACLF, and it's called Bentley Village. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: ALF. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't care; okay? It's adults __ MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Adult care facility. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Older adults, assisted living, people watching over them. Is Bentley Village, all of it, even the three-story condos, quote, unquote, behind the main building, is that still -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I believe the entire thing's an A -- A __ COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is that -- is that considered an ALF? MR. HULHERE: As we understand it, Bentley Village encompasses multiple facets of assisted living. It is a full care facility for -- for individuals who need total assisted care -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Right. MR. HULHERE: -- and for individuals who need lesser care. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Right. MR. HULHERE: So that encompasses all of it. The proposal here would be for, you know, an assisted living facility to go from limited or little care and, as Dr. Biles read from the state statutes, as more care is needed then the -- the -- the license holder has to provide that additional care to meet the needs of the residents. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And at -- and at Bentley Village as -- as the person matures and gets older and become more and more frail, there -- there are stepping -- MR. HULHERE: It goes into actually -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- stepping stones. MR. HULHERE: -- a home for the aged and -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes. MR. HULHERE: -- an elderly home, correct. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: In fairness, we don't. They're the petitioner. You're a public speaker. There is a distinction. In fairness, we don't allow people to do that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I came into this public hearing anticipating compatibility issues, anticipating heighth and setback and open space and that that would be what we're looking at. What has -- I have raised as a concern -- and I mentioned it earlier -- is that an ACLF receives additional density for the sole purpose that to not provide at that density, generally an ACF -- ACLF facility has smaller units because there's more general space required for the services that are provided such as a dining area, such as therapy and nursing stations and all these other things. And I don't know. Maybe you can tell me that these aren't yours. But I have two architectural footprints here. One is the first floor level, and I -- these were provided by Miss Biles I believe. And one is, I assume, the consecutive stories above them. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We have them in our package. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are they in our packet? Okay. I just -- and I look in this, and there's not a lot of common area versus rooming area. What we have is someone who is 56 years old and doesn't require any assistance whatsoever can come into this unit, be completely self sufficient. And, you know, I just fear that what we are doing here is approving something that we can end up with 60 units of people that are completely self sufficient that all have cars and in essence are providing similar impacts to the adjoining communities that a 60-unit condominium would. And the reason I base that -- and the reason for that concern is I look at your floor print, your footprints of these buildings, and I don't see space dedicated to the assisted living quality that is the hook to get those additional units. It's not in front of me. So, you know, I could very well be approving a 60-unit condominium. And once you build the building and the state says you do or don't get your certificate, it's too late. The building's up. Off you go. MS. CAWLEY: The -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So that -- that concern, difficult to overcome unless these footprints are totally wrong. MS. CAWLEY: In order to comply with the stipulations that we've agreed to, we -- we may have to modify that. Again, this is a -- this is a conceptual drawing, so that may need to be modified as we go through the state permitting process. In order to qualify for an AC -- an ALF, the -- the rule is very specific about the kind of individuals that can live there. We just can't let a fully -- you know, a 55-year-old accountant live in the -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm not quite 55. MS. CAWLEY: -- ACLF. Not yet. But we -- we couldn't just let a 55-year-old planner live there, you know. I would have to have some -- something that would qualify me to allow me to live there. I would have to meet the -- gosh, they've got all the way to M, L -- A through M, requirements that -- that I would have to meet in order to qualify to live in this facility that -- otherwise you lose your licensure with the state of Florida if you're -- if you're violating your -- your license. You can't -- you can't just let anyone live there. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: You know, we've -- we've had extended discussions on whether they can or can't get a state license. And nobody in this room's qualified to answer the question, so why don't we move along. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've got one question, though, based on the state license. If you lose your license or if you can't get your license and the building's already built, what happens? MS. CAWLEY: Well, obviously then the bank is going to be very upset with you for having -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And what is the bank going to do with that building? MS. CAWLEY: They could foreclose it and open it up as an ACLF. That's all they could use it for. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's all they could do. MS. CAWLEY: It's zoned as an ACLF, and that would be all that it could be used for without -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If they use it for something else, we need to send our code enforcement officers out there to slap some fines on them because if we approve it as an ACLF and it gets used as something else -- MS. CAWLEY: We're violating our -- COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's why I'm confused. MS. CAWLEY: Violating our -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But it's built and the impacts are there, and we can fine till the cows come home, but it's still there having the impacts on all the properties around. