Loading...
BCC Minutes 12/17/1996 RREGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 17, 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 9:06 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: John C. Norris VICE-CHAIRMAN: Timothy L. Hancock Timothy J. Constantine Pamela S. Hac'Kie Barbara B. Berry ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dorrill, County Manager Mike HcNees, Assistant County Manager David C. Weigel, County Attorney Item #3 AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Call the county commission meeting to order on December 17, 1996. Mr. Dotrill, could you lead us in an invocation and a pledge to the flag, please. MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, on what is our final county commission meeting of 1996, we want to pause and -- and give thanks and the glory to you and the blessings that you have bestowed on Collier County and its people during the past year. Father, we give thanks for our elected officials, the constitutional officers, and the county commission who work so diligently to make this the wonderful community that it is. Father, we give thanks for our hard-working staff and the many citizens who choose to participate in government in Collier County. Father, especially for those of us who are public officials, we give thanks for the love and support of our families and our friends and our colleagues over the past year, and we look forward with anticipation to 1997. But at the end of 1996, we just pause and give thanks and praise to you for all the wonders that you have bestowed on us. We ask that you bless our time here together this morning. We pray these things in your son's holy name. Amen. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill, I see we have a few changes to our agenda today. MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Merry Christmas, Commissioners, on behalf of your staff. We have a number of changes this morning, Mr. Chairman. I'll go through these as -- as quickly as I can. We have an add-on item this morning under community development that will be an update and some recommendations from last week's Code Enforcement Board issue involving Lely Barefoot Beach. That will be 8(A)(6). I have one additional routine plat approval trying to accommodate a project before year's end, which is 8(A)(7), which is also an add-on for Kensington, Phase III. I have one additional add-on item this morning under the Board of County Commissioners, which will be Item 10(C), which is a clarification of the board's position on the Cleveland Clinic certificate of need and necessity; that was at the request of Commissioner Mac'Kie. I have several items that we would like to continue. The first one is on the regular agenda, 8(A)(2) under community development, be continued until your first meeting in January on the 7th, which was a review and certain recommendations concerning Ordinance 90-37, a PUD called Arbor Lake Club. We're also requesting at the request of the petitioner this morning that we continue -- and I don't have a -- a date certain. We will reschedule as necessary Item 12(B)(2), which is PUD 94-9, WCI Communities requesting a certain PUD amendment as it pertains to the Pelican Marsh project. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. That has been continued? MR. DORRILL: Yes, at the request of the petitioner. And then finally this morning the final continuance is Item 12(C)(7), also under advertised public hearings, again, continued to your first meeting in January, recommendation that the board approve an interlocal agreement between the Board of County Commissioners and independent fire districts within Collier County for code inspection pertaining to fire plans. I have several agenda notes this morning. Under communications I have two items, one of which was a memorandum that I had sent the board yesterday concerning your review and comment on the job announcement and job description and a questionnaire that we've sent to each commissioner concerning the selection process for the county manager; also, a revision to the perk -- public purpose ordinance. And I have one additional agenda note, that the Item 9(A) under the county attorney's office as it pertains to a resolution associated with a bond issue, that in order to accommodate the travel considerations of individuals for taking -- that we try and hear that as close to but not prior to 10 a.m. this morning because of their plane schedules. And, Mr. Chairman, that's all that I have. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay, Mr. Weigel, anything else? MR. WEIGEL: No changes. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Berry? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Nothing. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, sir. I just want to say again, anyone here for the Pelican Marsh item, that has been continued; so you can make your tee time. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Not a thing. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't think of changing this long, long agenda. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We need a motion. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I make a motion we approve the agenda as amended. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Item #4 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 26, 1996 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED We have minutes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll move approval of the November 26, 1996, regular meeting minutes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for approval. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Item #5A PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING DECEMBER AS DRUNK AND DRUGGED DRIVING PREVENTION MONTH AND DESIGNATING DECEMBER 20, 1996, AS LIGHTS ON FOR LIFE DAY - ADOPTED Proclamations, Commissioner Hancock, I believe you have One. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, sir. It's my pleasure this morning to read into the record a proclamation. May I ask if Marilyn Petska and Hal Winget (phonetic) are here. If I could ask the two of you to come to the front and stand here to my left and face all of your fans out there in TV land. Good morning. Proclamation reads as follows: Whereas, obtaining a license to drive is a major milestone for youth and a necessity for the majority of our citizens, we must teach young people the responsibilities that accompany having a driver's license. At the same time we must teach them about the risks of driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol; and Whereas, all citizens and institutions need to acknowledge that a license to drive is not a license to kill, injure, or destroy. We must also recognize that when we drive under the influence of drugs and alcohol, we are saying that under certain circumstances it's okay to harm our families, friends, and neighbors; and Whereas, we all need to take a stand against impaired driving, individually and collectively. Intervening to prevent others from drinking and driving should be common practice among hosts and friends. We must use designated drivers and plan alternative transportation when we know we will be drinking. Through our schools, places of employment, houses of worship, and community organizations, we must send the message that drinking and driving is not socially acceptable; and Whereas, the holidays are approaching, I ask each citizen to make our community safe by not driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol. I also ask that on December 20 everyone drive with their headlights on to support National Lights on for Life Day in memory of those who have been killed or injured by impaired drivers and as a reminder of the dangers of impaired driving. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that December 1996 be designated as Drunk and Drugged Driving Prevention Month and that December 20, 1996, be designated as Lights on For Life Day. I call on all citizens and organizations to observe this month by taking responsibility for preventing impaired driving in our community and teaching our young people safe driving behavior. Done and ordered this 17th day of December 1996, signed Mr. John C. Norris, Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I would like to move acceptance of this proclamation. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second for acceptance. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Applause) MS. PETSKA: On behalf of the three Ds; Drunk, Drugged, Driving Prevention Month, I would like to thank you for the proclamation. I would also like to say that this is a joyous time for most of us, but for about six -- seventeen thousand people in the United States, this is not -- this is a time for them to mourn those that have been killed due to drunk driving. So as the proclamation indicates, the 20th is Lights on for Life. So we're asking that everyone drive with their lights on in memory of those that were killed by a drunk driver. Thank you very much. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. (Applause) Item #5B EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARD PRESENTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Berry, I believe you have a service award today. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. If Gwen Butler would come forward, please. It's always a pleasure to recognize people who have been very dedicated in their service to the county, and this morning we're pleased to honor Miss Butler for 15 years of continuous service for Collier County, and we want to congratulate you and thank you for this service and time that you've given to Collier County. (Applause) Item #7A JERRY THIRION REGARDING THE CLAM PASS CONCESSION - STAFF DIRECTED TO BRING BACK EXTENSION IN JANUARY, 1997 CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a public petition today. The county's policy, Mr. Thirion, as you probably know, is you have ten minutes to -- to tell us what your petition is, and the board is unlikely to take any action today but merely decide whether to put it on a future agenda for action. MR. THIRION: Thank you. I promise to be brief. Good morning. My name is Jerry Thirion. I'm with the Registry Resort. I'm here today to seek commission approval to work with your staff on an extension of our Clam Pass agreement, which we currently have in place. We would like to pursue the opportunity to work further with you in future years, and we think we need this time to sit down with your staff and provide an agreement which will be mutually benefit for everyone; so we're seeking that approval. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, if he's just looking to sit down with staff and explore the option, I don't know that it's going to require specific action from us anyway, and perhaps we can say go ahead, get our staff rolling instead of bringing this back in January and giving that exact same instruction. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think one of the main reasons for this is that this is not a typical situation where you have an RFP. This is a joint relationship that's worked very well in the past. I think if staff is looking for direction, so they don't have to go to a bidding process, I would be pleased to give that direction. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Similar, same direction from me. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I would agree. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. THERION: Okay. Thank you. Happy holidays. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You too. Item #8A1 CARNIVAL PERMIT 96-6 RE PETITION C-96-6 COLLIER COUNTY AGRICULTURAL FAIR & EXPOSITION, INC., REQUESTING A PERMIT TO CONDUCT A CARNIVAL FROM JANUARY 10 THROUGH JANUARY 18, 1997, ON THE EAST SIDE OF C.R. 846 - APPROVED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Our first item of business then COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to approve Petition 96-6. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. Are there public speakers on this item? MR. McNEES: No, sir. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: For those who missed that, that's the Collier County Agricultural Fair and Exposition. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Item #8A3 RESOLUTION 96-588, RE STAFF REVIEW AND RECOHMENDATIONS RELATIVE TO ORDINANCE 89-70 ALSO KNOWN AS CASA DEL SOL PUD - ADOPTED FOR TWO YEAR EXTENSION CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item, 8(A)(3). This is the staff review of PUD 89-70. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good morning, Commissioners, Charam Badamtchian from planning services staff. Collier County Land Development Code requires all PUDs approved prior to October 30, 1991, which have not commenced construction, to come in front of this board for teevaluation. This PUD was approved in 1989. It contains 240 acres. It was approved for 2.7 dwelling units per acre for a total of 650 units. Staff reviewed this PUD. It fully complies with all Land Development Code and growth management requirements. Staff recommends your extension of this PUD. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Two years? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Two years. However, we are not the owners. There are two owners -- two groups of owners. One own 100 acres, the other one 140 acres. Mr. Israelson, who owns 140 acres, wishes to get his old zoning back, agricultural zoning back. The other group, we haven't heard from them. We sent them a letter. They did not respond to our require -- our letters. Staff believes that if they want to change the zoning back to agricultural, they should apply for fezone or amend the PUD to take 140 acres out of that PUD. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We agree. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We can't separate those owners out. They have to do so collectively and properly so -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Mr. Richard Grant is representing Mr. Israelson. I don't see him here today. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have a public speaker on this one? MR. HcNEES: No, sir, you have none. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a question, I -- I notice on all of these sunset items, I don't know that we've had -- other than Mr. Anderson was here for one, I don't know that we've had anyone here. I assume there's notification and communication with each of the -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- petitioners, for lack of a better word? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We have done that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I sense that if they're in agreement, they're not showing up. Otherwise, well, tough. I assume our -- the approval today would include the stipulations such as under transportation 50-foot reservation of right-of-way and so forth? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes, sir. They have to do it in support of original agreement. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll move approval of the two-year extension of PUD 89-70. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Second it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Item #8A4 APPEAL OF LIEN RESOLUTION NO. 90-454 AND LIEN RESOLUTION NO. 92-572, OWNER OF RECORD MAX LEVY - APPEAL DENIED 8(A)(4), appeal of Lien Resolution No. 90-454 and 92-572. MS. SULLIVAN: I don't know where the appellant is. But anyhow, this was a -- Linda Sullivan, code enforcement director, for the record. This was a property which was purchased at a tax sale, and the gentleman, Mr. Levy, purchased the prop -- the property with two weed abatement liens on it. It's staff's position that this is not properly before the commissioners because there's a 30-day requirement when the lien is assessed in order to bring it here. So that's basically our thoughts on this one. I believe Mr. Levy's position is that he didn't realize that there were liens on the property when he bought it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But he bought it at a tax deed sale? MS. SULLIVAN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Are they never notified? I had a question about this. Are they not notified when you -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, I -- I'm -- I'm not sure I understand the issue. If there's violations on the property, what difference does it make how the property was acquired? MS. SULLIVAN: It shouldn't; that's our point. The liens were assessed a long time ago, and he bought the property, I guess, the first of last year. You know, there is -- I'm told that the -- when something is -- is transferred in a deed sale like this, that they are notified; but in any event, there's constructive notice because the liens were properly recorded. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not going to put staff in the position of trying to argue his case for him. He's not here to fulfill his appeal so -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to deny the appeal. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for denial. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Item #8A5 STAFF SEEKING DIRECTION ON THE PREPARATION OF AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO MODIFY THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF POOL DECK/SCREEN PORCH STRUCTURES ON WATERFRONT LOTS - EMERGENCY DECLARED; STAFF TO PREPARE ORDINANCE FOR 1/7/97 MEETING Next item, 8(A)(5). MR. ARNOLD: Good morning. Wayne Arnold, planning services director. Staff is seeking your direction on the preparation of an emergency amendment to our Land Development Code. Last amendment cycle that passed approximately two months ago we brought forward an amendment that changed the pool deck heights for waterfront lots and restricted them to 4 feet in height above the seawall when they were within 10 feet of the rear property line. It's come to our attention that after two months of implementation of this that almost every home on Marco Island will fall short of meeting this requirement as they're currently designed and being constructed. It was certainly an unintentional consequence of the modification to restrict the height of stem wall constructions along our waterfront lots. Nonetheless, we do have a situation that -- that truly affects Marco Island a little bit more uniquely than it would the balance of the county. I think maybe Isle of Capri would also fall under Marco Island's concerns. And it's two factors: One, a factor of this actual seawall height as they are constructed; and, secondly, the actual ground elevation of the lots before they're improved. And what we're finding, that at 4 feet you're going to have to have essentially a 2-foot to 3-foot stepdown from the living area to any pool deck that may be attached, which unlike Vanderbilt Beach, it's about a 10-foot difference; but the fact is we have many model homes on Marco Island that are permitted. They're selling the models. We have permits in-house that can't be released because they don't comply with this new code requirement. And I think after meeting with several of the Marco Island contractors over the last week or so, it's come to our conclusion that probably anywhere between 6 and 7 feet as a maximum elevation above seawall would certainly meet their concerns. We also recognize that the visibility of a stem wall construction from your adjoining property owners to the side is not the most attractive situation and -- and certainly some method of having an exposed stem wall where you have earthen berm or some form to hide that stem wall meets at least the -- the builders we've met with, it meets, sort of, their needs and allows them to construct as they've been permitting them in the past. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Arnold, are you proposing this amendment just to be specific to Marco Island alone? MR. ARNOLD: Well, I guess we would be hesitant to propose any amendment that affects only one geographic area of the county. And I think if we could look at something -- and I will admit, I have not spoken with the Vanderbilt Beach Homeowner's Association that brought the original issue to the attention of the commission and the staff, but it's our opinion that at 7 feet instead of 4 feet above the seawall we probably resolve all the problems on Marco Island, and maybe we don't negatively impact the Vanderbilt Beach people to a great degree. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And you're just asking for direction to prepare the emergency order? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. It would be to seek your direction to do so and declaration of an emergency which, I guess the earliest we could potentially bring something back to you would be your first meeting in January. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm -- if I may, I'm the first to admit that I don't have as much a grasp of how this impacts Marco as I do Vanderbilt. But if we're talking 7 feet above seawall, in Vanderbilt we're now talking about, in essence, a masonry wall 7 feet in height from seawall level that extends to within 10 feet of the rear property line. Yet if you construct a fence on a waterfront lot, you can go no higher than 4 feet. MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the purpose of that was to allow for -- so the two are opposing a little bit. And, you know, Vanderbilt is where I'm familiar. I'm not as familiar with Marco. So I'm not going to say let's not proceed with the amendment, but I'm going to want to see some visual display of why this creates such a hardship on Marco, yet it doesn't -- it does create the same hardship, if not more, if I'm not mistaken, at Vanderbilt Beach, yet it can be complied with. MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. It certainly is more restriction in the Vanderbilt Beach area. Two things on Marco Island; again, Marco Island is not heavily sewered as it is in Vanderbilt Beach, which means they're bringing in fill material to put in their septic systems as well to go ahead and try to level out the lots so that you don't have the mound of the septic tank exposed. You also have a more restrictive setback in Marco Island because of deed restrictions that applied throughout the island. It's 15 feet from the water in lieu of 10 elsewhere in the county. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And again, rather than hear that whole thing, I'd say, like, to go ahead and see the amendment, but I would like to see some visual application of this so we understand what it is -- is being allowed or I understand, excuse me. We -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Speakers? MR. McNEES: Mr. Chairman, you have one speaker, Whit Ward. MR. WARD: Good morning, commission. My name is Whit Ward. I'm representing the Collier Building Industry Association. We have been working with your staff to correct what was an oversight that that -- that we approved -- we feel is an oversight we approved in the Land Development Code. The only thing that I would ask is that in the instance of Marco Island, we have some permits that are in process now that are being held up as a result of this. If -- if you could see fit to grant a variance so that we could release those permits, that -- they're creating a real hardship for the builders that are trying to go forward. Those permits were applied for under all of the rules and regulations of the former Land Development Code, and they -- they -- they're exactly like all of the other homes that are on Marco Island now. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, we can't grant a variance today for things not in front of us. However, you're saying the permits were -- were applied for prior to the adoption of the change to this code? MR. WARD: No, they weren't. They were applied -- and Wayne could -- could answer that better than myself, I think. MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, I would just say that some permits certainly were, and in some cases we have administratively allowed permits to move forward where the pool pilings were shown on the original building permit issued prior to the effective date of the Land Development Code, even though the actual pool permit had not been pulled but the pilings had been set for that structure. We administratively have allowed those few permits to move forward to proceed as they were intended to be constructed. And I think what Mr. Ward is referring to is that we have -- we do have some permits that are still in-house that were not issued a final development order or the building permit before the code changed, which are now affected by this code change, and we also have a few other permits that have come in, and builders have -- on the island have essentially said just release my home permit. I'll come in and apply for the pool permit separately. But we still have some cases where they've applied for both permits concurrently. And I think that's the reference here that Mr. Ward is seeking some relaxation or some direction to allow these permits to come through the process. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: How many are we talking about? MR. ARNOLD: I don't have an exact number, but I suspect it's not more than a dozen at this point. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, it seems that -- I mean, I don't know what our options are, but it seems that if we -- 4 feet is not reasonable and we don't really have a choice because of the increased setback but to go to the higher elevation on Marco, then we're going to have to do that. I'm just not sure we have the vehicle to accomplish that for those that are in the process. I'm seeking that. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. I'm not sure I have the answer for you there either in terms of the vehicle that may get you there. I don't know if the county attorney's office can -- can give us some direction there. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Ms. Student, could you help us with -- give us some direction there. MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney. To go through a variance process, you would have to have advertised public hearings, and it has to go to Planning Commission. I don't think there's any authority in our code for you to be able to give a blanket variance today. I do believe the emergency amendment could be accomplished at our January 7th meeting, and that would probably be the most expeditious way to handle the matter. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. What -- Mr. Ward, some of the -- some of the builders have gone ahead and pulled their home permit and then delayed their pool permit. Would that carry us till January the 7th you think? MR. WARD: You know, it might. I haven't talked to all of the builders, but I certainly would be amenable to going back and -- and -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh. MR. WARD: -- making that recommendation to them. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That appears to be our most functional option for today. MR. WARD: I agree and especially since the board seems inclined to do something that would work -- you know, would be workable in the long run; so that sounds like it might work. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we give staff direction to prepare an emergency Land Development Code ordinance amendment referring to the site. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And declare an emergency? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can I ask that that amendment -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that amendment be specific to areas in which deed restrictions exceed a certain level so that we don't blanket the county with something? MR. ARNOLD: We can certainly bring something back that's specific or even a couple of options for your consideration. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't want to undo what we've accomplished in some areas. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Continuation of Item #8A4 MR. HcNEES: Mr. Chairman, excuse me, if I may interrupt. I understand your appellant for Item 8(A)(4) is actually in the room, was unfamiliar with our process and hadn't registered to speak and did not identify himself to the staff. Obviously it's at your discretion. He would like to make his case, I understand, whether you want to hear that or whether you want to move on. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to hear from him. If he didn't understand the process, I don't want to cut him out. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Sure. We're rehearing then the appeal of Lien Resolution No. 90-454 and 92-572. Mr. Levy. MR. LEVY: Good morning, Commissioners. Contrary to the statement that was made earlier, I did not purchase the property; I got stuck with it. It was a certificate of deed that was issued to me because I had a tax certificate. And at the date -- the day of the sale no one was interested in buying the property because it was overvalued. The amount of taxes that were due on the property were more than what the property is worth. So I did end up getting stuck with the property, and I'm -- I'm paying the taxes on it right now, and I did receive the notice. I went to see Connie -- I forgot her name -- Johnson, and I explained to her the fact, and she suggested that I appeal the case to the board and hopefully that you will consider the fact that it's not my fault. You know, I'm a resident, or I have been a resident since 1973. I always pay my bills on time. I always pay my tax on time. Had I known, I wouldn't have even get involved with this property. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I understand it's an unfortunate situation that -- and something that you didn't anticipate, but I believe that you are the owner of the property; is that correct? MR. LEVY: Now I am, yes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And the property does have violations on it. MR. LEVY: It did have violation prior to me owning the property. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Right. Those violations still exist? MS. SULLIVAN: No, they've been abated. That's what the assessment is for. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's the lien. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But with the property he also inherited the liens? MS. SULLIVAN: Yes. I checked with the county attorney, and there's a statute that -- that authorizes that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The problem that we have, Mr. Levy, is if we tell every property owner that comes in and says I didn't know about the lien before I purchased it -- MR. LEVY: I did not -- I'm sorry to interrupt. I did not purchase it. I was stuck with it, because I did have the tax certificate on the property. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can -- can I -- yeah, how that works, if I'm -- if I'm right, is that you go in, you bid an interest rate on the tax certificate on the -- on the hope that the property will be redeemed by the property owner, and then they will have to pay you in addition to the past-due assessment that -- for taxes, they'll have to pay you the interest rate that you bid. So what happened here is he bid, got a tax certificate that was not redeemed. And at the end of that process -- it's actually, you know -- the gamble that you take is that if you -- if the property owner's not willing to pay what's due, that's -- MR. LEVY: But that's when I forced the sale and -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's the downside, the upside being you earn a high interest rate usually, the downside being you might get stuck with the property. MR. LEVY: Yeah, but I don't mind getting stuck with the property if it has any value, but it doesn't have any value, and for $40 -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It's a little late to worry about that now, Mr. Levy. You should have thought about that before you bid on the property. MR. LEVY: I did not bid on the property, Your Honor. I bid on -- I raised my hand to get a tax certificate which was awarded to me by the tax collector. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And unfortunately, this is part of the process. I understand you're anxious for us to give 18 percent or close to it on your money, and that's why those tax certificate sales are so well attended. However, there is a downside to that. The reason you have such a high interest rate is you run the risk -- MR. LEVY: Well, I was not told that there was any risk, you know, plus the fact we're talking about $40 mowing that it's $800 right now. You know, it's a little bit too much. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess -- I've been to those tax certificate sales, and Mr. Carlton explains the process, explains the risks. They also, I believe, have that in writing available to everyone who goes and bids on that. So I understand your frustration having the piece of land, but that's not unusual at all, and that's -- that's part of the process that you entered into and agreed to. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, I -- I see no reason to make any motion to reconsider the item. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Agreed. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Levy. MR. LEVY: Thank you. Item #8A6 UPDATE ON CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD - DISCUSSION RE LELY BAREFOOT HEARINGS TO BE HELD IN JANUARY, 1997 CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Cautero, are you going to give us an update on our code enforcement? MR. CAUTERO: Yes, sir. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Vince Cautero. As I'm sure the board is aware, the Code Enforcement Board has had two special hearing dates in December, the 12th and 13th, to hear the Lely Barefoot Beach guardhouse case, and as I'm sure you're also aware, that a quorum was not present for the meeting on the 12th. When that session concluded on the 12th, and there was some discussion about procedures after that meeting on the 12th, I immediately took some steps that I want to inform you of and then tell you about how the Code Enforcement Board is proceeding to hear this case in January. I immediately made our case known to the legal staff, and Mr. Hanalich was very helpful in assisting me in discussing the case and the procedures for the case with the board. Mr. Hanalich was also in agreement that the case should be brought to closure as soon as possible. And I reiterated to him and Hiss Rawson, the chairman of the Code Enforcement Board, that it was my intent to bring this case to closure as soon as possible since the board had given that mandate to staff. I instructed the code enforcement director to call all the members of the Code Enforcement Board even though only four were eligible to hear the case, which began in July at the Code Enforcement Board. And I'm happy to tell you that six of the seven members attended the meeting the next day. That meeting was still kept, and we did conduct that meeting on December 13th, Friday the 13th. At that meeting I made a presentation to the board, and prior to the meeting I talked to the chairman in private about possibly scheduling the hearings for this week and/or the first meeting -- the first week in January. I made that plea on the record and also told them that we believe that all seven members should be eligible to hear the case. The board did vote that all seven members are eligible to hear the case, and I'm pleased to tell you that now I don't believe we'll have a quorum problem because we have more members that are eligible. The downside is that the board elected not to hold special hearings this week or the first week in January, but they did commit four dates in this room in January to finish the case. In addition, they are conducting their special meeting in January so that we can move more cases off the docket. The special meeting dates are the 22nd, 27th, 29th, and 30th, and the 23rd is the regular meeting. One final note, at their regular meeting in January they're going to be discussing the rules and regulations, and I wanted to talk to you about two of the items that we're possibly going to talk to them about. We will talk to the chairman about them, and we -- we may discuss them on the record. I hope it is the chairman's intent to talk about those issues on the record, one being time limits, similar to how this board operates, so that we can move cases quicker. And secondly -- and I mean no disrespect to the legal profession when I say this, and I don't know what Mr. Weigel will recommend to you, but one item that we're seriously considering is not allowing attorneys to make cases or presentations at the Code Enforcement Board. Your Code Enforcement Board is supposed to function as an expedient way to move cases through the system, to bring those issues to closure, and if people still have an appeal, they would then take it to the next level, which is court. One way to achieve that is to not make these cases appear like a trial, and Lely has become a full-blown trial. The only thing we can do at this point is to get as many members sitting in those chairs as possible and get the case over with, and I believe we will do that with four dates set aside in January. Counsel on both sides believe they need at least a day and a half to two; so we set four days aside for that. To hear the other cases -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry. Just one other suggestion. MR. CAUTERO: I'm finished, ma'am. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, that makes a lot of sense, but it might -- you might also just -- you know, lawyers want two days every time they have a case, and judges give them 20 minutes; so that might be another alternative. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think Hiss Rawson will be fully capable of keeping it to the subject. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: She can do it. MR. CAUTERO: If there's any questions, I'll be glad to answer them. My only purpose was to give you an update on the case. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any questions from the board? Thank you,Mr. Cautero. Item #8A7 KENSINGTON PHASE III PLAT APPROVAL - STAFF RECOHMENDATION APPROVED Our next item is a plat approval for Kensington. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If there's not any discussion -- it's routine -- I'll be happy to move we approve it on staff's recommendation. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Item #SB1 RESOLUTION 96-589, RE COLLIER COUNTY STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN AS PREPARED BY COLLIER NAPLESCAPE - ADOPTED Next item, 8(B)(1), Naplescape presentation. MR. ARCHIBALD: Good morning, Chairman, board members. For the record, George Archibald, transportation director. Board members, Agenda Item 8(B)(1) is a presentation on the Collier County streetscape master plan. The master plan has been an ongoing effort between both Collier County and Naplescape '90s. It also represents the efforts of George Botner over a period of years. Accordingly, I'd like to go ahead and introduce George Botner to make a brief presentation and also to introduce three committee members that will provide some information. I'd also like to just make the comments that this document is awfully important. It's important from the standpoint of assisting the staff in prioritizing landscaping needs and also becoming a catalyst for private-sector funding of those priorities. Also it's going to be an important element toward getting FDOT grant funds, particularly for State Road 84, Davis. With that, Mr. Botner. MR. BOTNER: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Before Mr. Botner speaks -- Mr. Archibald, from a staff perspective -- come on up, George. From a staff perspective, do I understand this to be more of a blueprint and a framework of how to proceed so that we can be consistent in the future as opposed to the piecemeal basis of one project at a time? Is that really the thrust of what's being presented today? MR. ARCHIBALD: That's a major thrust. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. ARCHIBALD: There are some other elements that Mr. Botner will touch on. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. MR. BOTNER: Thank you, Commissioners. For the record my name is George Botner. I'm a landscape architect practicing here in Collier County, been pleased to be able to operate also as president, executive director, of a nonprofit organization called Collier Naplescape '90s over the last four years. And if I could, I think there's two forms that our presentation could take. There's the long form, and then there's the somewhat shorter form. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm leaning toward the second of those. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a busy agenda today. MR. BOTNER: Yeah, I know. I know you do. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's hear the short version. MR. BOTNER: But just to sort of set the stage for this, over three years ago the Collier Naplescape board, which as you know is totally privately funded by many individuals throughout our community, determined in their goal-setting session in 1993 that we needed some guidance to the method in which we develop our major streetscapes throughout Collier County. And -- and the method to do that might, in fact, be a -- a new master plan that could help guide that, not on -- not only in terms of design, but in terms of funding mechanisms and technical details of how you plant in these very special circumstances. And so we set about that course as one of our major goals, along with, as you know, a number of projects, streetscape projects, that we've been doing over the years. And we funded that through ourselves to create the basic data-gathering information that we needed to start the whole process going. And one major factor that came out of that was the identification of a streetscape network for our urban area. That streetscape network followed exactly the HPO's, at that time, 2010-year plan. Now it's a 2015-year plan since it's been in process for so long. But that gave us the basis for establishing the area that we wanted to focus on. That was totally, as I mentioned, privately funded through Collier Naplescape. But there was a -- an immediate follow-up to that phase that was funded by Hiss Juliette Sproe (phonetic) to create essentially the character guidelines for that and -- you know, if you design a building, really what that means is you need to come up with a program for how you deal with the design elements. And that took the better part of a year to do, and it also involved many committee meetings. And I should also say at the same time that we engaged the services pro bono of two technical advisory committees. The first technical advisory committee, as is referenced in your document, worked with us for the first two years, and the second technical advisory committee worked with us through this last phase in the design element. But in any case, those were the two first phases. Then you-all agreed to work with us in the spirit of a public and private partnership, which as you know is how we have built most of our streetscapes in this county, to complete the work, and we did that. And I can tell you it -- it has been a real pleasure and a chore over the last six months to do that, because we had to go back, teengage the tac -- the technical advisory committee, went through six meetings with them, developed the document. We employed several out -- outside consultants that have specific knowledge in this area to work with us, and all of those names are mentioned in the acknowledgement sections of the draft document that -- that we had submitted. So it's been a long time getting here. I shall also tell you that there are a couple of very compelling reasons why we want to adopt this document in Collier County. Number one, obviously it's going to give us the direction that -- that we have sought over the years. Every time I come before you and say, gee whiz, I've got this project we'd like to do, you-all ask the same exact question: How does it fit into the overall scheme of things? How much money are we going to have to pay, and what is going to be the end product of all of this as it relates to an impact on the community? That has been the major product, I think, that has come out of the creation of this document, and it has been a -- a very much community-based resource-related document over the years. It's not a problem that came up six months ago we thought we needed to solve, and so we solved it. We've been at this for a long time. The -- the thing that we would like to ask of you is, number one, its adoption and that the form of that adoption occur in two places. The first place is that it needs to be recognized in several elements of our comprehensive plan and cross-referenced. The second place that it absolutely has to be referenced is in our Land Development Code -- and I'm not sure exactly what the number is; I think it's 2.4.7.5 -- as a subelement of our landscape code as a specific item by reference. And we're not going to ask that all 92 pages of this plan be inserted in our LDC, but certainly there needs to be language that is placed in our LDC that draws reference to it. And there's a good reason for that other than the cumbersomeness of including the whole document. And the other thing is that every year what this document has said is that you, when you go through your budget cycle, amend it as you see fit based upon the availability of financial resources to fund the program. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I just interrupt and say I just think it's critical that this get into the Land Development Code. Otherwise we've done one more study for the shelf, and it's -- it's a waste of time. This has to get into the Land Development Code so it becomes a part of the budget process and we look at it every year to see what we can afford -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Can we wait and let Mr. Botner finish, please. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, we can, or I'll say what I want to say and you can fuss about it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You can say it -- you'll have an opportunity to say it whenever you'd like after Mr. Botner speaks. Would you let him speak, please. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, or I'll say now. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think he's chairing the meeting. I'm not sure. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He can handle it. MR. BOTNER: Moving forward, that's what we are here today to ask you for, is the preparation of a resolution that will intend that you adopt this document in those two areas of your purview. We need that. It does -- and we recognize it can't happen as -- immediately. It's got to go through the cycle, but if -- if we can at least get the resolution that says that's what you want to do, then I can use that as the backup and support that we need for our initial state DOT grant application work that we're currently doing. So that's what we wanted to try to achieve today. All of you have had -- and I apologize for the brevity of your time with the document, but you have had a copy of this, I think, rather comprehensive approach to dealing with streetscape work. And if I can back up five minutes before, I can tell you what the second major important element of this is. I don't know if it's an ego element or what, but the State of Florida has determined that they want to use this approach as perhaps the statewide guideline for how one goes about dealing with streetscape work and how one deals with the subject of applying for funding through state resources. And as you all know, as we've discussed, we've been talking with the state very closely over the last five -- or six months and then intermittently for the last three years about that item, and nobody else has done this before. I mean, to me it's almost amazing that -- you know, that we would not have already had some examples that we could refer to. So we -- we border on the possibility of setting a statewide precedence here, and the state's fully behind us. They want us to get into their system of statewide grants. We in Collier County have not been the recipient of a grant through that program to date. Sarasota County, for example, has won eight of them, and so why are we not involved in that when we probably do the best streetscape work in the state of Florida? So that's basically what this master plan sets us up to be able to do. And coupled with that, simultaneously with your authorization, we have prepared the construction documents for Davis Boulevard, which will be the first sort of demonstration project that goes in with our master plan to the State DOT for their review, and the first phase of that, which -- I know I'm on public record, but I will tell you that there's a tremendous interest in funding this from the state perspective if we do everything we've said we were going to do and that that funding would be available midsummer to do the first phase of Davis Boulevard, which runs from the Trail out to Airport Road; and then immediately on the heels of that next year is the next phase that runs from Airport Road on Davis out to County Barn Road. And what we're trying to do is establish a mechanism where every year we are in the mill to get our grant allocation work for the state roads that occur in our community. Now then, having said all of that -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This -- this was the short version, I take it? MR. BOTNER: No -- yeah, this was the short version. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Can you wrap it up, Mr. Botner, please. MR. BOTNER: Right. I -- you know, there were two versions. I could do what I just did, or we could go to Step No. 2 and go through the document that we have submitted for your review. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No, we can't. That's not an option today, Mr. Botner. Please wrap it up for us. MR. BOTNER: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. I'd just like to encourage the commission to adopt by resolution the document that you have been submitted as the streetscape master plan for Collier County, that it also recognized that that document will be amended from time to time as recently as yearly, and that it provide the guidelines that we've needed all these years to move our program forward. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. Do we have more speakers? MR. HcNEES: You do. Your next speaker is Donna Fiala. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Let me also say again in the interest of time, it's my intent, probably, and -- unless someone's going to talk me out of it, to make a motion to approve this document in some form today. So for the speakers that are about to come up, if you want to talk me out of it, that's great. But if you don't, then -- MR. BOTNER: My recommendation to our speaker corps is that they sit tight. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I'm going to have some questions for Mr. Botner, but I'll wait until -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's go with our public speakers. MR. HcNEES: You have Donna Fiala followed by Cheryle Newman. MS. FIALA: Donna Fiala is happy to stay right back here. Thank you. MR. HcNEES: Hiss Fiala waived. We have Cheryle Newman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Cheryle Newman. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We used to have Cheryle Newman. She's here. MS. NEWMAN: Good morning, Commissioners. Cheryle Newman from Golden Gate. I'm on the advisory committee for the beautification out there, and I believe I sent all of you letters with some questions that I had. And I was hoping some of those questions would be answered, but I guess the big one I have is where would the advisory committees be if this is approved, and how would it affect the individual HSTUs that have, you know, their own beautification HSTUs. Those are the only questions I really have today. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's finish the speakers. MR. BOTNER: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I could offer an answer to that question. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. BOTNER: This document is, for all intents and purposes, an overlay design document for the urban area of Collier County. The individual HSTUs -- and, you know, we've attempted to work with each one of those -- does not circumvent in any way, shape, or form their authority to proceed with their mission. All this does is gives us a way to get some consistency throughout our landscape program in our major public rights-of-way. And in the case of Lely, St. Andrews, it doesn't even deal with it. St. Andrews isn't even on the streetscape network; so those folks are, you know, totally absolved from whatever controls this may suggest. But in our major public rights-of-way that everybody sees and everybody uses, it does suggest some ways to deal with that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I got to follow up on that. I appreciate the fact we're trying to compliment what exists or what's being done within individual areas. My concern is that Golden Gate beautification committee, for example, and I'm sure the same exists on Marco and some of the others. I don't know what role they've been allowed to play as this document took its final form -- MR. BOTNER: We've met with them. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- because as -- and I -- and I'll ask that in a minute. But they are trying to put together a plan within their own community, but that also includes in the case of Golden Gate, Santa Barbara, 951, and so on, which is included in this plan. And I don't know how recently you met with them. When I spoke with them in the fairly recent past, they hadn't seen this document. They weren't aware of that, and I think that's got to be an important part of this, 'cause I think regardless of what part of the county you go to as they try to do their own plans, they need to know what the overall is going to look like. MR. BOTNER: They need to know that, and as we mentioned before, we've met throughout the county with various groups. I personally met with the civic association out there, but it's been, you know, over a year ago since we talked and -- and prior to your authorization that we should complete this work. But basically, again, I go back to the major premise for your document here, and that is that it provides some guidelines that are flexible, but it does have a plant list that relates to the native character of this community. It is aerific in nature in terms of reducing the requirements for irrigation and maintenance and all those things that, you know, the whole community was looking for. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. I appreciate that, but it also has a time schedule in here and a proposal and so on. My point is that those areas that have taken the initiative on their own in the past and are trying to plan for the future shouldn't simply be told how it's going to happen. They should be a part of that process. And if the last time you met with them was a year ago, I suspect this document has changed an awful lot in the 12 -- last 12 months, and I don't think it existed 12 months ago. So they need to be a part of that -- MR. BOTNER: Right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- rather than simply told what it says. MR. BOTNER: Okay. Well, that leads me to the major asterisks that I had on my notes here. This program is going to require some ongoing management in the future. How you-all decide that you want to manage the implementation of the master plan is certainly up to you. Our group, Collier Naplescape, and the group of technical advisory committee members, etc., etc., would be happy to participate in that process. But as part of the resolution that ultimately becomes a part of the LDC, we need to specify that out, you know, who's going to be in charge of sort of the day-to-day management and the annual -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excuse me, Mr. Botner. MR. BOTNER: -- relationship to the board. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're getting too far down the road from what we're being asked to do today, and that was the reason for my first question to Mr. Archibald. This, in fact, is a blueprint. It says if you're going to do the medians, these are some of the minimum requirements and plant lists that can be used to do them. And when it comes to doing specific sections, those will still be done on an individual basis, and we'll look at the funding and the involvement and so forth. This is, in essence, a broad guideline, and you should note, Commissioner Constantine, the carrotwood is not included in the plant list. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was disappointed to see that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, I know that. But, again, rather than us making decisions today -- and we're not being asked to make decisions on what's to be funded, when it's to be funded, who's going to, you know, dot the I's and cross the T's down the road. We're being asked to adopt a framework and direct staff to work with the groups that you're talking about. That's what's got to happen. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree wholeheartedly. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So rather than getting into that long-term discussion here, let's deal with what's in front of us. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: More speakers? MR. HcNEES: That's your last speaker. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That was our last speaker? MR. HcNEES: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Commissioner Hac'Kie may have a comment. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'll let you know. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A couple other parts -- I'm sure you will. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He can count on that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A couple other parts. The part that concerns me with this becoming a part of the LDC and the comp. plan, in here, you know, under the executive summary where it says "ultimately become law," is anytime we deal with the DCA it gets a little scary. DCA works in mysterious ways, and I just think we need to be very clear on the record that we're doing what Commissioner Hancock has laid out, and that is setting some goals, laying out a blueprint. But we need to be very clear verbally and have a written record that says these are not going to be self-imposed requirements and that we can review year by year, and Mr. Botner has said that as well. I want to make sure we're careful, because I don't want DCA coming back and saying you've said to the community you're going to do this and, by golly, you're going to find a way. MR. BOTNER: Your master plan, I think, very clearly states in the preface to Section 5.0, which deals with schedule and funding, that you have absolute authority annually to review whatever projects you may choose to implement that next year. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And by limiting this in the reference to the LDC, we don't involve DCA at all. MR. BOTNER: That's right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hang on. Mr. Betnet, let -- let's let Commissioner Constantine get through his questions. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. You mentioned 5.0 -- he's warming up for January and doing very well. 5.0, you do mention taxes and -- and different ways to pay for this. Obviously we love the grant section of that, but -- MR. BOTNER: The laundry list. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- as I look at road tax; gas tax; sales tax, which we won't even -- the public doesn't even want to build a jail with, I suspect they won't go for flowers with. We kind of run a little thin there, and so I just -- I'm glad we have as many options listed there as we do, but I think an awful lot of them -- MR. BOTNER: -- will fall by the wayside. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- get us in trouble, okay. Page E-5, and I'm sure this is just a type, but the example he uses is -- in order to complete what you've laid out, 120 miles in a 15-year time frame, it's 8 miles. MR. BOTNER: No. That's -- that's a mathematical type. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can -- can I just finish the question? MR. BOTNER: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Eight miles of landscape per year would be required. In the past ten years -- I feel like I'm back in fifth grade. In the past ten years Billy has built 20 miles of road resulting an average of 2 miles per year or 1/2 the rate. Two miles isn't half the rate -- MR. BOTNER: It's a quarter. It's a quarter of it. That was a type. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But the -- MR. BOTNER: In -- incidentally, this whole document is going under great scrutiny right now. There's some spelling errors and whatnot that we want to fix and bring back as a -- you know, a final document. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If there are no more public speakers, I'd be happy to make a motion that we pass a resolution directing staff to add this as an amendment to the LDC under the landscape code section, with all of the understandings and all the discussions that we've had about it being a document that will be annually reviewed and annually discussed as far as implementation. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to consider one change, and that is 1.3.6, which is funding. And it says -- and this is just semantics, but I want to make sure it's very clear. It says, "It will be the prerogative of local government to assign specific resources matched to streetscape schedules no less frequently than annually." I'd just like to either put the word "whether to assign" as opposed to "to assign" so it doesn't look like we're required to assign something there. Hopefully we do every year, but I don't want to put a requirement on ourselves. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sure. Sure, I would agree with that change. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: With that in mind, I'd second your motion. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie, can I ask this for clarification on the LDC section. What I had jotted down here is to direct staff to incorporate the document by reference as appropriate in the Land Development Code at the next -- next cycle, but including discussion for the various MSTU beautification groups before doing that. I just wanted to cover those bases in the motion, and I'd like to ask you to amend your -- the portion addressing the LDC to reflect that as a friendly -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I certainly -- I certainly agree with the -- yeah, no, I think both of those. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can accept both of those. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just had to think about it for a second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Why don't we -- just for purposes of clarification on the record, why don't we restate the motion in its entirety. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that a test? (Laughter) Okay. I'll try. My motion is that we direct staff to prepare a resolution adopting this as the streetscape master plan for Collier County incorporating it where appropriate into the -- by reference into the landscape code after having met with the appropriate MSTUs prior to its incorporation into the ordinance and with the insertion of the word "whether" in Section 1.3.6 with regard to funding. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Pamela gets an A. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I passed. MR. BOTNER: That was pretty darned good. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second then for this rather lengthy motion. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Thank you, Mr. Botner. MR. BOTNER: Thank you, Commissioners. Item #882 RECOHMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS ENTER INTO A PROJECT UNDERSTANDING WITH THE IHMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION H.S.T.U. FOR FINANCING THEIR DOWNTOWN STREETSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT PHASE TWO, C.R. 29 (FROM N. 9TH STREET TO 1ST STREET) - LOAN IN FULL AMOUNT TO BE PAID BACK IN 6 YEARS, WITH NO INTEREST; STAFF TO COME BACK WITH FUNDING SOURCE ON 1/7/97 CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next Item, 8(B)(2), is quite similar dealing with the Immokalee beautification HSTU. MR. ARCHIBALD: Again, Mr. Chairman, Board. For the record, George Archibald. Agenda Item 8(B)(2) is a request by the Immokalee Beautification District for funding assistance of its down time -- downtown streetscape project. The project is really Phase 2 of their improvements for Immokalee, and it involves a segment of 29 running both east and west of Immokalee Road intersection. The project is very important from the standpoint that it interfaces and really will be the first element of the main street project in Immokalee. And it involves not only median landscaping, but it also involves substantial sidewalk improvements, pedestrian features, street lighting that includes a lot of street furnishings. So it's a very important element of Immokalee's main street project again. The committee in Immokalee has spent a great deal of effort and put in a great deal of -- of funds in designing and permitting. And unfortunately, from a funding standpoint, we're talking about a project that is estimated to cost approximately $875,000 of which the district has currently approximately $600,000 in a sinking fund to include a hundred-thousand-dollar grant. The shortfall between those two numbers is approximately $275,000, and that's really the issue of the agenda item today. The committee has met on a number of occasions. They'd like to present to the board two options of possibly funding this project in the current year, FY '96-97, with the idea that the project could begin the latter part of the financial year. To, in fact, provide that funding assistance, the two options that they wanted staff to present to the board is what's outlined in Option 1 to ask the board to provide a funding source for the shortfall, again, $275,000. Option 2 was to go ahead and provide a loan of $275,000 with interest. And those were the two basic options. The staff has also provided in the report a couple of options. One option is, of course, to consider a loan possibly without interest if there were special payment provisions provided. The other option, Option 4, which the staff would ask the board to consider, is a combination loan and funding scenario, and that involves reducing the amount of loan down to $205,000 and supplementing the project with county funds from our bike path and our sidewalk funds in the amount of $70,000 to represent the amount of sidewalk and bike path and ped -- pedestrian-oriented improvements that are being included in this project. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does that appear on our sidewalk list right now? We've got a sidewalk list that's been here for four years, and we've only knocked off about 3 on the list of 23. So I don't want to bump the remaining 20 for this project. MR. ARCHIBALD: No. It does not because, in fact, this is a reconstruction of downtown where we have an existing sidewalk, but all of that has to be removed, and part of this improvement would be to provide an improvement to that to include lighting and street fixtures. The alternative, of course, if the board decides not to provide any funding assistance, would be that the district would continue to accrue funds, place those funds in its sinking fund, and at some point in time in the future when it has sufficient funds, to let that contract; then they could proceed in doing just that. That, in essence, are the alternatives that are included in the agenda item that the staff wanted to present. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Archibald, to date -- I have two questions. To date what funds -- and I'm not talking staff time. What funds have been expended in the MSTU from the general fund, and are they a part of this $875,0007 MR. ARCHIBALD: Currently there are none that I can think of. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. ARCHIBALD: Keep in mind this is a taxing district, and they've been funding everything to include overhead and design costs themselves. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are there projected funds for this area that we saw in our five-year CIE that would now be rolled into this project? MR. ARCHIBALD: There are some bike path funds, but the bike paths we need are new ones, not reconstruction of the existing ones. So I can't think right now of any projects that are currently funded that could provide a funding source for this. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So whatever assistance the board decides to provide is just outright $275,000 that is not really found in any other fund or budgeted in any other place that you know of? MR. ARCHIBALD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any other speakers, Mr. McNees? MR. McNEES: No speakers on this item. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No speakers? We've got folks lined up over here. MR. McNEES: Yes. I'm sorry. I have the wrong item. Yes, you do have. You have four speakers. Your first would be Denise Smith followed by Fred Thomas. MS. SMITH: Good morning. Denise Smith, chairperson of the Immokalee beautification committee. I'm a little nervous, so bear with me. On behalf of the Immokalee MSTU committee, we would like to thank you for giving the committee, its technical staff, and the community supporters the opportunity to speak and answer any questions you may have. As Mr. Archibald has pointed out, the executive summary is asking for additional funding of $275,000, and this funding would allow the Immokalee beautification committee to move forward with its State Route 29 project. Historically the 29 project began in 1990. After numerous designs and redesigns, FDOT finally approved the architectural plans in 1995. Once the plans were approved, the committee needed additional funding to meet the project's full monetary cost in order for the FDOT to issue the permits for our construction. The committee began steps back in January of '96 to approach the Board of County Commission for the additional funding then. An executive summary was prepared in March, and a summary was placed on the consent agenda in April; however, that executive summary was pulled from the agenda for unknown reasons. The committee asks that the additional funding be in the form of a grant since precedent has been sent -- set by the Vineyards projects, which was granted $250,000 in advance for maintenance; Davis Boulevard project, which has been granted $27,000 for design, and recently it was also advanced $80,000 for construction costs; also the Collier Reserve, which was granted 50 percent of the total project costs, plus the county has taken over the maintenance indefinitely. Now, it's my understanding that these projects were given precedence because they were classified as signature roadways within the Naples urban area. I know State Route 29 through Immokalee has not had this distinction placed upon it, but let's rethink this. We are the northern gateway to Collier County. We have been designated a main street zone, an enterprise zone, and a free trade zone for the Immokalee Airport. The Immokalee Airport Industrial Park is looking for -- to bring bus -- big industry to the Immokalee community. With all this in mind and considering the before-mentioned projects, I believe along with interest would be fair to the Immokalee community. Immokalee has consistently set its own precedence of paying its own way with County Road 846 a prime example. Immokalee taxpayers have already paid in taxes two-thirds of the money necessary for this project. And according to the county staff people, we will derive another $386,000 in ad valorem taxes over the next year. But let's not delay our project another year depending on this tax, because it will cause us to lose some 50,000 plus in grant money. Immokalee State Route 29 project has the support of the MPO, a majority of the downtown business owners, the Immokalee Airport group, the main street group, many other community leaders, and the community as a whole. Please grant us the money necessary to proceed forward now without delay, not only for the betterment -- betterment of Immokalee, but for the whole county as well. And I thank you for your time. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have one question. You mentioned a couple of projects throughout the county that were median landscape projects. Is there a difference here, because I believe this one includes sidewalk, lighting, benches? It's not just a median landscape project. It actually goes to the outside edges of the road and -- and covers both sides of the roadways with sidewalks and lighting and so forth? Is that -- is that correct? MS. SMITH: Yes. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. MR. McNEES: Mr. Thomas followed by Michael McGee. MR. THOMAS: Good morning, Commissioners. Good morning, Commissioner Berry. We talk about timing. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What is your name, sir? MR. THOMAS: Oh, my name is Fred Thomas, past president of Immokalee Chamber representing the Chamber here today. We are in Immokalee the last major area for industrial development in this county. The county commissioners have invested significant dollars to do some significant improvements out at the airport. We're having a major problem, depression I would even say, in the ag business, and we don't know where that's going with NAFTA and all of the competition that's coming from offshore. So Immokalee is looking to change and diversify its economic base. And every time we try to attract businesses there, there's always a question of our image and how we look. Our MSTU has been working very hard on this for some time. Now we have a situation where we can get some things done positively. And one of the things everybody understands, even the old farmer understands, you can't get a crop unless you make an investment on the front end and put some seed in the ground. And we ask you commissioners to do exactly that. Now, you could make us wait until we collect as much money in our ad valorem taxes to do it, and that would take probably another year. But another year will cause that total dollar amount to go up and just increase the amount of money we're going to have to then raise at a later time. I think it would be a very wise investment. I think a $275,000 outright grant would be a nice investment to help us develop businesses and get industry to come into Immokalee, thereby increasing the tax base in Immokalee. Okay? And I think that would be a real good thing to do. But the option that staff is offering, a $200,000 loan interest free and a $75,000 grant, seems a -- an easy investment to help turn around the community of Immokalee and make it a positive income stream for this county. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. HcNEES: Michael McGee followed by Michael Garrett. MR. MCGEE: Good afternoon. My name is Michael McGee. I'm the landscape design consultant that works with the beautification district, and we prepared all the plans. I'm here today to answer any technical information that you might need in regards to it. And, again, I know your agenda is long. We do have some boards if you want a full presentation, or we can continue on with a shorter one. If it's permissible, I'd like to hand these copies of some photographs to the commissioners. But I'd like to probably just correct a couple of things that I heard just earlier in regards to some of the funding. It's my understanding that if -- if it's not funded, for the funds to be raised to complete the project, the HSTU district generally has about a hundred thousand a year towards capital project or -- that could go towards developing a capital project. So it would probably take approximately anywhere from two to three years to build up the funds to get to the point that they'd have all the money to do it. I do want to apologize for some of the clarity of the pictures, but they went in through a rush, and they're a little bit blurry. But we do have some big boards if you'd like to see them. If not, I'm open for any questions that -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any questions for Mr. McGee? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: One quick one. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Go ahead. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sorry. What comes to mind is the phrase "Where's the beef?" I'm looking at 875,000 and not a lot of landscaping. What's driving the cost up predominantly? What's the big ticket here? MR. MCGEE: It's an urban area, and the problem there it's like retrofitting, and plus it's a state project; so we have to abide by all the state's guidelines and installation of different things. One of the major costs is lighting. And one of the factors that happened -- when we started the process in '93, we were coming through doing kind of some accent lighting in the medians like is done on 846. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. MR. MCGEE: But what happened was about a third way through the process, the state came back and found that their light levels were below their own standards on 29, and so they implemented a -- I call it a work program project and funded some money to redo all the lighting down 29. Well, it wasn't in coordination with what this project was happening, and so what we did is continued to talk with them. And they agreed and we've got it to the point of they're going to coordinate with us and allow the county to actually handle the project so that the lighting installation -- they're going to provide a hundred thousand in funds, and that's part of what was in there towards that. But that's a major cost, is getting this lighting and the fixtures in place. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Berry. COMHISSIONER BERRY: That's the question I had, is in regard to the lighting. What is that going to look like? MR. MCGEE: There's some pictures. And if you flip back on one of the sheets, there's some pictures in there. The small pictures of accent lighting are the ones like on 846. COMHISSIONER BERRY: Right. Go ahead. MR. MCGEE: There's two other fixtures involved. One is a simple street light fixture which will go intermediately between what are those street planters that you see. And then at the street planter locations, there's a combination of that fixture, the street light fixture, with the accent fixture banner arm and lower pedestrian light. Just to kind of give you an idea of what's out there, the light levels that were generated through the -- or recorded by the FDOT were below 1 foot candle, which is below their standard. This process will put it up to an average of 3.1 foot candles throughout the area. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You didn't pay anyone from Miami to tell you what color to paint these, did you? MR. MCGEE: No. The color was selected through the beautification committee through -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Careful. MR. MCGEE: -- a presentation, and that's the color they chose to go with, and we have existing fixtures on 846 and -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: But it's going to bring the lighting up considerably on Main -- MR. MCGEE: Considerably. It's almost -- at the average it's three times higher than what -- right now you're at 1 foot candle or less out on the roadway, and it will bring it to an average of 3.1, actually. COMMISSIONER BERRY: All I can say to the rest of the commissioners, I know that is a very important project. They're trying to certainly beef up that particular area and -- and try and spruce things up and get ready for something to happen hopefully at the airport so -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which seems to me like a no-brainer to go ahead and do some sort of loan -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think we have one more. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. -- to make sure we can make it a reality. I'm uncomfortable -- I'm not ready to give a grant. Denise mentioned the precedent. But I think in terms of whether it's Bayshore, Golden Gate Parkway, or out on Marco, or we can find any number of places throughout the community that have substantial traffic that have had to pay for their own, but Fred's absolutely right. We don't need to wait a couple of years to make this happen. I'm also uncomfortable with 70,000 on the sidewalk for the very same reason I said before, and that is we have a list. I've been on the commission four years. We had a list with 23 projects. I think we've completed three of them because our funds set aside specifically for bike paths and sidewalks are so sparse. And so I'm not ready to jump this above those 20 projects that have literally been waiting years, and this is actually just a rebuild. But if the community wants to undertake it itself and we can help make that a reality by doing a loan now, I think that's great. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: One more speaker? MR. HcNEES: Michael Garrett is your last public speaker. MR. GARRETT: Good morning. My name's Michael Garrett. I'm the Immokalee Main Street coordinator. And the good thing about going last is everybody else took what I was going to say; so let me just say thank you for your time. This is a very big community project, and hopefully this will help get the ball rolling. So thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can I ask, Mr. Archibald, what is fund 3417 MR. ARCHIBALD: Fund 341 is an assessment fund where there's dollars that are rolling over year after year for assessment project funding. So I believe that there were sufficient funds in there for loan purposes if the board so directs. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Like Commissioner Constantine, I'm all in favor of a loan for the full amount with terms of payback at no interest to be determined between transportation and the folks doing the project. As long as we're comfortable those funds are in excess and -- and we don't need them, we can be flexible on that payback and do it at no interest. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I just suggest do it at whatever interest rate we would carry so we don't actually make a dollar on it, but we don't lose any money either that way. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed. The funds sitting in there right now are not accruing anything, to my understanding. So -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. HcNees, you got some advice on that? MR. HcNEES: Whatever funds we would have in reserve would be drawing interest, yes, and the staff probably wouldn't object. Generally when we do interfund loans, we do it in exactly that manner at whatever the -- whatever our opportunity cost is of -- of not being able to invest that money, we would -- we would pay interest from fund to fund; so staff would agree to that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm going to support an interest-free loan so just for what it's worth. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess there's -- the only thing we need to be aware of, there is an expense -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- the general fund is incurring then, and I'm not comfortable with that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What was the nominal percentage of interest over a period of four or five years. But if that's the only dollars that we put into this project from the general tax fund, I'm comfortable with that. You know, obviously -- yeah, I'd love to -- I'd love to grant the funds but fiscally can't do it; so I think this is something we can do. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If that's a motion, I'll second it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me explain why I have the concern. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It may only be ten or fifteen thousand dollars in interest. But if we have beautification projects or other projects all over the county that require loans and if we start with one, we run the risk of others saying -- we're hard-pressed to say no on any other similar loan, and those start to add up pretty soon if you have five or ten different projects going. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me in the form of a motion try and make it specific enough that we -- the board approve a loan in the total amount for funding three -- from Fund 341 with no interest and a payback of up to six years, and the purpose for that loan with no interest is that the county has invested significant dollars in the industrial development at the airport. This is a gateway to that, and without this, that's going to have a tough time getting off the ground. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, excuse me. Pardon me. Just one comment, and that is it appears that you're using that Fund 341 as the element for disbursal of funds here. This is a taxing district, not an assessment district, and there are statutory limitations on pledging ad valorem, for instance, to pay back debt or projects into the future. Typically, for instance, with a capital project we get over the hurdle of -- of long-term debt in an ad valorem district when you go through the -- like the bond mechanism to pay for something all up front. But when you go and pay over a period of years, Chapter 125 provides, I think, a requirement for referendum. I would suggest that if you're going to get into long-term debt payment with an ad valorem pledge of more than two years. So I think that there -- it may be a little problematical, and I would like the ability to advise the board in -- in that regard a little further than -- than today's hearing. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll -- let me see if I can solve that problem by revising the motion to not identify specifically Fund 341, but to identify those rollover funds available for the project, and that would give us, I believe, the latitude to -- to determine those funds without putting ourselves in a sticky situation. MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think the question is really in regard to the payback -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: -- because that requires the HSTU no matter what fund it's paying back into to have an obligation of payback beyond a two-year statutory period; that is the statutory sticky issue there. MR. HcNEES: It's not the source of the loan proceeds, rather the source of the repayment. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Scratch the revision then and just ask the county attorney to help us work through that to the best of your ability. MR. WEIGEL: I certainly would. I might suggest even working with the finance committee and coming back to the board with some enhanced recommendation in that regard, perhaps even at the next meeting, January 7th, if it works for you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would have appreciated that that element be pointed out before it be listed as an option in our executive summary so that we could have either scratched it or considered others. But we'll -- I'll let the mot -- I'll just leave the motion stand as a commitment of that -- that amount and ask that you come back with the appropriate funding source -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: For the repayment period? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- for the repayment period for a final approval by this board. That's the best I can do, I'm afraid. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second agrees. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. And thank you very much to the beautification district for all their fine work on this. This is a great project. I know it's going to help a lot out in the Immokalee area. MR. THOMAS: Thank you very, very much. We might be able to get some state funds early on; so we might be able to pay it back over two years so we eliminate the problem for you. You know, if that's the understanding, we'll try to do that rather than delay this decision. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MR. THOMAS: Thank you. Item #9A RESOLUTION 96-590, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF NOT EXCEEDING $16,500,000 IN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SPECIAL OBLIGATION REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1997, TO REFUND CERTAIN OUTSTANDING INDEBTEDNESS OF THE COUNTY - ADOPTED MR. McNEES: Mr. Chairman, the bond counsel representative is here if you'd like to proceed with our ten o'clock item. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is he charging us by the hour? MR. McNEES: I expect he is. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then let's go to him. MR. McNEES: He's probably getting paid by the deal on this one. MR. MILLER: I'm Steve Miller with Nabors, Giblin, and Nickarson in Tampa, Florida; and, no, we're not charging by the hour. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good. MR. MILLER: I wanted to point out there are two -- there were some changes to the resolution that was handed out in your agenda packages that were required by the bond insurer and the rating agencies. The county attorney has the updated resolutions. I wanted to point out two changes to the title which is printed in the agenda. Instead of the not exceeding 15 million dollar amount, at the advice of your financial advisor, it is not exceeding 16 1/2. That was because of a fear that the insurance company was going to require a large reserve account. They did not. They required a -- a much smaller reserve. There's -- also in the title to the resolution, we have also inserted a provision identifying the security and repayment source for these bonds, and I will just quote that insert. Covenanting to budget and appropriate certain legally available nonad valorem funds to pay debt service on the bonds. The basic changes to your -- to this resolution were the requirements of the insurance company to include a reserve fund for this deal, which is funded at about half of what most reserve funds are funded at, and there is an antidilution test in there, which is neither of those requirements by the insurance company were a surprise. So to go forward with this, this is a delegation resolution that delegates to the chairman the authority to go forward and issue bonds if the interest rate market allows the parameters set forth in Section 202, which is on page 10 of the resolution. If all those parameters are met, the chairman may go forward and issue the bonds. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What is the projected realized income savings or dollar savings? MR. MILLER: If the financial advisor were here -- I'm really not in a position to answer that. There is a require -- what we're doing with this is taking commercial paper, which is very short term, taking it longer term. So it's more of a restructuring. I think there's some savings, but it's more of a restructuring of the -- of the debt of the county. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commercial paper is also somewhat volatile, and it can change year to year -- MR. MILLER: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- in a low fixed rate so that we can't get burned over the long haul. MR. MILLER: Absolutely. That's the goal. MR. McNEES: Commissioner, the other update would be -- as it stands today, having spoken to the financial advisor yesterday, we would not quite meet the target that you set, which is the 4.6 percent that's on page 10, and we will be essentially just staying tuned to the market. It's expected that sometime after January 1st we will probably hit that target and are not recommending issuing bonds immediately, but we'll just have to watch the market. And when we hit the target, we'll be ready, once you've adopted this resolution, to move forward quickly. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we're going to save from a budgetary standpoint an annual reduced payment on these particular bonds over what we were experiencing in the commercial paper program? MR. McNEES: That's our assumption given how well we can predict what our fixed-rate instruments will do, which is not very well. So that's where your target comes from. We're saying that if fixed rates are at 4.6 or below, we think it's a good move to fix the rates as opposed to run the annual variable rate lottery. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And upon issuance we will have those numbers in hand? MR. McNEES: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'm going to move approval of the resolution that we authorize the issuance of an amount not to exceed 60,500,000 in bonds, special obligation revenue bonds. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) MR. MILLER: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's take a short break and let our court reporter change paper. (A short break was held.) Item #883 EMERGENCY DECLARED. ORDINANCE 96-84 CREATING THE RADIO ROAD BEAUTIFICATION MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Ladies and gentlemen, we'll reconvene our meeting. Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. We'll reconvene our meeting here. Mr. Archibald, this next item is yours, municipal service taxing unit for a beautification district on Radio Road. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We'll be looking for an interest-free loan there. Sorry. MR. ARCHIBALD: Board members, agenda Item 8(B)(3) is an emergency ordinance to consider the creation of the Radio Road beautification municipal service taxing unit. For short, we'll refer to it just as a Radio Road HSTU. The ordinance is being processed at this time to meet the end-of-year requirement, and as a result staff couldn't meet the two-week advertising requirement, and that's -- that's why you're seeing it on your agenda item, not under public hearing, but under public works and also being considered as a emergency ordinance. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Archibald, this won't begin any tax; all it does is make it legal and possible if they vote to have a tax for themselves this coming year that it could begin in the fall; is that correct? MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes. It's strictly the mechanism that would allow a future district for landscaping Radio Road. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we declare an emergency and approve this item so that we can meet the year-end calendar. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Speakers? MR. HcNEES: You have none. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Next item, 8(B)(4), report to the board on the status of the extension of Airport Road from Immokalee Road to Piper Boulevard. MR. ARCHIBALD: Board members, agenda Item 8(B)(4) is a report on the type of bridge structure -- MR. WEIGEL: Okay, pardon me. The board just in this -- in the previous agenda item declared the emergency and voted with the appropriate supermajority for the emergency. Then the next step on that agenda item would then be to vote for the approval of the ordinance. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We did that all in one motion. Do we need two separate motions? MR. WEIGEL: I would prefer that if you could do two motions in that regard. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, considering that the first motion will suffice as declaring the emergency, I'll now make a motion that we approve the item. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: A motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. MR. WEIGEL: And I would also declare for the record that notwithstanding that we couldn't meet the statutory time period for advertisement, that an advertisement was placed and did appear in the Naples Daily News in this regard. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. Now, Mr. Archibald. Item #884 REPORT ON THE STATUS OF THE PROPOSED EXTENSION OF AIRPORT ROAD FROM IHMOKALEE ROAD TO PIPER BOULEVARD AND ON THE STATUS OF THE PIPER BOULEVARD CONNECTOR FROM CYPRESS WAY EAST TO EUCLID AVENUE - STAFF TO CONTINUE WORKING ON THIS ISSUE COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Archibald, before we go too far, could you explain to me why we're doing this? MR. ARCHIBALD: Yeah. This particular agenda item dates back to mid -- midyear when the board directed staff to go ahead and develop an alignment and a bridge schedule and an estimate of cost to implement the extension of Airport Road to what will be Piper Boulevard when it's extended between both Palm River and Willoughby Acres. The purpose behind it is twofold. One is to provide bridge access to Palm River during the time frame in which the Palm River Boulevard Bridge will be removed and rebuilt. Also, this will provide access for Willoughby Acres at a signalized location to eliminate some concerns that currently exist at the intersection of Euclid and Immokalee Road. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which is the primary reason? MR. ARCHIBALD: The first. That is, to provide bridge access during the time the Palm River Bridge is removed. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll call that the initiator, because that's what really got the ball rolling on this, because we have some funds coming in from South Florida for the replacement of that bridge. The reason I made a request of this is at the last hearing was, as Mr. Archibald said, twofold. First is that that is the only light in and out of Palm River, and we have a lot of families and a nice mix in that community. The second thing is Willoughby has never had a light. COHMISSIONER BERRY: And that's been a big concern, and that's where I come into this whole thing. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The third is Cypress Way East; that bridge is dangerous and needs to be removed. So we're talking about reconstructing one, removing another, and not providing anything else. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Other than that, though, is there a reason? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Other than that, I can't think of anything. So -- but that's kind of the shotgun approach, all of those things. And I think Commissioner Norris is the one that said it last time -- or I said it and he nodded -- that this should have been done a long time ago. We really should have bridged that area in the past. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The late '60s. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any speakers on this item? MR. HcNEES: No, sir, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any other questions from the board? Motion, please. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we accept the status report and direct staff to continue working toward the completion of this project within the time frame and funding scenario presented so eloquently by Mr. Archibald. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Archibald, when do we plan on having those numbers back for the necessary budget amendments that were -- for that time? MR. ARCHIBALD: Probably the first quarter of the new year we'll have a report back to the board, not only on the financing of it, but probably we'll have our first design report for the board. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Great. Thank you. Item #8C1 STAFF TO PREPARE REPORT FOR THE 1/14/97 MEETING REGARDING A DISCUSSION ITEM TO THE COLLIER COUNTY LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION REGARDING A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECITON 125.0104, FLORIDA STATUTES, THAT WOULD PERMIT THE USE OF TOURIST TAXES TO PURCHASE LAND FOR ADDITIONAL PUBLIC BEACH PARKING FACILITIES AND FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING PUBLIC BEACH PARKING FACILITIES AND TO ACQUIRE OR USE TOURIST TAX FUNDS FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TO BEACH ACCESS AREAS CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 8(C)(1), recommendation that commissioners authorize staff to present a discussion item to the Collier County legislative delegation. MR. OLLIFF: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Tom Olliff, your public services administrator. This item is just that; it's a request that you authorize your staff to be able to make a presentation to the legislative delegation at their meeting on the 16th now which would amend Florida general law and would allow for counties to be able to use tourist development taxes to be able to purchase additional beach parking properties or beach access properties or to be able to improve properties that the county may already own and -- and wish to use for beach parking or accesses. The -- the actual statute is very, very specific in terms of what tourist development taxes can be -- be used for. And oddly enough, this is one of the uses that was not included in that statute. And -- and while the tax can be used for beach maintenance, beach renourishment, there is nothing in the ordinance that allows for the improvements associated with beach parking. And in Collier County's case this board is all too familiar with the fact that beach parking is at a premium. We have done all we can to maximize the -- the beach parking lands that you currently have available. We have just recently made a very large investment in renourishing the existing beaches that we have, but without some improvements and some additions in terms of public beach parking, it -- it's a difficult thing for the public to be able to access the beaches that we just spent so much money to improve. The other issue that we think the legislature will consider is that the purpose of the tax was to enhance tourism. And if -- as you know, most of the properties that are beachfront and developable for hotel and motel uses are already done so. So most of the hotels that you see being developed today are inland. And those people who are coming to Collier County and staying at those hotels have to rely on public beach accesses in order to be able to avail themselves of public beach. So for those reasons we're asking that you authorize your staff to be able to make that presentation. We're sorry that we didn't have it in bill format already for you, but we think that the legislative delegation will support this. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is one of those dichotomies; the state says you can use the money to make your beaches great, but you can't use it to let people park and enjoy them. I think we need to establish a priority, though. The funds primarily should be used for renourishment. And I don't want renourishment hindered in allocating any dollars for potential or future beach parking. So in presenting this to the state, obviously I'm supportive of it, but only in the sense that it does not sacrifice your ability and scheduled ability to renourish the beaches. I don't want to, you know, do one at the sacrifice of the other. The second element is -- I think you may know; we've been dealing with the state on an access question at the south end of Delnor-Wiggins asking for 10 feet there. And what we hear is that the beach is too crowded or something silly like that at Delnor-Wiggins. So, again, spend the money to renourish the beach, but don't let anybody else use them. These things don't make sense. So I would like to see in some format this proposed to the delegation and ask for their assistance. In addition, I'd like to ask for their assistance in working with the state agencies to try and accomplish an innocuous easement to the south of Delnor-Wiggins so our people can access this beach that we've just renourished. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a procedural question, and that is I assume if we're successful in lobbying our legislators, this will change state law. There would be a second step; we would have to then change our local ordinance? MR. OLLIFF: Yes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Berry. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Is this supported locally by the TDC, this idea? MR. OLLIFF: The idea was actually brought up by the TDC several years ago, and an attorney's opinion was requested and rendered that said that in order to be able to do this, it would have to have an amendment to the statute. So I took from that that there was interest on the part of the TDC, at least at that time. We have not broached the TDC with this only because it was not a funding request that they -- they generally make recommendations on. However, if this were authorized and an amendment to the ordinance were actually developed, that would process itself through the TDC back before this board before the ordinance was amended, and then, of course, any funding requests would also go that route. COMMISSIONER BERRY: My reason for this is if there needed to be any lobbying effort if, indeed, this is approved, that that group could certainly be called on to lobby in behalf of this on the state level. MR. OLLIFF: That's a good idea. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If they're supportive of it, which I'm very curious to know. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We don't have an official position, but as I mentioned to one of the members in a meeting yesterday, not all the properties are on the beach. And all of those inland properties that pay into the bed taxes, their guests would like to use the beach, too, and they need to park generally to do that. I think the TDC would be remiss in not at least, you know, supporting it in part. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I'd like to hear from them. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Certainly. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The -- when is the legislative delegation? MR. OLLIFF: My understanding, it's been pushed to January 16th now, and as far as I knew late last week, it hadn't changed since then. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Can we have Hiss Gansel then put that on the TDC agenda for the January meeting? She is indicating yes. MR. OLLIFF: I -- I don't know when the meeting was. I recall that I know I checked on it. Whether or not they had a meeting before I could get to this county commission meeting, they didn't. So if there is a meeting before the 16th, we will have it on their agenda. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Not before the 16th. MS. GANSEL: Excuse me. Jean Gansel from the budget office. The next TDC meeting is on January 20th. However, if -- we can call a special meeting regarding this or poll the members if that's the desire of the board to do so. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I'd like to know if they support this. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would too. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. Let -- can we leave it to their chairman as an option whether to poll the members or call a special meeting? But either way we would request their input prior to the board meeting before the 16th. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess if -- it's going to be Commissioner Norris's discretion, but I hope it's not simply polling them, because I think somehow you don't get the same discussion when you pick up the phone and run through with each individual as opposed to having a conversation like we are right now. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed. My only thought is that if they are so -- if there's no question about their support for it, why should we require them to have a special meeting? I would like to leave that option available to them, you know, in case -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You are such an optimist. MR. OLLIFF: What I'd suggest then is that I'll go ahead and schedule this for the delegation's agenda and bring this back to you on your meeting of the 14th, January 14th, and -- and give you an update as to what the TDC's recommendation is. And then should you decide you don't want to have that on the legislative delegation, we can always withdraw it from consideration before the 16th. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In addition, could I ask if it's the board's -- if the board agrees to ask staff to prepare a separate statement regarding the request for an access easement to the south of Delnor-Wiggins State Park for board discussion on the 14th and possible presentation to the delegation on the 16th? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great idea. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. The -- the other question, Miss Gansel, what -- what would preclude us from changing the date of the TDC meeting to the 13th? MS. GANSEL: We -- we advertise the meetings at the beginning of the year. What I would suggest, that if we have a special meeting on the 13th and continue with the regular-scheduled meeting on the 20th would maybe be a better way of approaching it. But there would be no problem with having a special meeting on the 13th. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Thank you. No action is needed on that then, Mr. Olliff? MR. OLLIFF: No, sir. Item #BE1 FUNDING TO THE NAPLES AREA CHAMBER OF COHMERCE FOR $125,000 TOURIST DEVELOPMENT CATEGORY B FUNDS - APPROVED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right. Our next item then is 8(E)(1), funding for the Naples Area Chamber of Commerce, 125,000, TDC, Category B. MS. GANSEL: Good morning, Commissioners. Jean Gansel from the budget office. The next three items are all tourist development requests for funding. The -- all the applications were reviewed at their December 2nd meeting. I'm very happy to report that all three of these applications received unanimous support from the Tourist Development Council. I haven't been able to report that in awhile. The first item is -- is for Category B, the advertising and promotion funds. And this is -- the applicant was -- the Naples Area Chamber of Commerce had requested $125,000 to provide the fulfillment aspect of the -- for the North Naples area for promotion. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have public speakers on any of these items? MR. HcNEES: You have none. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Do we have questions from the board? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't have any. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to move approval of Item 8(E)(1). COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Item #8E2 FUNDING TO THE NAPLES AREA ACCOHODATIONS ASSOCIATION FOR $489,058 FOR TOURIST DEVELOPMENT CATEGORY B FUNDS - APPROVED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 8 (B (2) . COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I will move approval of Item 8 (B) (2) . COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Item #8E3 FUNDING TO THE MARCO ISLAND YHCA FOR $120,000 FOR THE 1997 MARCO ISLAND SPORTS FESTIVAL, TOURIST DEVELOPMENT CATEGORY C FUNDS - APPROVED COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On the third item I got a question. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'll just hold off on -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Last year -- there was some question raised about last year the gentleman who organized it paying himself a salary or something for running the event. That hadn't been listed in the application. What's the situation for this year? MS. GANSEL: Okay. That -- with regard to last year -- and, of course, this application is a different applicant -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. MS. GANSEL: -- and such, but it was not listed as salary when the request for funding came through. It was appropriate for promotion, which was the line item that was included in their budget. This had been done with other people. The line item of the budget was more specific as to the purpose as to exactly who would be receiving the funding. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I realize we have a different entity this year. But I assume the question may have been asked at TDC, but -- but we don't have fifteen or twenty thousand of a hundred and twenty thousand set aside to pay whomever it is that has brought this to us. MS. GANSEL: Exactly. And there is -- in fact, in this application on page 24 we do have the budget that is being proposed, and as -- the fourth column of numbers over is how they anticipate spending the $120,000 that would be from TDC funds, and you'll notice that there is a salary here. That will not be for the promoters or the people that are conducting the event. This will be for officials for some clerical support. There will not be the same situation -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is a wonderful event. With that I'll yield to Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll move approval of 8(E)(3). COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: As a footnote to those three items, hopefully the checklist that the TDC is forming now will include in it more detailed budget information in the future? MS. GANSEL: Yes. There is a subcommittee that has met and is continuing to meet and will be bringing their recommendations back to both the full TDC and the board. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Great. MS. GANSEL: Thank you, Commissioners. Item #8E4 YEAR-END REPORT ON REVENUES FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996 - PRESENTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Smykowski, you have a report for us on revenues. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. For the record, Michael Smykowski, budget director. I've got a year-end report on revenues for fiscal year '96. Essentially what it does is compares actual revenues received to the budget figures as well as to the amounts forecast during the budget process, and the -- the importance of the -- the amounts forecast in the budget process is that our -- our cash balances to be brought forward -- what we call carryforward is predicated on our forecast revenues and expenses. essentially when you get down to the end of the year, the forecast revenue figures become actually more important than the budgeted. I am happy to report on page 3 of the executive summary, in most cases with minor deviations, all revenues are in excess of the amounts forecast. I'll just highlight a few of the areas of significance. The half-cent sales tax, as you will recall, based on the information contained in our third-quarter revenue report, we had upped those estimates, and the actual revenue received was slightly in excess of our revised estimate in September. So that will provide some additional revenue to the general fund. There was a 1.1 percent vari -- positive variance. We had also revised upwards the state revenue-sharing estimates in September prior to the final millage rate being set on September 18th. There was no variance from the revised figure that we had provided at that point. The gas taxes, for the most part, were fine. Ambulance revenues exceeded the amount forecast. Building permits and road impact fees, our construction activity remained strong during the fourth quarter. There are positive variances within each of those categories. As part of the -- the building permit variance is significant. As you will recall, we had discussed the -- based on the decision to transition some of the community development functions from ad valorem taxes to permits, there was a question as to the need for a fee increase within community development. That was also a -- an item of discussion Mr. Ward from the CBIA focused on at the final public hearing. In fact, Mr. Cautero is bringing the revised fee schedule for community development, and you'll hear that this afternoon as part of your public hearings. We re -- we recognize the fact during the third-quarter revenue report that there would be revenue in excess of the amount in the budget. We just felt that, though, administratively it made more sense to just fix that once as opposed to take an interim step on September 18th and then be changing it again based on actual -- actual receipts in FY '96 at that point. Beach parking fees, there was just a slight deviation from our revised forecast of 405,000. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Help me remember. When did we revise that forecast? At what point in the year did we look at and change the forecast? MR. SHYKOWSKI: For? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: For that one, for example. Do you know? I mean, we orig -- it was originally almost 60 percent under budget, and then we changed the forecast, and now it's only about 3 percent under budget. I was just wondering at what point in the year we -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: We recognized that fairly early on. The first quarter we were projecting a shortfall and -- and recognize that in the budget process. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How timely. MR. SHYKOWSKI: And the numbers that were finally forecast were the 405 versus the budget of 938. So that was recognized quite early on in the process. And next year we budgeted 550,000 as the meters for beach parking will be in place for the full season. You'll recall last year we had problems with, A, poor winter weather, and in addition, the meters weren't installed in a lot of cases until late December missing the first bulk of the tourist season. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I remember why. I just couldn't remember when. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Sure. So in general terms, the report is -- is quite positive. There's no major shortfalls noted. There's no corrective action or anything that's required at this point. This is just -- as we report quarterly throughout the year, this is just telling you how we finished up compared to what we -- what we thought we'd be. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think, more importantly, it shows the office of management and budget, although being slightly conservative, has been on the mark with their projections. And I think there have been past accusations of some shell game with those projections, and this obviously shows that's not the case. I think you're to be congratulated. MR. SMYKOWSKI: And where we've been wrong, we've used this measure as a means to take the corrective action necessary in the case of the beach parking fees or the sales tax revenues. As we recognized we'd get additional revenue, your final millage rate decision was based on information contained in our third-quarter report. So we're trying to provide you with the best information possible for you to make your decisions. Item #8E5 RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING AND APPROPRIATING CARRY FORWARD IN THE GENERAL FUND - APPROVED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This next item yours as well? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. This is -- Item 8(E)(5) is appropriating carryforward within the general fund. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Smykowski, I just need to interrupt for a minute and make a motion that we approve budget amendments recognizing carryforward as described herein and authorize the transfer of $267,000 to Fund 490. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Item #8E6 FISCAL YEAR 1996 PILOT GAINSHARING PROGRAM RESULTS - APPROVED Next item, 8(E)(6), fiscal year 1996 pilot gainsharing program results. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. As you'll recall, the board had expressed interest in staff developing a gainsharing program for FY '96. The county manager did develop a pilot program with incentive rewards for participating departments that achieved or surpassed established performance measurement criteria while also maintaining their quality standards. The three participating departments were the library; facilities management, the maintenance services section; and the utilities water department. Proposed gainsharing was based on meeting goals in the areas of efficiency of output as measured by actual unit cost versus target unit cost for library materials circulated, gallons of water produced, and square footage maintained. Savings generated from budget would be 50-50 between participating department and the board. It was further agreed that as the -- the budget was predicated on a 3 percent attrition rate, that we would back out 3 percent attrition, and that has been done. There -- there is a note, though, the pay plan adjustment in FY '96 was unanticipated and unbudgeted; and, therefore, it was not included in the unit cost targets for each of the respective departments. As such, we have backed the -- the associated cost of the pay plan adjustment out of the department's actual expenditures prior to calculating savings. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Smykowski, let me make sure I understand this. Through their hard work the library department identified 107,000 in savings, the facilities management saved over 54,000, and our water department saved over $600,0007 MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Wow. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It seems that we accomplished a set-out goal here. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It should be expanded for next year to other departments so that we have more success. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It appears to be working well, Mr. Smykowski. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You need some approval for us to -- for the gainsharing? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, indeed, Mr. Chairman. Bonuses -- as identified, employee bonuses would be awarded, as well as setting aside money for discretionary department purchases and professional development training. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So moved. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And, importantly, we lower the bar a notch for next year and see how well we go. MR. McNEES: And I judge from the look on Mr. Smykowski's face, he may be recommending the gainsharing budget analyst be added to his staff next year. This is a lot of work for his people. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Was it the dark circles under his eyes that gave that away? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Somewhere in all those savings there may be the funds to do that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's probably more a function of the baby not sleeping. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It could be that. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you. Item #9B BOARD CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO TOURISM GRANT PROGRAM AGREEHENT DATED DECEMBER 27, 1995, BY AND BETWEEN PGA TOUR, INC., AND COLLIER COUNTY - STAFF RECOHMENDATION APPROVED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item is 9(B), board consideration of voter amendment to tourism grant program agreement. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And how appropriate that just three seconds ago we're handed the executive summary for this item. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Miss Ashton. MS. ASHTON: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record I'm Heidi Ashton, assistant county attorney. The item before you is as a result of some report that's being issued by the internal audit department. They've identified some amendments that we need to make to some of our contracts to reflect the way these contracts are actually being paid. I've listed the PGA Tour contract and four other contracts. The PGA Tour is for Category C money, and the other four are for Category B. These contracts are actually payment contracts rather than reimbursement contracts, and the internal audit department has advised that we amend our contracts accordingly. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, who decided that they were payment instead of reimbursement contracts? We approved them, and they said they were reimbursement contracts. So who made the decision that they were actually payment instead of reimbursement? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, when you allocate Category B funds to an organization, NATB, that exists solely for the purpose of expending those funds, what are we reimbursing? They create no revenue -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with the golf tournament. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, wait a minute. These are all the same circumstance. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Including the one we just approved for the Marco Island YHCA. MS. ASHTON: Apparently since this program was instituted, the contracts have always stated "reimbursement." COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Uh-huh. MS. ASHTON: I wasn't aware that there was a distinction between the payment and reimbursement, and to that effect I'll take responsibility for the error. All Category B funds are payment. They are never reimbursement, and I didn't -- I didn't realize that, and so this contract -- I don't know if there are any other Category C contracts that will require amendment at this point. Our TDC coordinator can take a look at the rest of the contracts that are still outstanding. We're amending the -- our standard contract. The previous contracts that you approved will provide for payment contracts rather than reimbursement. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I understand for Category B '- I'm sorry. No, I'm confused. The golf tournament comes out of which? MS. ASHTON: It requested Category B funds but was directed to use Category C funds instead. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And -- and so I understand that it's different from, for example, the tourism board; true or false? MS. ASHTON: It might be better for somebody else from the finance department or our TDC coordinator to answer that finance side of it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The application we just approved for the Marco YMCA for the -- the event down there, is that reimbursement or payment? MS. ASHTON: I believe it's reimbursement, but I don't know if our TDC coordinator is here to address -- I don't see her. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The difference in reimbursement and payment is, do you submit a paid invoice that says I have spent this money, please reimburse me, or do you submit a bill that says please pay this bill? MS. ASHTON: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And in some cases do you submit an estimate that says I think it might cost this much? Please give me the money. And that's apparently what's been happening, and that's just unacceptable. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: If you go back in Category C, we've been doing payment more than reimbursement. A perfect example is the outdoor theater thing we just did. So if we're going to pull all of them back, let's pull them all back now. MS. ASHTON: Yeah. That is one contract that may require amendment at this point. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Because that one specifically was payment. We knew that going in, and we did it anyway. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which one? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The outdoor theater. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Epic. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, it came out. I mean, I couldn't vote on that one, but I looked at the contract. It says reimbursement. They know they have to go to get a line of credit somewhere and get -- and spend the money and then get reimbursed. That's what their contract said. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That wasn't their presentation. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes. But, see, that's the problem. They all say that where some of them have been paid. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me -- you know, quite obviously, Commissioner Mac'Kie, you have stated several times you have a real problem with the -- the golf tournament expenses anyway. My point is, rather than an individual -- and pardon the term. I can't think of -- vendetta or problem with that one, we really need to talk about the whole of Category C, not just the tournament. And if we're going to go back to previous approvals that allowed for a payment scenario -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's bring them all back. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- we're going to have to go way back. Now, my point is that some areas it may be appropriate payment, other areas an appropriate reimbursement depending on the entity holding the event and what the county's role and involvement may be. If we don't have the flexibility to determine that, then what we're saying is you have to have the money before you can have the event. It's kind of like needing a hundred-thousand-dollar loan and asking -- and having to provide a hundred thousand dollars in collateral. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I agree that changes need to be made. What I object to is that on today's agenda is the golf tournament that we're going to -- we're being asked to change last year's contract, which they have not even complied with the minimum standards of last year's contract. They haven't -- they -- they have, according to the draft report, received improper expenditures and have not submitted the financial data that they are required to submit -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: December 27th. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- within 30 days of -- of being asked and -- and they haven't, and they continue not to. And I don't want to give them any special favors. I don't want to do anything special for them. I want them to comply with their contract, and then let's look at this overall problem, because it's a big problem overall. But I'm very nervous when we single out the golf tournament, which already doesn't comport with the guidelines, doesn't -- is not an event in off season. I mean, we've made so many exceptions for this golf tournament that now to give -- to make it the one that we do the special amendment to the contract for is a bad idea, at least until they have complied with the contract from last year by providing the financial data. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, it's no secret that you have a problem with the golf tournament, and that's fine. But to suggest that they are the only one or somehow the leader in alterations to what our tourist tax ordinance reads is absurd. We've -- at least half of what we've approved, including the epic drama, do not meet the guidelines of our TDC ordinance, of our tourist tax dollar ordinance. We've done that with the Marco Cat -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Absolutely. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- Naples Institute. So to suggest that this is somehow different and being given special favors is absurd. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But it's being given special favors because the agenda item today is 9(B), board consideration of an amendment to the tourism grant agreement dated this time last year between the PGA Tour and Collier County. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And I'm reading the executive summary, and it lists PGA Tour, Incorporated; it lists Naples Area Convention and Visitors' Bureau, Incorporated, 595,000; Naples Area Convention and Visitors' Bureau, Incorporated, 900,000; Marco Island Chamber of Commerce, Incorporated, 397,000; Marco Island Chamber of Commerce, 600,000. All of these are going to have to have contract amendments to make sure that they reflect that they are payment contracts instead of reimbursement contracts. Why are you not picking on them? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because this was handed to me 30 seconds ago, and I've been mad since Thursday that the golf tournament was getting some sort of special attention. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I've -- I've had discussions with Mr. Weigel and had summaries since this past week; so I'm not sure. Perhaps -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What did you get from Mr. Weigel because -- I am sorry to interrupt. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I did not have this executive summary. If you let me finish my sentence, I'll tell you exactly what I got. I got a general -- actually from Mr. Brock's office as well, a breakdown of the audit, what they did, what corrective action they think is necessary. It outlined all the different groups including the golf tournament and the others and what action would be taken today. I assume corrective action will be taken on the others as well. Just because it's not in this particular item doesn't mean it will never happen. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But it is. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And -- wait. Has anyone bothered to read the recommendation that we conceptually approve the amendments, forward them to the TDC for their review, and then back to the board for final approval? So rather than having this argument twice, I'd like to have it once. And I know we're going to have it again. It's like talking about the landfill. We have the same argument over and over and over. So rather than have it twice, you know, let's just hold off on that argument. And because when this comes back to us, we will have received the final report and accounting of the tournament; so your comments about whether it does or doesn't meet it can be either verified or not by this entire board rather than your position alone. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I had not read the recommendation; so I think that that does make sense. So let's -- if we send it back to TDC, if we go through a thorough review, I just want to be careful. This draft audit report that's out indicates bad things from PGA, and I don't want to give them any more money until we know that they're going to comply with the financial requirements of last year's contract. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Mitchell, can you clarify that? Does your audit indicate bad things from the PGA? MR. MITCHELL: For the record, Jim Mitchell from the finance and accounting department. Commissioner, it's not my audit, but we do have the director of internal audit here, Mr. Bob Titus, so if he would come up and address that issue. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: While he's coming, I'll tell you what I think are some of the bad things in the draft. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to hear from the folks who actually put the draft together instead of interpretation of what might be in there. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I was going to read to you from the audit draft. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think Mr. Titus can read, don't you, Mr. Titus? MR. TITUS: Bob Titus, director of internal audit. I think to sum up what we found in the audit was that as far as the PGA is concerned, there was not strict compliance with the letter of the law. It wasn't strict compliance with what was written in the contract. And our sense, however, is that the contract may not have reflected the intention of the parties, and that's the sense. We didn't get a sense of any intent to deceive on their part, but we had a sense that they were attempting to comply to something that it was difficult for them to comply with. That, thereby, led us to the conclusion that maybe the contract what they signed -- that they signed, they didn't really mean to comply with those -- those terms in the contract. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: May I ask you a couple of specific questions about the draft audit? Does it indicate that about $20,000 has been paid for travel and promotional expenses that were not included in the budget or the application submitted to the county commission? MR. TITUS: What we found was that there were invoices that were submitted by the PGA Tour that may not have reflected expenditures that they actually incurred. It seems as though the invoice -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. TITUS: It seems as though the invoices that they submitted were submitted at a date that would have been prior to the actual incur -- incurfence of expenditures. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And -- and, likewise, I -- I have it here and can -- and can point to you. There are -- there are about twenty -- is it twenty-one, twenty-six thousand dollars of expenses that were for travel reimbursement and other costs which were not listed in the grant application? MR. TITUS: Our audit didn't really look that much at the expenditures behind those invoices. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: I got it from the clerk. MR. TITUS: No. I'm saying our audit did not look that much behind the expenditures that were submitted for the support, because we felt that the invoices themself did not comply with the terms of the contract. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Brock, could you discuss what you and I looked at yesterday? MR. BROCK: Okay. I think part of the problem, Commissioner -- and let me identify myself for the record. I'm Dwight Brock. I'm the clerk of the court. What the audit was looking at was the TDC programs in general as opposed to any specific element of the TDC program that we were trying to take apart piece by piece. The finance department in the process of doing its preaudit function began looking at some of the expenditures that were presented to us. And we determined, based upon the records that were submitted to us -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, I have to ask, one board member came here today prepared to hear in detail an audit report. That's not on the agenda. Now, I'm not -- I'm not saying that what is being said doesn't need to be said. We have a draft report. We do not have a response to the draft report yet. We don't have both sides of a given story for the -- and this is not scheduled for the board to hear it and should be scheduled for the board to hear it. Point being, I didn't come here today with the necessary preparation to discuss in full detail the draft report, yet we're hearing it now. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let me tell you why I did, and that's because there is an item on the agenda that said we were going to amend last year's contract with the golf tournament; no backup in the packet. So I decided I better do some research to find out what happened with last year's golf tournament that required an amendment. The more I looked, the more I found problems. And f what we're going to do today is begin the process of looking, that's different than what the agenda item said. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, that -- and we said that's exactly what we're doing. My point is, before we go into -- and I'm sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Brock. MR. BROCK: No problem. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sure you'd rather sit there and talk to us. But the point is rather than going into this full detail thing about the audit, which I did not come prepared to discuss today, you know, if you guys want to have a talk and you want to get, you know, Hike Cutty (phonetic) from the paper and sit around and listen to you talk about it, great. But let's do it at the appropriate time, which is when the audit has been presented with both sides, so that we can look at the actual merits and the board is being asked to make a final decision. We're not being asked that today. So, again, I want to hear this once, not twice. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Agreed. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Agreed. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I can hear it once. The agenda item made me think we were going to hear it once and that that was going to be today; so I was prepared for that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. We now know that's not true so -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I can wait. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Are you also going to expect a draft or a final audit report on -- on the irregularities with the Category B monies? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Are you going to insist on that? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Or are you just going to single out the golf tournament as you have been doing in the past? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If you look at the draft report, it covers many, many events other than the golf tournament, all of which have not been -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I read it to you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Excuse me? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You were unaware of it. I read it to you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, sir. I'm talking about the draft audit report -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- which covers much more -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: My question is, are you going to insist on the same level of scrutiny to the Category B events as you are on this one particular Category C event, if you have some sort of personal objection to it? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That scrutiny is already in process because our clerk is thorough. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, I sense the Christmas spirit waning a bit. (Laughter) COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think it's out the window myself. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What I'm going to do is ask that we approve staff recommendation which will allow for all of this to be heard at the appropriate time and the appropriate form before a final decision is made. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Brock. MR. BROCK: Thank you. Item #10A REQUEST FOR STREET CLOSURE FOR SECOND ANNUAL CUB SCOUT SOAP BOX DERBY - APPROVED COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock, on the next item, unless you get some -- need to get some good publicity in for it, feel free to -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. On Item 10(A) I know Mr. Standridge (phonetic) has been here all day and would probably love to say something, but if you don't mind, I'm going to ask that the board approve Item 10(A), request for street closure for the second annual Cub Scout Cubmobile Derby. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It was a great success last year. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Speakers? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have any speakers on Item 10 (A) ? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Worth waiting for, gentlemen? Item #10B RESOLUTION 96-591, APPOINTING C. PERRY PEEPLES, THOMAS R. PEEK, ROBERT L. DUANE, DALAS D. DISNEY AND STEVEN W. VERGO TO THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Appointment of members to the Development Services Advisory Committee, reappoint five members to serve four-year terms. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Perhaps we could each make a suggestion. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Perhaps we could each make a suggestion. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll start. I'd like to see Perry Peoples on the board. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, you took mine. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine, do you have a suggestion? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Bob Duane. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Where is he? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Dalas Disney. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Tom Peek. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't know any of the remaining people. I should have spoke up there. I don't know any of the remaining people. Let's see, do we have -- are these all recommended reappointments, or is it just wide open at this point? MS. FILSON: The ones that are -- Sue Filson from the board. I -- the ones that are recommended for appointment I have to the right of them. I have four -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. The one member that was recommended and not reappointed is Steven Verge; so I'll add him. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the five as outlined by each of us: Peoples, Peek, Duane, Disney, and Verge. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Nice to see things back together again. Item #10C CLARIFICATION OF THE BCC'S POSITION ON THE CLEVELAND CLINIC'S CERTIFICATE OF NEED APPLICATION BEFORE THE STATE - BCC ENDORSEMENT RESTATED ALONG WITH INDIGENT CARE PROVISION CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Item 10(C), Commissioner Mac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: 10(C) is an item that I added just in an attempt to clarify the Board of County Commissioners' involvement in the certificate of need process. I didn't attend but did watch on television the presentation that the chairman made, and I have a copy of the letter that he wrote to the health care administration agency, and -- and in the transcript which I have, too, of the -- of the meeting where Mr. Norris spoke, I'm afraid he went beyond what my intention was. And so I want to bring it back to -- to be sure that that -- that at least my position is clarified, and if there are others who want to have it clarified, then this would be an opportunity for that. What we discussed in the meeting in the -- before the Wednesday hearing was what I intended to communicate, and what I believe the record reflects is that State of Florida, should you choose to issue a certificate of need for another hospital in Collier County, most importantly, that hospital must participate proportionately in charity care in Collier County. And we like Cleveland Clinic. If you're going to issue a certificate of need, we like Cleveland Clinic better than we like a for-profit hospital because we like Cleveland's reputation, and we like its not-for-profit status. That's all I intended to convey, because I don't know whether or not -- I don't want to be involved in the process of a certificate of need issuance. Those are long, drawn-out hearings because it's a very technical, very involved process. And so I wanted to clarify that my position was as I just stated. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think the first thing we need to do is thank Commissioner Norris for spending the time he did that day through that entire hearing to advance the board's position. I, too, share a little -- a similar concern that my -- you know, we didn't sit and adopt a written resolution that was very specific and to the point. It was a verbal discussion, and we asked Commissioner Norris to take from that and convey to the panel what we had said. And the only discrepancy I had was that it's the state's job to determine the certificate of need. And I don't know whether we need more beds or not. I think we need competition. I think we need a not-for-profit research institution over a predatory for-profit one, and I think we need them to fund indigent care. Those are the points that I wanted to convey that were conveyed very clearly. The one statement regarding we think you should issue the certificate is the only element that I wouldn't have said taking away from that conversation. But, again, I'm just one member of the board. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And let me -- let me clarify. Let me just make a statement. I'm sorry if it wasn't made clear on that December the 3rd meeting, but I know the discussion went very rapidly, actually. There was very little discussion. And I simply asked for board permission to authorize me to represent that the county commission supports the application of the Cleveland Clinic. And by that I would take to mean, and I did take to mean, that since they are applying for a certificate of need, that the board, indeed, since I had full acclimation of the board at that point, support, that that's, indeed, what the board's position was. If it was not, I'm sorry. It wasn't made clear at that time. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No doubt that you were there doing -- representing us and appropriately so. It's just I've heard a lot from a lot of my constituents that you don't need to be in that process about the -- whether or not to issue the certificate of need. So I just wanted to see if the board wanted to clarify that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I've heard the opposite. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've heard laudeds for doing it. The -- my recollection, and obviously perhaps we needed to clarify and in the future shall have to do that, but it will be interesting to see the transcript when it becomes available or to hear the tape. Perhaps we can dig that out during lunch hour today. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a transcript here. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My recollection or my interpretation when we approved that was exactly as -- as Commissioner Norris just said, and that was that we would -- we would approve the effort, and I remember Commissioner Hancock saying we needed to make sure some specific things were taken care of, being indigent care and so on. And we were all happy that Cleveland Clinic had already stepped to the plate in that particular regard. So my interpretation was we were giving them an endorsement in that effort. We have -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I apologize -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- different interpretation among us. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I apologize to you for not making myself clear. I didn't want to interject us into the certificate of need process. But, again, you were -- I wasn't clear enough on that. So I will take part of the blame for not -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, once again, the discussion went very rapidly, and I don't think anyone made themselves a hundred percent clear. It could have used some further discussion and clarification, I think. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would you like to weigh in on this one, Commissioner Berry? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Nice comment. I like that. COMMISSIONER BERRY: No. I -- I get -- I -- I think my -- my recollection of it was that if Commissioner Norris was going to speak in regard to the Cleveland Clinic application, it was to clarify and make sure that the indigent care aspect would certainly be covered in their application. That was all that I -- that's how I remembered that conversation. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That was one of your critical points, I think. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Anything further, Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I just wonder if the board feels it's necessary, because we have sent -- sent a written communication to the state that says the board took action to endorse the application of the Cleveland Clinic for hospital facility. We urge your agency to approve their application and issue the certificate of need, and I don't -- I think we might, based on this discussion today, send a letter clarifying that our position is, if you issue a certificate of need, we like the Cleveland Clinic, and please be sure that indigent care is a part of their requirement. That would be my suggestion. If there's not a majority agreeing with that, then -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I did notice you highlighted the quotes from the other meetings. You didn't highlight any here, and perhaps I understand why now. It appears there was some discussion, and it was why I remember thinking that we were endorsing it is because I was the one who suggested that. As I read here it says, "I'm comfortable with Commissioner Norris conveying level of support from this board." And you said, "As long as it's conveyed with the comments about indigent care." And I said, "Yes, correct." And Norris said, "Well, that's going to be the general thrust of my comments; so I'll relay those as official." And that's exactly what he did -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- was support from the board. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He did a wonderful job, and I think that it just needed some clarification, because as we've all said, the discussion wasn't lengthy. Maybe this isn't even worth it. You know, it may not even be important enough to be spending this much time on it but -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I hate to say this, but the idea that what Commissioner Norris said is either going to carry the day or not carry the day with a state board is probably -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: I don't really think -- I don't mean to minimize the chairman, but I don't think it makes a whole lot of difference what the chairman says. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't think it's necessarily officially revising. We've had a discussion. We see there's some concern about that element of it. However, I'll say in the future we need to write the resolution down in form -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- before approving it, and if it takes a ten-minute recess for someone to jot that down so it can be read and repeated, let's do that. I think we do see a little division on the board on this issue, but I don't think it's going to have a material effect on the application unfortunately. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agree. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We had a situation pop up like this about almost four years ago -- three years ago, too; so maybe it would be best to clarify it in the future if we're going to have something like this. COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's my exact point. I definitely think that whenever you're sent forth or whoever the chairman is to deliver something to a group, I think it's important that it is written down so everybody has a very clear understanding of what's going to be said. I don't think it makes so much difference to the state in this regard. It made more difference to some of the local people in this particular community over the statement. But I don't think it -- truly I don't think it has any bearing in terms of what Tallahassee's going to do. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. If there's nothing further on that then -- public comments? PUBLIC COMMENT - JUDY LEINWEBER RE C.A.R.L. LIST - DISCUSSED MR. DORRILL: I have two today, Mr. Chairman, Ms. Leinweber. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just for that, this is your last meeting as chairman. MR. DORRILL: If you would, please, ma'am, and then, Mr. Erlichman, if you would stand by. Good morning. MS. LEINWEBER: I'm Judy Leinweber. Would you pass this out, please. I was given this document by a gentleman named Thomas Reese, and it's pertaining to the CARL list. The Gargiulos own property behind Bay West Nursery and woodlands. That's Sections 1, 2, and 3. This gentleman is a prosecuting attorney, and he said he does not think he can get the Gargiulos in court, and they are going to go after their permits to develop that property behind us. I would like to know what makes the Gargiulos above the law. Maybe because Valetie Boyd's godfather is Governor Chiles. But I think what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If the rest of the people in Golden Gate Estates cannot develop their land on the CARL list, why are the Gargiulos going to do it? That's all I have to say. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. PUBLIC COHMENT - GIL ERLICHHAN RE PGA TOUR, INC., AGREEMENT - DISCUSSED MR. DORRILL: Mr. Erlichman, if you would, please, sir. MR. ERLICHHAN: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Gil Erlichman. I reside in Royal Wood in East Naples, and I'm speaking for myself. Evidently there was no call for public com -- discussion or speakers on 9(B); so I'm now speaking under public comments. It is not very often that I agree with Commissioner Hac'Kie, but in this -- in this situation -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You and me both, Gil. MR. ERLICHHAN: -- I have -- I have to congratulate her on pursuing the -- Item 9(B) in the agenda insofar as the points that she was making. I'm totally in the dark as to what this is, because I went right out into the hall and grabbed this insert from the executive summary. And I'm looking at it, and the total amounts of money is almost 3 million dollars. And I'm looking at the dates of January and February '96. I don't understand -- I'm not a lawyer. I'm not legally trained. I'm a pure, simple layman. But how do you amend a contract almost a year after the contract was entered into? Was this contract entered into in the beginning of '96? And if it was, how do you amend it 11 months later? I don't understand that. I know you've got this under consideration for -- at a future date, but I'm in complete -- I have no -- six-page document here, and I would like to request Commissioner Hac'Kie to please keep me informed personally as to what happened -- what is happening and all -- any documents pertaining to this question. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have a file, sure. MR. ERLICHHAN: Thank you very much. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Gil, let me help you with your question. MR. ERLICHHAN: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So many times there are elements entered into in the record that become the nexus for a contract. In other words, it's as if you were standing there saying I promise to do X and the board then says we need to write an agreement and have both parties sign that you're going to do that. In this case the verbal representation of what was to occur and the written representation, apparently, don't match. And at some point you have to reconcile the two. So when you agree on something verbally and say we'll develop a contract that says that, the two need to match. If they don't match, you can reconcile the contract later. The discussion we're going to have is, did they match and should they have matched? MR. ERLICHMAN: Well, why did it take 11 months to do this? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because the audit that just came out pointed that out as a discrepancy. That's what audits are for. MR. ERLICHMAN: I know. I worked in a bank, and I was in the auditing department, but that's what I'm trying to find out. I don't -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The audit showed us that the two need to be reconciled, but that's going to be the point of discussion. MR. ERLICHMAN: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, sir. MR. DORRILL: That's all the public comment. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's all the public comment? It's a little early for lunch. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm all for pushing ahead, 'cause it looks like we may be able to make this agenda without a lunch break if we're willing to starve a little bit. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There's cookies back there. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We have 30 speakers on Royal Wood. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: How many speakers do we have on the Royal Wood petition? MR. DORRILL: A bunch. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: A whole bunch? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why don't we do up until then and go to lunch. Item #12B1 ORDINANCE 96-85, RE PETITION R-96-13, MICHAEL AND ROBERTA WIENER REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "A" TO "RSF-5" FOR PROPRTY LOCATED AT 1301 WHIPPORWILL LANE, CONSISTING OF 5 ACRES - ADOPTED WITH STIPULATIONS CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's just go to twelve o'clock. Let's start with our afternoon agenda, 12(B)(1), Petition R-96-13. MR. DORRILL: You've got 15, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Hour and a half of speakers. MR. NINO: For the record my name is Ron Nino from your planning services department. The petition that's before you is a petition by Roberta and Michael Wiener who are the owners of 5 acres of land on the west side of Whippoorwill Lane, the property that's currently zoned A, agricultural, who wish to fezone the property so that they could divide it into two lots. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: While you're putting that up, Mr. Nino, this is a 5-acre tract. They'd like to be able to use two lots on their current zoning? MR. NINO: Correct. It's a bit odd in the fact that they -- they need to request an RSF-5 zoning designation, because the property is so narrow that the minimum frontage required by zoning districts that is available is 60 feet, which happens to be consistent with the minimum frontage for the RSF-5 zoning district. However, they have agreed and have indicated in their petition that their only interest is really to create two lots of the 5 acres, which is really consistent with the E-estate zoning district. The Planning Commission heard this petition, unanimously recommended approval. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Are they flagging this lot because that used to be illegal and isn't now? How are they accessing? Is it a front and back separation or -- MR. NINO: The property will have 60 feet of frontage on Whippoorwill Road -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. NINO: -- and will widen as is shown in the iljustrations in your packet. It will widen to -- to -- once it's past the house that it fronts on Whippoorwill Road, once it gets past that, provides that front lot, front -- the house that's next to Whippoorwill with a -- with an appropriately-sized lot, the lot will widen out to include a portion of the lake, but not the entire lake, because the petitioner wishes to allow access to the existing residence that fronts on Whippoorwill Road to allow them to have a portion of the lake advantage. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a very logical division. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The answer is, yes, it's being flagged. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's take a look at the -- public speakers here. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Ferguson, are you here representing the petitioner or someone else? MR. FERGUSON: I'm here representing someone else -- MR. DORRILL: He just indicated that he's on another party. Is the petitioner here wishing to speak based on the slips? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The petitioner is here. MR. NINO: I think Mrs. Wiener, perhaps, will want to address some of the issues that Mr. Ferguson is going to raise. MR. DORRILL: If the petitioner is going to wait, then the first speaker I have is, I believe, Ms. Moorman. She's coming forward. Mr. Dellecave, you'll follow this lady. Good morning. MS. MOORMAN: Good morning. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't know that Mr. Ferguson's job is to keep someone else from speaking. Is this your client, Mr. Ferguson? MR. DORRILL: Yes, he is. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. In that case, you can keep her from speaking. MR. FERGUSON: We -- for purposes of the record, Tim Ferguson. We have a little presentation to give here, and Mrs. Moorman and Steve Dellecave are property owners along the lake. And we are taking a record here, and we'd probably like to have them sworn in, and we'd like to proceed with the quasi-judicial hearing. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: Therefore, the request would be that all speakers be sworn in from this point forward. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right. MR. DORRILL: We have four registered speakers. Anyone who -- who has previously registered then, Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Dellecave, Mr. Anderson also, we'll need you to stand, please, and have our recorder swear you folks and anyone else who may be speaking in this matter. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Swear them in, please. (The witnesses were collectively sworn.) MR. DORRILL: Thank you. Ms. Moorman, we'll be on to you, please, ma'am. MR. FERGUSON: Well, what I would like to do is reserve -- if I could, we have a -- a presentation. If -- if we could move through this, I think it would be expedient. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Are you registered to speak in addition to Miss Moorman? MR. FERGUSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. You each get five minutes; so do whatever you want in your five minutes and -- MR. FERGUSON: Okay. Well, what I'd like to do is make a presentation and reserve. I'm going to speak. I'd like Mr. Dellecave to come up and have some expert testimony, and then I'd like __ CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me clarify something for you. This is not -- this is a quasi-judicial hearing. It is not a court proceeding. MR. FERGUSON: I understand that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're going to give each one of you five minutes. You can ask, you can tell, you can show, whatever you want, but five minutes is all you get. All right. MR. FERGUSON: Okay. I'll go first then. What I'd like to do is have Mr. Anderson go first, if we could. MR. ANDERSON: My name's Eric Anderson. Really the purpose in my testifying is to inform you that I own -- hold title to the property next door to the petitioners as trustee and that the trust document authorizes me to delegate the authority to represent the property, and I am doing so by delegating Mr. Ferguson to act as my attorney in fact on that property. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. FERGUSON: Okay. I'll take part of my five minutes, and then we'll reserve. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No, Mr. Ferguson, you don't understand. You get five minutes start to finish, no rebuttal, no cross-examination -- MR. FERGUSON: I can't take 2 1/2 of it and -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No. MR. FERGUSON: -- put someone else on and take 2 1/27 CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No. This is not a courtroom. We'll give you five minutes; so say whatever you want. MR. FERGUSON: I'll take my time. I'll take my five minutes. The neighborhood that we're discussing here is off of Whippoorwill Lane. It was developed precomp. plan, and four individuals went in, and they dug a lake, and they've got some lots. The way the property has been developed is estates type of use. They all have single-family dwellings there, and then they've got a lake, and they've got some property reserved on the other side of the lake, which Mr. Dellecave will show the board later. The petitioners are asking for RSF-5, and they're stating that they must have RSF-5 in order to get this done. Quite frankly, they could come in and ask for estate zone and ask for a variance for the road frontage. And the road frontage is important because the ULDC requires in 2.7.2.12.1 that you're not even allowed to fezone a lot unless it has 200 feet road frontage, okay, and this lot does not have 200 feet of road frontage. This lot has 165 feet of road frontage. Therefore, according to the ULDC, they're not even entitled to a fezone here. And that's important because when the Hospice, which is one of the other four lots, came in and asked for a fezone, Hospice was required to purchase 40 extra feet in order to meet the requirement for fezone. If this board were to fezone this property without requiring the 40 extra feet, it would be in violation of the ULDC, which would be in violation of the Growth Management Plan. It wouldn't be consistent. It would be a violation of equal protection. The petitioner states that they'd like to have two houses. And in cooperation the neighbors went to them and said, okay, you only want two houses here, we don't have any problem with that. Give us a restrictive covenant saying that you only want two houses and you're not going to come back sometime later and try to amend this RSF-5 and sell it to an adjacent property owner and try to put a bunch of houses on the lake, which they flatly refused to do. If their intention was just to build two houses, it seems they would have given us the restrictive covenant, and we wouldn't be here today. But unfortunately they didn't do that. When you look at some of the pictures of what they've done with their lot, I think you can see that what they intend to do is put very little money in this lot and probably sell it out later. It's -- furthermore, it's the petitioner's responsibility to have substantial and competent evidence of why they -- they are allowed to fezone, and we haven't heard any evidence at all today. We've heard from your staff, and we haven't heard anything at all about why they believe that they've met the criteria. Now, they went before the Planning Commission, and they presented a case, and I suppose that staff presented that case. And they have a number of criteria which I think you'll find in your packet, and specifically I'd like to address some of the things in the packet. We have a summary of findings, and in the summary of findings we have some questions that are supposed to be answered, and the answers are interesting. On page 1 of the fezone findings we have existing land pattern and use, which is considered to be not applicable. We have on page 2 whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood, and they say, Well, you know, it may change and -- from the agricultural use, but you know, we really think it's more pro than con. Well, the fact of the matter here is that the property owners that I represent have very small lots. Most of their lot is a lake, okay. They're not going to benefit from an increased zone, because they can't put anything else on here. And what it's going to end up doing is ruining the integrity of their neighborhood. Now, they're able to buffer this off from the rest of the zone, and what they end up having is a rural feel inside an urban area, which makes it a very appealable situation. However, if we were to have RSF-5 and stack things somewhere down the line along the side of that lake, we're not going to have that character. It's going to ruin the character. It's going to ruin the value of their homes because they can't take advantage of the extra zoning. When we look at part 10, which is proposed change -- will the proposed change adversely affect property values, they say there's no -- there's all pros and no cons. I just addressed that. The con is it definitely will. Eleven is whether the proposed change will be a detriment or improvement to the development of adjacent properties. We believe it will be a detriment. The staff felt that wasn't applicable. Twelve said will it constitute a grant of a special privilege to an individual owner. The staff felt that was not applicable. We feel it is applicable. We feel that in this particular situation the Wieners are going to be getting a definite advantage over the surrounding neighbors. Their -- their property value is going to be very high, and the property that -- around the area won't be able to take advantage of that same thing. Quite frankly, this is a situation where we have a violation of the ULDC. It's not consistent with the code, and we believe it adversely affects the neighbors, and we'd like the board to find that way. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Ferguson, let me make sure I understand something earlier on. If it's going to be limited to two, you don't have any problem with that. You're concerned with the RSF-5, that they might come back at some point and put five units in? MR. FERGUSON: If this board would fezone this to estate zone and give them a variance for the road frontage, nobody has a problem with it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you understand that the application is -- or the recommendation is RSF-5(2)? MR. FERGUSON: I find no provision for that in the ULDC. I mean, what that does is -- my understanding of that classification is that that's going to go on the zoning map so that it would indicate to somebody that was looking at the zoning map that there was only two residences on there. But that doesn't keep them from coming back and amending this later. That's why we asked for the restrictive covenant. This could have been easily handled, because a restrictive covenant can be enforced. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can you tell us the effect of that RSF-5 -- MS. STUDENT: From my understanding of the history of this, that would mean -- we do have a provision, Tim, in our code that does permit us to put conditions and safeguards on fezones, conditional uses, and so forth. And that 2 means they have a cap, a density cap of 2, which falls under that provision of the LDC. MR. FERGUSON: I understand that completely. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Ferguson, this is no different than the lot we did on the corner of County Barn and Davis road that got multifamily 6(4). COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They are limited to four units per acre on that whole property, and this is the exact same thing. We do have and we have practiced that before. Takes me back to my original question. And I don't want legalese. I want a yes or no. What you said earlier was if they would agree to two units and no more, and you could have that legally restricted, you're willing to accept that? MR. FERGUSON: Two units, no more forever, that's fine. That's fine with my clients. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Thank you very much. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Dellecave. MR. DELLECAVE: If I may, I'd like to just -- I'm Steve Dellecave. I own the house adjacent to the Wieners, 1145 Whippoorwill Lane. And quickly I'd like to put up a map that a little more clearly identifies' the surrounding area than the one county staff prepared. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dellecave, there's a hand-held microphone there if you need to use it. MR. DELLECAVE: Thank you. Okay. I also have taken some photographs that are lettered and corresponds with the letters on the map and the direction of the arrows. And I don't know if the board is interested in looking at them, but I'd like to present it anyway. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sure. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Give to it Mr. Dorrill there. He'll -- he'll handle it. MR. DELLECAVE: Okay. The first one is the approach. And this gives you, No. A, coming south on Whippoorwill Lane shows you the Baptist church located on this first parcel. Excuse me. The second photograph is -- is B, picks up the entrance to Hospice. C is a picture of the front of Hardi Hoorman's property, very nicely buffered, and that's one of the -- the things that has been important for us as a little development is we feel we are buffered. This is the entrance to my driveway. This is a view of the lake. It's a panoramic view taken from back here, the whole western property line. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Why don't you give all those photos to Mr. Dotrill, and we can be looking at them while you describe them. MR. DELLECAVE: Okay. Very good. And then here, H through J, basically shows the property and petition of the Wiener residence. So the character is very serene, very quiet. Whippoorwill Lane is an apropos name. After sunset that's about the only sounds you hear, and that is very important to us as owners there. We have the ability to, we feel, buffer ourselves from development and impact from around us with the buffers that would be required from development, the buffer we as neighbors could install in the rear. Hospice acted as a wonderful buffer; that's why we did not oppose Hospice, because this could be a high-density commercial piece and that act as a wonderful transition to help preserve the lake. So we as neighbors banded together happy to see Hospice, and we fought another developer who wanted to put 11 homes down here, because we felt that would be detrimental to our lake, the noise, the pollution, and so we fought that. We believe that if that zoning is approved -- and the potential of RSF-5, the way I understand it, could be as much as 25 units on this lot, would just be unacceptable as neighbors because of the density, because, again, the noise, the pollution. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good. Because that's not part of the application. MR. DELLECAVE: And that's what we're up against. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's not part of the application at all. MR. DELLECAVE: Okay. But our feeling was that down the road, could they go back and amend that. That has been our problem all along. So with that, any questions? I'll -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Just one. I'd like for you for the purposes of the record, if you could, if -- if the board can somehow limit this 5-acre parcel to a maximum of two housing units, do you have any objection? MR. DELLECAVE: No, sir, we don't. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Finally Hiss Moorman gets an opportunity to speak. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Miss Moorman. MS. MOORMAN: I, of course, am the other neighbor, and my concern there again was that I do not want 25 -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Could you state your name for the record. MS. MOORMAN: My name is Hardi Moorman. I'm sorry. I am concerned that that, too, could be somehow eliminated down the road and I could have 25 units, as my neighbor, all having use of my lake, which I've lived there the longest and put in the most time and effort and money and don't want that to happen to our neighborhood. As it is now we all own land on the opposite side of the lake, which is the advantage that no one can build on the backside or either side than on of the property owners at hand. And as long as I understand that that, too, can't be just some kind of -- erased somewhere and someone can come in and -- the people that come in next door to Wieners can buy them out and then fezone that whole thing to RSF-5, I would be very, very unhappy. And I -- I am -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I was just going to say, anybody can apply anytime for a fezone. We fezone this to straight-out RSF-5 or RSF-5(2), it can't be changed -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Or estates. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- or estates. Somebody can come in next week and apply for a fezone. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Doesn't mean it will be approved, but they can apply. MS. MOORMAN: I understand that. It just seems like the RSF-5(2) leaves the door wide open for them to be able to sell to their adjoining neighbor possibly and then having that whole development be RSF-5. It just seems like it's wide open. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Same -- same question, Mrs. Moorman, for you if -- would you for the purposes of the record state your answer to the question: If the board of commissioners can somehow limit that 5-acre parcel to a maximum of two housing units, are you -- would you be in support of the present -- MS. MOORMAN: Yes. I have no problem for them to have two homes there. I'm happy with that. That's what I understood at first what it was going to be. I have no objection. When I saw the RSF-5, I got nervous. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, that's understandable. We understand. MS. MOORMAN: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: That's all. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's all. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The petitioner was -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I see we're having a legal conference here, because I think they understand what we want to do. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The difficulty comes in, Mr. Nino, RSF-5(2), if I looked at the zoning map, would tell me it's RSF-5 with a cap of 2 units per acre. We will then asterisk that and detail it on the bottom of the page? MR. NINO: Yes, we would have to do that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRNLAN NORRIS: Is there some other way? Hiss Student, could you tell us is there some other way -- excuse me, for Miss Student, could you tell us if there's a way that we can make sure that there could not be confusion in the future about this parcel being limited to two -- two units total? HS. STUDENT: The only mechanism I'm aware of would be the stipulation in the fezone ordinance itself that it's limited to the two units. And I understand there's a notation on the zoning map, which I would believe would necessitate, if anyone wanted further detail, to go back to the ordinance, you know, just -- that's the only thing I know. That's the way we've done it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We -- before -- the example I cited was (4), which was -- even though it was multifamily, six would only be allowed four units per acre. Can't we put paten point four, and that way it's very clear that it's point four per acre, and then have your notation above and beyond that? MR. NINO: We could do that. HS. STUDENT: I think that could be -- HR. NINO: We could do that, point -- point zero four? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Got your J.D. right there. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That makes it consistent. The one thing we have to be knowledgeable of is that the -- what we have to do today is build a record that indicates the absolute intention with the agreement of the existing property owner of what is to be accomplished here. With that we have done everything possible to build a record to ensure that the property will not be rezoned down the road. However, no action we take can bind successor owners from making requests, and Mr. Ferguson's well aware of that. However, by building a record and making the fezone conditioned upon that record, we've done about everything legally possible I think we can do as a board. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're right. I mean, someone could come in and request industrial. It's not going to happen, but they can -- anybody can ask for anything. HS. STUDENT: I just want to state for the record that we have limitations upon us, because we are local government, in casting something in stone forever because of police powers and changing conditions. That's where the private side usually comes up and writes deed restrictions and such to take care of those types of issues. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. So, Hr. Weigel, do you -- point four is okay to put on the zoning map? HR. WEIGEL: Well, I can tell you, part of the conference and my moving around here has been that Mr. Ferguson had indicated that there was a violation of the Land Development Code, and we wanted to check the facts and figures in that regard. It appears that there is one element that's probably very important for the type of zoning that's been requested. It's RS -- RSF-5(2), and that is the requirement for 200 feet of frontage, and I think the documents that are before you shows that there's 165 1/2 feet of frontage, which doesn't meet the minimum requirement for this particular zoning. So I think -- and I'm going to advise the board that because of that legal impediment, that I would not advise you to approve this zoning, even with the parentheses, but that the petitioner may find that they have, in fact, petitioned for the wrong zoning, may want to repetition for estate zoning and bring it back and, therefore -- and even Mr. Ferguson on the record indicated that estate zoning providing for the limitations of two would work for -- for him and his clients that he's representing. But I -- I'm afraid we've got the right church but the wrong pew this morning. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, the question I have then is, you can't even request, you can't ask -- and that was what Mr. Ferguson said, is the ULDC indicates they can't even ask for the change? MR. WEIGEL: Not for this particular zoning change. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So where was our staff till now, guys? Good grief. These people have been put through a lot of expense, a lot of time. How could we miss that? MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero for the record. Planning staff believes that that can be obtained through a legal easement that would be created as a separate document after the zone change was approved, and I've just had the last few minutes to confer with Mr. Weigel. So I can't tell you that we're in complete agreement with the opinion that was just rendered to you. I believe that we can achieve that if the zoning is approved from talking to my planning director. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What we'd run a risk here of if we approve that zoning is it opens the door for Mr. Ferguson to provide a legal challenge, which will just put the Wieners right back in court or back in a litigious situation. It sounds like the only long-term solution is the estate zoning. But, again, I don't want -- for the Wieners to go through that entire process and cost all over again is a little more cumbersome than I would -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just can't comprehend that someone can't come and ask. Obviously if -- if there is less footage, that should be a consideration that's brought forward. But to say you can't even make the request, we don't want to hear from you, I don't -- I'm amazed. I didn't realize the LDC said that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And if it does, it ought to be changed. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yup. Perhaps you can tell me -- you can read to me where it says that. MR. WEIGEL: They've got it right there. But it's just one of the requirements for that particular zoning. I don't have the cite with me at this moment. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can we grant a variance to that? MR. WEIGEL: Well, Miss Student advises me that -- for instance, under the current zoning -- I stick with what I have advised you, and I try to choose my words pretty carefully, and that is, before you today is a -- is a legal inability to go forward on the ULDC. If you go forward, you can always vote. But I felt I must advise you of this impediment. Mr. Ferguson brought it up on the record himself, but if an easement were obtained, yes, that could work. But you can't come to a conclusion today because you don't have -- concerning an easement because an easement isn't there. One option, I guess, could be that you can continue this to a date certain going for the -- if this is the first date that this has been heard, you can go even five weeks into the future as a date certain continuance, and if they can put the pieces together with an easement to come up with the appropriate frontage, you may be okay. And, again, I want to look at this. An easement is not fee ownership, and I want to look at that very, very closely myself. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask you a question. The petitioner and our staff have -- have apparently indicated all they want to do is put two homes in there. Virtually everyone who is opposed to the RSF-5 have agreed that if we can guarantee that it's only going to be two homes, they don't have any objection. I'm curious if it's true that the petitioner wouldn't enter into some sort of covenant with the other homeowners. Why, because it would seem to make all this moot, if that's the case. If you'll agree to enter into that covenant, then we can approve this today, and I suspect they won't bother to challenge it, and the whole question of RSF will be moot. MS. WEINER: Hi. My name is Roberta Weiner, and I'm the property owner at 1301 Whippoorwill Lane. And I have no problem going into a covenant that we're only going to build one home. But the way this all came about is that Mr. Dellecave -- and I may have pronounced his last name wrong, and I apologize -- basically came to my home one evening and said, I will go in and support you splitting this land and building another home with whistles and bells if you sign over easement that I can get to the prop -- back of my land. And I told him, we've always had a gentleman agreement that we can always go to the back of the land and everything, but we weren't about to sign over land to him for him to get to the back of his land. And that's a little bit where all this has come from. We only want to build one home there; that's it. I mean, I will sign that covenant. My husband will sign that covenant. That's not a problem. And, you know, I took the advice of the planning board, you know, whether we could go in for estates, whether we could go in for variance or something like this, and they said that this was the best, you know, route to follow. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess if you'll enter into the covenant, they'll accept the covenant. There's no one left to challenge the RSF whether it is or isn't legal, and this issue can be concluded today. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm worried about future owners of -- of the adjacent property who aren't waiving it. MS. WEINER: Yeah. I mean, I can't predict the future, you know, and what may happen. But our intention is, you know, to spend the rest of, you know -- not our life there necessarily but, you know, for many years there. And we want to build one home only. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: This is obviously something that there's a logical solution except that our own code tells us we can't do it by virtue of a 200-foot requirement. I understand the purpose and reason for it. Someone -- someone bark up with a solution. MR. NINO: Let me respond to that. It was the position of staff -- with all deference to Mr. Weigel, it was the position of staff that inasmuch as this is a lot of record we're creating, we're separating a piece of property which suggests that the minimum frontage be 200 feet of frontage, but this is a 5-acre tract of land that only has 165 feet of frontage, and we took the position that the minimum frontage did not apply or wasn't intended to imply in these types of cases. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because it wasn't creation of a home? MR. NINO: Correct. This is 5 acres of land that's in the urban designated area that under normal circumstances is entitled to four dwelling units to the acre. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Based on the statement of Mr. Nino is that the staff position is because it's not the creation of a new parcel -- MR. NINO: Correct. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and that differentiates this, that may give us the position to not apply this across the board to all future fezones that someone else may try and abuse. So even though Mr. Weigel's comments are noted, I think that is specific enough -- MR. NINO: Yeah. I would remind you that we -- we have zoned properties that are a hundred acres and more in size and don't have 200 feet of frontage. The Gallman PUD, for example, 20 acres of land had a hundred feet of access frontage. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Well, let's -- MR. NINO: We do it every day. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think we've heard the issue. Let's -- let's go ahead and -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm going to move -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sorry. Then I'll move approval subject to the petitioner entering into a restrictive covenant to be recorded that will run with the land that that lot -- that you'll have to agree to this on the record. I can't require it, but I'm asking to you agree that you will record a restrictive covenant that limits your lot to two units and that we note for the record that this is rezoned RSF-5, paten, dot 4, close paten, and that we note that the minimum frontage requirement doesn't apply since this is an already existing lot. MS. WEINER: I don't have a problem with that, but from what Mr. Nino had said, that if it's approved all the time -- I don't have a problem doing that covenant; that's not the issue here. But why is that still necessary then? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because they're going to sue you if we don't put that in there. I'm trying to keep you from getting sued. MS. WEINER: And the covenant is only going to be that I'm only going to build two homes? Okay. That's fine. I mean, I don't have a problem with the covenant for building two homes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Ferguson, that appears to meet all of the requirements you stated earlier? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There might have been something Mr. Ferguson didn't tell us. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me reopen the public hearing if we're going to have discussions here. MR. FERGUSON: For the record again, Tim Ferguson. As far as -- as far as I know from my clients' position, as long as she's willing to provide a restrictive covenant, that's fine. I'm not sure about the legal position that you can do this, but nobody's going to challenge it if that's the way it is. So I think it's probably as good as you can do. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. I'll reclose the public hearing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second the motion. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would the motion maker also include that we ask the staff to work with the county attorney's office so that future applications similar to this, we have a very clear line of -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- demarcation. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Clear, bright line. Lawyers like that phrase. Yes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you very much. We're going to take a lunch break and be back at 1:15. (A lunch break was held between 12:17 p.m. to 1:26 p.m.) Item #12C1 ORDINANCE 96-86, AMENDING ORDINANCE 96-58, THE FIRST ASSEMBLY MINISTRIES EDUCATION AND REHABILITATION CAMPUS PUD, TO CORRECT A SCRIVENER'S ERROR IN THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR LAND BEING REZONED FROM "PUD" AND "A" TO "PUD" - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Ladies and gentlemen, we'll reconvene our county commission meeting this afternoon. We're ready for Item 12(C)(1), which is a scrivener's error. Any public speakers on the scrivener's error? MR. McNEES: No, sir. I'm checking to make sure. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve. Is the motion controversial? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Scrivener's error? All right. I'll second it. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: All right. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As a favor to Commissioner Hancock, I'll second that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: A motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Item #12C2 AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FUNDING FOR TEEN COURT THROUGH AN ASSESSMENT OF THREE DOLLARS ($3.00) IN SPECIFIC CASES AS A COURT COST PURSUANT TO SECTION 775.0833, FLORIDA STATUTES, AS AMENDED BY CHAPTER 96-382, LAWS OF FLORIDA - DENIED; COMHISSIONER HANCOCK TO DEVELOP MISSION STATEMENT FOR THE LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION 12(C)(2), an ordinance providing for funding for teen court. MR. BROCK: Commissioners, my name is Dwight Brock. I'm the Clerk of Courts. And the clerk's office, the judiciary, and the county attorney's office has worked on this proposal. The Florida legislature this year provided the statutory authority for the Board of County Commissioners to impose by ordinance a $3 fee to impose in criminal and civil infraction cases, and we're asking that that be imposed. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does -- does teen court exist in Collier County right now? MR. BROCK: We are -- it exists in that the clerk's office is setting it up today. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. How -- how much is it going to cost every year? MR. BROCK: To begin with, we anticipate it will cost the salary of one employee and those expenses necessary to carry out the operation. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How much -- MR. BROCK: That will be, in terms of dollars, probably somewhere in the neighborhood of twenty to twenty-two thousand dollars for the employee as a coordinator and one-third for benefits and taxes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess there are two items in a row here dealing with this, and -- and I have a couple problems: One, I kind of think the kids that get in trouble, they should be adjudicated just like everybody else. And that's just a philosophical difference, but -- but I -- I really don't like the idea of creating a new program for fear of how it grows and how it ends up being funded later. Do -- will -- will all these $3 collections fund for -- fund the entire thing? MR. BROCK: To begin with -- you know, when we analyzed it -- and I'm not trying to avoid the question, but let me give you some background into what we have looked at and where the legislative authority exists today. In nineteen and ninety-six the Florida legislature passed this particular statute that authorizes the board to impose this by ordinance on all traffic infractions; misdemeanors; and felonies; and juvenile cases, whether they were adjudicated or not. The problem that exists is, at the same time that they passed that legislation in Chapter 118 of the -- of the Florida statute, they passed a provision that said regardless of special or general act or other action by local governments, that no additional fees could be imposed on traffic infractions other than those enumerated in 118. And that does not exist, or it -- what happens is the two legislative packages together cancel each other out. So it is probably not going to be imposable against infractions this year until we can straighten that out with the legislature. They obviously didn't intend to pass an act authorizing it, then pass another act taking that authorization away, especially in one legislative session. But we anticipate that there's about 10,000 misdemeanor cases and about 7,000 felony cases that are in the system. So we're talking $3 per pe -- per case. If they're imposed and people are either adjudicated or adjudication is withheld on 60 percent of those and we collect them, we're talking somewhere in the neighborhood of -- the -- twenty to twenty-two thousand dollars. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What -- what's the collection rate on those? I know we do our best, but we don't get 100 percent, do we? MR. BROCK: No. Out of the misdemeanor cases today, we're collecting somewhere in the neighborhood of 72 percent. But you have to keep in mind that all of those cases that originate are not found guilty; therefore, they're not adjudicated or adjudication's withheld. So that is a factor that needs to be taken into consideration also. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I -- MR. BROCK: There are also -- if we can ever straighten out the legislation -- the Florida legislature to remove the prohibition against imposing civil infractions, somewhere in the neighborhood of 27,000 traffic violations that we could assess this $3 to. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But -- MR. BROCK: And that's ultimately where your funding will come from, is that $3 from traffic infractions. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that, ultimately, is my objection, actually, is -- is I have the -- the philosophical difference that I don't think teen courts necessarily are the answer. But jumping past that for a moment, I understand the idea of criminals paying to fight future crime. That makes perfect sense to me. Someone getting tagged with failure to yield or parking in a no-parking zone or whatever it happens to be paying for it doesn't have -- hold the same logic for it -- for me. And while I think it's easy for us to say, well, you know, they've done something wrong, they need to pay a fine, the connection isn't there. They're not necessarily a criminal because they parked in the fire lane or parked in the no-parking zone or whatever they did. And -- and -- so I -- I have a little trouble with depending on that. And then going back to my prior question, is how much do we anticipate -- what's the total dollar amount that we anticipate annually this program costing? MR. BROCK: Probably somewhere in the neighborhood of twenty-five to twenty-eight thousand dollars. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. And we ant -- MR. BROCK: The program as it has been structured today will consist of once every two weeks having teen court with two defendants. Teen court, as we have set it up with the committee that we have been working with, is a pretrial diversion program. The -- and I don't disagree with you philosophically, Commissioner, but the reality of the situation is whether or not teen court exists or doesn't exist, the pretrial diversion out of the Department of Juvenile Justice will take place. It will go into another program, which is the arbitration program or alternative actions by the Department of Juvenile Justice, and will not be prosecuted by the state attorney's office. This is simply a mechanism by which we can step in and provide some guidance to those diversionary programs. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many -- you -- you said about $28,000 a year to run. And at the collection rate we have and the amount we're looking at, we collect maybe sixteen or eighteen thousand. Where -- where do we anticipate making up the difference? MR. BROCK: Well, we're -- before we are going to expand to the point that we will be utilizing the entire $28,000, I will cut back the program to only deal with the resources that we have available and run it out of our office and through the judiciary. We have conversed with the Bar Association, with the Legal Assistants Association, who are willing to volunteer their time at this point to both represent as counselors for both plaintiff and defendant in teen court and in order to run the program. And I will use what resources I have available out of the clerk's office out of my existing staff to try to do that until such time as we have the funding for a full-time coordinator. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So you wouldn't come looking for general fund dollars to fund that? MR. BROCK: No, sir. That is not our intent at all. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- MR. BROCK: The reason that we have not implemented this in this county until this point in time is that there has not been funding available other than ad valorem tax dollars. And I think it is the position of the judiciary as well as the clerk's office that we do not want to impose that as a burden upon the taxpayers. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many teens in trouble does -- do we run through our court system every year? MR. BROCK: Commissioner, I don't have that at the tip COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ballpark. Thousand? Ten thousand? MR. BROCK: I -- it would be a pure guess, but I su -- I would suspect it's more than that. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All right. My concern here -- again, pretending I can get beyond the idea of teen court -- is even if it's a good idea, we're only seeing 52 defendants a year. MR. BROCK: That is correct. These -- and the purpose of the program -- if you will look at the proposal that was put together by the committee, the purpose of the program is to identify those juveniles that appear to have the ability to reform and to target only those individuals who are first-time offenders the first time they've ever been involved to give them a taste of the process so that they really won't ever want to be back. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What -- what counties is this currently in use in? What -- what comparables -- MR. BROCK: It is -- I know it's in use in Lee, Sarasota, Manatee, Palm Beach; and beyond that it's -- it is a growing trend throughout the United States. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's what I want to be careful of is that we don't just follow a trend. Do we know what the recidivism rate is in Lee or Sarasota or Manatee or Palm Beach? MR. BROCK: In Lee County -- we went up and looked at the program as it existed in Lee County. And I've not seen the records, but the conversation that I had with the coordinator was that they have had one person that has been through the program that has repeated. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How long has their program been in effect? MR. BROCK: I think it's about three years, which I'm not too sure. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When you say "repeated," meaning make a repeat appearance in teen court or repeated getting into trouble? MR. BROCK: Repeated getting into trouble. The way the program is set up in Lee County is