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Wait a minute. Isn't this a conditional use? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: This is a conditional use. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And if you stop using it for its intended purpose for a period of time, you lose the conditional use. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: You lose the conditional use status. They may be able to modify the building to make it like 24 units and comply with today's code for a condominium if '- MS. CAWLEY: We would have to go down to the units that would be allowed. We couldn't just do it at 60 units. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, I understand. MS. CAWLEY: But we could -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just make sure I understand a question for our staff. Hake sure I understand this. The -- the only way in which the -- what amount to density bonuses come about is by it being ACLF. So if it doesn't appear to me to be an ACLF, I can't in good conscience grant the density. I mean, the two go hand in hand. I'm uncomfortable with the conditional use for that purpose because it doesn't appear that's what's planned here and MS. CAWLEY: It -- you know, I -- you know, I wouldn't stand up and -- and -- and tell you that something is going to be used for something if it was not going to be used for something. I mean, I -- I think that that would be a violation of my ethical standards as a planner. You know, I think that would be -- that would be absolutely wrong. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we've also had -- you know, and I -- I don't have a vested interest in this. My vested interest is concern that the board's going to go into some dangerous waters if we turn down a conditional use application for reasons that aren't legal and -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, we'll think of some reasons that are legal then. Thank you for that legal advice. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're welcome, but I'd like to finish what I had to say. My God, Mr. Norris. I've had it pointed out to me lately that Mr. Norris doesn't have the greatest deal of respect for what I have to say. And I said, no, that can't be true. I think that he's just as polite as he could possibly be. But that time it kind of got my attention. I'd like to finish what I had to say, although it's hard to remember. I think that we have to be careful when we disapprove a conditional use that we apply the criteria that we've adopted as a board. And I'm concerned that we're getting into the state's jurisdiction. If we approve this conditioned on it getting approval by the state as an ALF or whatever the -- the moniker is these days and they cannot operate it at this density for anything other than an ALF, I'm concerned that there may not be a good reason to turn it down. And I'm finished now. MS. CAWLEY: Could I ask -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Do you have anything that you want to put on the record? MS. CAWLEY: I do have a question for you. If you're concerned about the density, I was wondering what density you think is an appropriate density for this particular piece of property. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, that's not for us to decide. That's for you to decide and bring it forward to us. But what -- are -- is there anything else you need to put on the record before we close the public hearing? MS. CAWLEY: Well, basically the -- the answer to Mr. Hancock's question in terms of how this will be used and -- and how it has to be used in terms of open space and open areas and common areas and that type of thing, if that is a requirement under the state rules and regulations, it will be modified to fit those requirements. And it's intended to -- to be attractive for people to live in. And if it's not some -- if it's not attractive in that -- in that small diagram that you have, then it would be modified to become attractive for those -- the type of clientele that -- that we're looking for for this particular unit. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand your -- I understand your position, but if we're going to award -- and I say award but if we're going to grant or fezone what results in 26 units per acre in density which is the peak -- it's the highest; you can't ask for anything higher -- I have to see that that facility is planned in such a way that it's not going to have an impact of 26 units per acre, that its impact is going to be considerably less. And what has been presented both verbally and in plans as a part of our package today does not show a high degree of -- of what I would consider assisted living being provided here. It shows a high degree of individual decisions and individual living. And to award the highest density possible under ACLF to something that has a high degree of individual look to it '- MS. CAWLEY: Would -- would you be able to put a stipulation in where you're looking for additional percentage of open space and -- and activities and, you know -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Doesn't change '- MS. CAWLEY: What I'm looking for here is not a denial of this petition. I think that -- I don't think that you're concerned about if it's an ACLF use. What you're concerned about is how it's designed. And -- and if we can make the design fit your concern, that's what we're willing to do. I mean, we're not -- we're not look -- we would rather not have a denial. We'd like to be able to work with you in terms of what kind of design you're looking for. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, I'm not comfortable telling you how to design it. What I'm saying is you've asked for 26 units an acre as an ACLF. Yet this is not a high degree of assisted living. This is a high degree of independent living. The two don't jibe. If you're asking for 16 units an acre with some independence and some assisted living, now we're in a mixture. That's not being presented. It's the highest degree with the lowest assistance. You're at both ends of the spectrum based on the information we've seen and '- MS. CAWLEY: According -- according to the way the rule is written, they do jibe because the assisted living facilities do allow apartment units, and they do allow for much independent living. You know, don't think -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Hiss Cawley, could we close the public hearing, please? MS. CAWLEY: Well, I'm answering Commissioner Hancock's CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Please do so and then let's MS. CAWLEY: -- concern -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: -- close the public hearing. MS. CAWLEY: -- if I may finish my thought. But there -- what's happened is is we have so many different types of assisted living facilities. The type that you're focusing on is the more extended care facilities, the -- the real congregate facilities for extended care with nursing and that type of thing. Think of this as sort of the first stage in that where you don't have the -- the nursing -- the constant nursing facilities and that type of thing. This is more of a retirement facility for people who are -- are older and need some assistance in their lives. So there -- it's -- the state differentiates it. If you look at the way the state statute is -- is actually labeled here, you've got everything from nursing homes, assisted living facilities, adult day cares, adult family home care, intermediate services. So it's -- there's a -- there's a gradation in the types of facilities that the state permits for these -- these types of facilities, and this will be the -- the least of those types of facilities. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I'm sorry. I won't hold this up any longer. The problem is you're at this end of the gradation for assistance and at this end of the gradation for density under our local comp. plan. And I can't reconcile the two, and that's where I'm having my problem. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Anything further? Then I'll close the public hearing. I'd like to put on the record reminding that because of the character of the neighborhood that this location is in the low density residential and low heighth residential that -- that this -- this amount of density and this usage in that established residential neighborhood is incompatible. Do you have any others? MS. STUDENT: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I'd just very quickly like to reiterate for the record that the board is constrained by the four criteria that you find in your staff report appended to the executive summary that are found in the code. One of those is compatibility. Another's consistency with the LDC and the comp. plan. Another is the ingress and egress to property. And it's -- it's all there in -- in the staff analysis. And -- and the board is constrained by those four criteria in making its determination. So depending upon what that determination might be, there needs to be findings made in the record based upon the competent substantial evidence presented here today as to any one of those criteria. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you for that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hiss Student, may I ask does our LDC allow under ACLF up to 26 units per acre? Is that how it's worded? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It's at a maximum of 26. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: A maximum of, so it's a range up to 26 units per acre. I think in addition to those findings -- and it's part of the problem I measured -- is that if we're going to grant the high end of -- of ACLF zoning, it should be -- have a resultant mitigation of impact meaning individuals that don't go outside the unit as much as those who are more independent. And I think what we're being asked to look at here is the highest possible request under ACLF for a very low level of assistance being provided. And the two don't measure equally, and I think the impacts upon the surrounding neighborhood exceed what the intent of the ACLF zoning is -- is -- is targeting. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I concur. I won't repeat what you said because I think you've said it very clearly. It's -- the intent is -- is not being met here. The intent having up to 26 is exactly as you all -- and I won't repeat it and waste time. The only other thing, I think the compatibility issues are -- are valid. And I think going hand in hand with what Commissioner Hancock said, we have increased impacts on the area. And thus, I mean, we get into comp. plan issues so -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I -- I would like to also put on the record that there -- that there is a finding that due to the higher density allowed, this use will generate higher amount of traffic than a condominium building with a lower maximum density. And that was one of the points in the staff analysis. I'll use that as a finding. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And with all those findings in place, I'd like to make a motion that we deny the petition. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second the motion. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for denial. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? That denial is -- is approved four to one. Item #13A2 RESOLUTION 96-305, RE PETITION V-96-9, STATION MOBILE HOME SALES, INC., REPRESENTING MARIA SILVER REQUESTING AN 8.95 FOOT AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 25 FEET TO 16.05 FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF KATHY LANE ON LOT 11 - ADOPTED Our next item is 13(A)(2) petition V-96-9, variance after the fact. Uh-oh. MR. MULHERE: This is a sign variance. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. MR. SAADEH: No, no, not yet. MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: This is 96-9. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, planning services staff presenting petition V-96-9 Staton (sic) Mobile Home Sales Incorporated representing Maria Silva (sic) requesting an 8.95-foot after-the-fact variance from the required front yard setback of 25 feet. Petitioner states that the encroachment resulted from a misinterpretation of the legal description indicating the lot was 135 feet long or deep. When the mobile home was placed on site, it was determined that the canal was in the back yard. The building permit submitted did not show the canal. So the mobile home was placed further up front resulting in the 8.95-foot encroachment. It's staff's determination that the location of the canal represents a natural condition that is not caused by the applicant. Therefore, the literal -- literal interpretation of the code results in a hardship on the applicant by requiring removal of the mobile home. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Any public speakers on this one? MR. SAADEH: No, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Any questions for Mr. Bellows? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do we have any letters of opposition to this? MR. BELLOWS: No letters. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, motion to approve petition V-96-9. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Motion and a second for approval. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #13A3 PETITION SV-96-1, HASSAN SHARIAT REPRESENTING ALA FALASIRI, REQUESTING AND AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE TO ALLOW MORE THAN THE ONE PERMITTED WALL SIGN FOR PROPERTY AT 4412 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH ("SHIRAZ") - WITHDRAWN BY PETITIONER Our next item's 13(A)(3), petition SV-96-1, sign variance. MR. SAADEH: Mr. Chairman, our office have received a letter on this particular petition asking for the withdrawal of this petition pending that we'll allow them 90 days to remove the sign, and the problem is solved and -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me ask Mr. Saadeh, does that mean the removal of the pole sign and two building signs, that these are only -- that he only has one permitted sign left? MR. SAADEH: That is correct. The removal of the sign that would make it inconsistent, and that would require this variance. They are willing to remove it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because I read the staff report. His pole sign is inconsistent; is that correct? He only has 50 feet of frontage, and you have to have 150 feet to have a pole sign. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They're withdrawing the item. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, they're withdrawing the item. MR. SAADEH: My understanding is it's a big sign. I believe it is the pole sign. It's all marble. That's the one that's inconsistent, and they're willing to take it down if we allow them 90 days. And we will do so, and that will bring it to consistent. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Let me ask a staff member, though, because there's other signs involved here. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. As I read it, there were signs on the building, and there was a pole sign, and you're only allowed to have, as I read it, one sign totaling 250 square feet. And you have to have 150 feet of frontage to have a pole sign. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the -- the direction that we want to give, it sounds like, is that this property only be allowed to have the minimum signs permitted by law by our code and that all others be removed. I'll give them 90 days. MR. HULHERE: This is the -- MR. SAADEH: Mr. -- Mr. Hulhere, if you can go over which sign they'll be removing, that would help the board. MR. HULHERE: There's -- there are multiple. There are three or four signs that need to be removed: One pole sign and two wall signs. There are a total of three wall signs. They'll be removing two of those, and I believe there's also one ground sign, if I'm not mistaken, on the property. They'll be brought into compliance. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. You answered my question. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Fine. Then that has been withdrawn. We'll skip that item and move to -- let's see, what's next? Item #13A7 RESOLUTION 96-306 RE PETITION NUA-96-1, PAT HORGAN REQUESTING A NON-CONFORMING USE ALTERATION IN ORDER TO ENABLE UNIT OWNERS TO REPLACE EXISTING RV UNITS AS NEEDED FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HANATEE ROAD AND SOUTH OF HENDERSON CREEK - ADOPTED COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Final item. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: 13(A)(7), petition NUA-96-1. MR. BELLOWS: Again, for the record, Ray Bellows of planning services presenting petition NUA-96-1, Pat Horan -- Horgan requesting nonconforming use alteration in order to enable unit owners to replace existing units as needed. Since mobile -- since most of the setbacks or distance between structures are -- are nonconforming in this development, the petitioner's requesting to reduce the required distance between the structures from 16 feet to 10 feet. It should be noted that section 10 -- or 1.8.10.4 of the Collier County Land Development Code requires approval of nonconforming use alteration by the Florida Zoning Appeals prior to new alteration. Basically this gives the unit owners of Enchanting Shores ability to replace their mobile home units with a ten-foot distance between structure which meets fire code. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Are we changing any numbers of units? MR. BELLOWS: No. Density will remain the same. All other setbacks will remain the same. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: What we're trying to do is upgrade the -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. Basically the larger units come in, and they can't fit. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Do we have any public speakers on this item? MR. SAADEH: No, Mr. Chairman, no public speakers. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Actually -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Are you a public speaker? HALE VOICE: I'm resident -- we're residents of Enchanting Shores. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Did you wish to speak? MR. SAADEH: I'll qualify it. No registered public speakers. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: No registered public speakers. Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It -- it - it sounds like these are all internal, and there don't seem to be external impacts. I think it's a situation of old regulations catching up with you when you try and put something new on it. So unless there's an objection on the board, I'm going to move -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll move approval -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- of petition NUA-96-1. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Just to make sure, this is -- this is -- what our intent here to do is to -- to pull out all the old units. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. Case-by-case basis as needed where a new park model is required which is a little bit longer and won't meet the 16 feet, this will give them the ability to put that in and meet the 10-feet setback. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: All right. We have a motion and a second for approval then. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? That's all. Commissioner Matthews, anything further? Item #14 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COMMUNICATIONS COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. I just had one -- one item that during our break I will be talking with the mayor in Everglades City and hope to have a proposal for the board dealing with some county-owned property and hopefully some mowing that needs to be consistently done in the area. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Commissioner Hancock? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: No way. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, sir. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have nothing, Your Honor. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Saadeh? MR. SAADEH: No, sir. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: I am prepared to respond to the board question from the budget meeting yesterday concerning development services if you'd like. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I can't quite here you, Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: I say I'm -- pardon me. I'm prepared to respond to your question you directed me to be prepared to respond concerning development services and permit fees today I think at this point if you'd like. And I'm also prepared to respond to Commissioner Constantine's question. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Rock on. MR. WEIGEL: I'll go forward. Yesterday the board wished to consider or potentially consider an increase in development services permit fees to pay toward long range planning and some of the other perhaps environmental and development-related departments including growth management efforts, the EAR, the local planning agency which would be our planning commission and possibly county attorney assistance as indirect charge in there I might add. These costs that currently require ad valorem funding -- and the amount I do not have with me but others so charge can tell you -- the idea being that is there a potential for reduction in the ad valorem funding of some of the development services operations by increase or substitution of permit fees. My answer yesterday was qualifiably but it was a yes. And -- and to expand on that a little bit, Commissioner Hancock asked two questions. He asked one question with two parts. Can development services reserve funds -- I hope I'm correct in my nomenclature -- i.e., generated from past permit fees paid be used to pay toward development services and operational expenses such -- some of which I just mentioned for this next fiscal year? And then the second part of the question was and paid back by revised higher permit fees to be set by the board. The answer to the first question, can development services reserve funds or, again, funds that have been previously collected be used to pay toward development services operational expenses, the answer is yes. But it's yes provided that we do show -- and I think we can -- that there is a nexus for some of the long range planning and other efforts in departments that are related to the kinds of reviews that -- that staff does in the permitting process. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, that was -- that was my question -- MR. WEIGEL: Pardon me. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: -- just for the record. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It was the brilliant commissioner. Get that right. MR. WEIGEL: I'm sorry. And -- and -- and so the answer is -- the answer -- the answer is yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. One of them. MR. WEIGEL: The answer is yes. I expect the next question, well, how much? And I would suggest that I think that even internally given a little bit of time, some fact finding could indicate that there is a nexus for a modest percentage of the ad valorem requirements currently for development services funding a modest percentage. Again, just to hazard a figure, perhaps 20 percent. But again, I'm just kind of doing the best I can in a quick review process. Conceivably those ad valorem costs might be rather easily imputed into the permit fee nexus relationship that's required. There may be a possibility for costs beyond that, but that type -- that type of determination may require a consultant, an expert qualified in the field to come up with those kinds of figures so that we would have a defensible establishment of permit fees in case it were to be challenged later on. But I am confident that there is a relationship for fees to actually encompass some of the expenditures which are ad valorem right now in development services. Now, the second part of the wonderful question was can they be paid back by revised higher permit fees at some time in the future. And my response would be no. And why I say that is that if you're paying it from reserve funds, I don't know where the new permit fees revenues would go but probably in ostensibly the same fund or -- but fees are charged not to pay back things, but they're charged for the -- and must have relevance to the services that are being provided at that time. But in the sense that the fees that are charged in the future are being used for the same thing that reserves would be essentially used for now, I don't think that you'd be in a payback situation in the future, and you couldn't craft a fee to do that. But I guess it's all coming out of the same pot anyway. The other thing is is that I think our fees have -- historically had shown a little bit of a cushion or contingency which is a wise thing to do both legally and operationally, and it was with that in mind last year that it was determined in November that the fees were a little high based on the particular services that were allocated to them, and they were reduced by 15 percent. So you can have a cushion in the fee, and that's what there typically is in all fees. It's just a tiny bit of cushion. But you're not supposed to make a profit. You're not supposed to make money. You have to be able to allocate or at least -- at least have a good faith effort of allocation for the basis of the fees in the first place. Yes and no. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So my question for Mr. Smykowski is assuming -- and I know we're just playing with numbers, and I know Mr. Weigel gave us adequate warning his 20 percent was just an assuming. But for example purposes, is the 20 percent of the million dollars, or is the 20 percent of the $288,000? CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Gotcha that time, huh, Mr. Smykowski? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Finally I asked him a question he didn't get. Whoever has it. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Cautero has an answer for us. MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero. I think it's of the million dollars that you spoke of -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes. MR. CAUTERO: -- that went towards other functions in the community development division that were not funded by grants or permit fees. Comprehensive planning is a piece of that, and that is the $288,000 answering Mrs. Matthews' question from last Wednesday. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, under careful review and study of the development services department, my personal opinion is that -- that you could make a rational case that approximately 50 percent of those services are inherent because of servicing new development. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I agree. MR. CAUTERO: I think you could probably do more than that. And to respond to your question that you asked me yesterday to be prepared to come back with information today, I would like to study this further, and I strongly recommend the board do that. However -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: But let me ask a quick question before we go too much further. Mr. Smykowski, what we're trying to do is to arrive at a figure here that we can roll into our budget discussion which we were trying to wrap up yesterday and get it in before we go to trim. Can we do that? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And it's somewhere between two hundred and five hundred thousand dollars. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, no, it may be more than that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: May be more. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm hearing -- I'm hearing seven -- seven twelve, seven ten. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's -- maybe Mr. Cautero can answer that by finishing his statement. I think he was getting there. MR. CAUTERO: Yeah, just two things real quickly. There are four areas that I don't think would be able to be wrapped into this, and the others are possibilities: Hanatee protection, turtle monitoring, hazardous waste management, and technical support to OCPH by natural resources. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What -- MR. CAUTERO: I think under the most -- I'm sorry, ma'am. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What was the last one? Technical support -- MR. CAUTERO: To OCPH from natural resources. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that's -- that's fee'd out anyway, isn't it, through OCPH? MR. CAUTERO: Right. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. CAUTERO: They pay that back to natural resources. Actually they pay it back to the county. It's paid from one accounting to another. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: And turtle monitoring is covered under the tourist tax, is it not? MR. CAUTERO: Yes, it is. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. MR. CAUTERO: In order to raise fees for development review applications and/or building permit applications to fund the other portions of community development division which we have heard since -- we've talked about for a couple of days last week, I really believe it is in our best interest and I believe it's -- it's mandated by the ordinance to bring it back to the development services advisory committee, and they're probably going to want to discuss it at great length and come up with -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And lynch me. MR. CAUTERO: -- a yes-or-no recommendation; if it's yes, how much that fee should be because it's not -- in my opinion based on what I know and what I've seen and how we operate over the past year, it is not just the 15 percent back to where it was last year. It's gonna be more than that. And I would venture to say a rough guess, it's gonna be at least another 20 to 30 percent beyond that in raising it to fund all of community development that can possibly be funded by user fees. And I believe that was your original question -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That was my charge. MR. CAUTERO: -- Commissioner Hac'Kie. So that's -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The question then becomes how do we come up with a reasonable estimate in time for trim notices, and maybe you're saying we can't. MR. CAUTERO: The date again on that before I answer? MR. SHYKOWSKI: For the record, Michael Smykowski, budget director. Trim notices, to answer Commissioner Matthews' question yesterday, officially the property appraiser has 55 days from July 1 which is the date of official certification that is used in the trim, so the typical date trim notices go out is August 24. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: When do we set the final millage and the -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: We have 35 days I believe within -- of July 1. We're planning on doing it at this point on your meeting of July the 23rd I believe it is. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And -- and we certify the roll when? The same time? MR. SHYKOWSKI: No. Actually, yeah, the property appraiser has until July 1. He has -- he has already certified the roll. So we have the final figures from the property appraiser at this point in time. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: So understanding what we're trying to do here and get this in before we set the final millage, can we do it okay? Well, and I might suggest that here's what we do: That we take our best estimate with -- with what we have to deal with today, use that figure for now, then have the citizens' advisory committee or whoever else needs to look at this look at it and make adjustments for the following year, this year go ahead and -- and set it through the board because we really don't have time to go through the committees. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, and that's our right to do in -- in -- in the budget process. And then, you know, we -- we decide on what the revenues and what the -- what the millage will be and then -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I think realistically what we're trying to do is set the amount we think it's going to generate in revenue in there. Now, if we're off a little bit, we get five point whatever million in reserves -- and last year, great example, beaches, we estimated 938,000. It brought in 450 or whatever it brought in. That money was made up somewhere. I assume that's out of reserves. And so if we overestimate or underestimate, that's fine. But we need to have a number to plug into the budget process. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Just for purposes of clarification, much of the long range planning section that is currently funded by ad valorem taxes is actually in the unincorporated area. It is not in the general fund. Obviously, though, for the tax that would still affect the majority of the taxpayers -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Property tax. MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- in this -- in this county, but it is not in the general fund. I just want you all to be clear of that. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: That's fine. We understand that. And it's -- MR. WEIGEL: You know, it would appear that one of the charges that we, staff, I guess collectively have to do is, you know, I glanced through the fees that were on that resolution that was adopted by the board back in November, and those fees vary from like $25 for some things to $750 for other fees. And so we will have to again find this nexus, this relationship. So does a $25 fee go to $26? Does it go to $27? Does a $2,000 fee go to $2,200? And we'll have to be working in these components of who all is providing a service in the long term planning and other types of things that aren't currently done right now. It's -- it's gonna be a difficult process I would suggest. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But that's a separate process from -- from determining what the millage will be on the -- what's that word? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Trim. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- trim notice. Thank you. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I bet we can make a real good guess as to what the revenue should be. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And we may. And I know this isn't -- probably isn't going to be popular, but we may want to base it on nine months of collections instead of a full year to -- to buy a little bit of time to hammer things out because it is going to require an ordinance change before we can begin collecting those fees. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Let me clarify. We're talking about two different things here at the same time. One of them is taking money out of the existing reserves at a ratio that would fund next year's portion of development services budget which can be tied to development process. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: And the second thing is to have the citizens' advisory committee go completely through the fee schedule again and make new recommendations and adjust that for the year following. So we're really talking about two different things, two things at the same time. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But we're still going to have to justify that first year to somebody somewhere somehow. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Cantero's assured us he can do that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So our direction then is just to have a best guess estimate in time for our trim notice. Nobody's arguing with that, and then we need -- obviously we need -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, and, as you said, we need to do that. MR. CAUTERO: Well, why don't we -- why don't I recommend that we -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just got drawn into that conversation. MR. CAUTERO: The comprehensive planning section is a good example. I can -- I can make a very good argument that that is tied to the development review permit functions and perhaps even to building permits, but we'll get into that as we study it. Maybe we should shoot for that amount of money, the 288, rather than a larger number where we're a little unsure. And I think -- I'm not speaking for David or Mike, but I'm uncertain and am a little skeptical as we get into these other areas like pollution control and natural resources. I have less comfort there rather than use all that money for reserves, then try to raise fees, and then have the development service advisory committee standing at the podium one at a time telling you this is a bad idea. I -- I think it might be better to just chew on that a little bit if you're amenable to that. I think we can make a strong case for that now. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I'd like for you to look at that, and that's a very good idea. But I'd also like you to -- to ponder a bit every function that you have out there and -- and -- and bring that to us again too. And I guess we'll see it on the 23rd then? Is that what you're saying? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And if you have a level of comfort with one of those departments that you have with long range planning by that time, then I would be willing to consider that. But again, I -- you know, you've -- you've done a very good job so far on the short order of presenting this. And with more work like that we may find some more out there. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: And we certainly wouldn't want you to rest your judgment on just that one department. If that's it then -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Do you want an update, too, as to where the millage picture is? CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Oh, there's an answer to his question too. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Smykowski. MR. WEIGEL: Why two votes. Ordinances and resolutions don't mix is one answer. We have advertised ordinances and nonadvertised resolutions is another answer as to why -- why vote twice. Sometimes a board member may not vote the same on two items that are being herded through together. We want to always allow that possibility. And the third -- the last one's to avoid lawsuits. Also the public seems to watch real closely on these things. I recall when I was first sitting here for Ken Cuyler several years ago, I got a call on the phone, and it was a person from the public saying, you're not closing the public hearings. And it really scared me because I didn't know if that was really important or not. But I wasn't advising the board at that time to close the public hearings because it was probably the first public hearing I'd ever sat in or something like that. So it's just kind of prudence really more or less so that we never get called to task or placed in the defensive position. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Let me walk you through what you have in front of you. Essentially there are four scenarios. Based on the changes the board has made through the workshops, so far the general fund -- scenario one, the general fund with the new fees, the new fees being the interim service fee and the franchise fee, with those included, ad valorem taxes to balance the general fund are slightly over 64 million. That's a 3.9 percent increase over the rollback rate. The millage rate is 3.5346 so $353.46 per 100,000 of value. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And this does not include the item we just discussed moments ago. So theoretically if you came back with some amount, 500,000 or something of revenue we expected to generate that would offset ad valorem, these percentages would actually go down. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That is correct. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What's the current millage on -- on the general fund? MR. SHYKOWSKI: 3.4889, so three forty-eight eighty-nine, you're looking at at this point an increase of -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Very little, .05. MR. SHYKOWSKI: $4.57 per 100,000 of value at this point. The -- the next three scenarios there are -- vary. Scenario two assumes if you don't have the interim government services fee, the increase over rollback goes to 6.7. If you did not have the franchise fee, you'd be at 10.7 percent over rollback. The general fund with neither the interim service fee or the franchise fee, you'd be at thirteen and a half percent over rollback. So it just kind of gives you the parameters in each of those scenarios where we -- where we would be millage-wise, and the appropriate millage rates are listed on your worksheet as well. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Anything further? MR. DORRILL: See you in July. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. We're adjourned. ***** Commissioner Hancock moved, seconded by Commissioner Matthews and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted: ***** Item #16A1 RESOLUTION 96-294, AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF SWEETWATER BAY II, A REPLAT OF A PORTION OF A PREVIOUSLY RECORDED PLAT KNOWN AS SWEETWATER BAY, AND AUTHORIZING THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF TRACT "S" AND TRACT "T" OF SWEETWATER BAY - SUBJECT TO CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS See Pages Item #16A2 AUTHORIZATION FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "ARIELLE" - SUBJECT TO LETTER OF CREDIT, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS See Pages Item #16A3 ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES FOR ISLAND COVE - SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS Item #16A4 FINAL PLAT OF "VALENCIA AT ORANGETREE" - SUBJECT TO CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS See Pages Item #16A5 RESOLUTION 96-295, AUTHORIZING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IPROVEHENTS IN "CAMBRIDGE AT PELICAN BAY" See Pages Item #16A6 ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES FOR SAPPHIRE LAKES, UNIT 3-A - SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS Item #16B1 INTERIM WASTEWATER SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN SOUTHERN STATES UTILITIES, MAUREEN MORAN, INC., AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHISSIONERS, EX-OFFICIO THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE MARCO WATER-SEWER DISTRICT See Pages Item #1682 AUTHORIZATION FOR STAFF TO PROCESS TIME EXTENSIONS FOR TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS FOR THE BONITA BEACH ROAD FOUR LANING PROJECT Item #1683 ACCEPTANCE OF CONVEYANCE OF A PUBLIC PARKING EASEMENT FROM THE ROYAL PALM COUNTRY CLUB OF NAPLES FOR PARKING ACROSS FROM THE GULF COAST LITTLE LEAGUE FIELDS See Pages Item #1684 - Deleted Item #1685 BUDGET AMENDMENTS AND ACCOUNTING ENTRIES TO CLOSE THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT PELICAN BAY SUB-FUND Item #16C1 STAFF TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE STAFF OF THE EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK FOR THE JOINT PARTICIPATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF A BOAT RAMP AND SUPPORTING PARKING LOT IN THE EVERGLADES CITY/CHOKOLOSKEE AREA Item #16D1 BOARD EXAMINATION OF THE SUFFICIENCY OF BONDS OF COUNTY OFFICERS See Pages Item #16D2 BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR FUND 518, WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE - IN THE A_MOUNT OF $695,100.00 Item #16El CORRECTIVE DEED OF EASEMENT FROM COLLIER COUNTY TO HAKO INTERNATIONAL HOLDING, LTD., A BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS CORPORATION AND ACCEPTANCE BY COUNTY OF GRANT OF EASEMENT FROM HAKO INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, LTD. TO COLLIER COUNTY See Pages Item #16E2 AUTHORIZATION TO A_MEND THE BUDGET IN THE A_MOUNT OF $119,000 FOR FUND 109 TO PROVIDE FOR ADDITIONAL OPERATING EXPENSES AND PERSONAL SERVICES FOR THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION Item #16E3 AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY MANAGER TO APPROVE CONSENT, ROUTINE ITEMS AND EMERGENCY ITEMS DURING THE BOARD'S SUHMER RECESS Item #16E4 BUDGET A_MENDHENTS 96-462/463 Item #16G1 CERTIFICATES FOR CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE 1993 REAL PROPERTY NO. DATE 241 6/6/96 1994 REAL PROPERTY 204 6/6/96 1994 TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY 1994-139 6/5/96 1995 REAL PROPERTY 232 4/19/96 236-238 4/29/96 241-242 6/6/96-6/10/96 1995 TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY 69-70 6/3/96-6/5/96 Item #16G2 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented to the Board of County Commissioners was filed and/or referred to the various departments as indicated below: Item #1611 BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR RECONFIGURATION OF OFFICE SPACE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY - IN THE APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $75,000.00 There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 5:20 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL JOHN C. NORRIS, CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Barbara Donovan, Christine Whitfield, and Shelly Semmler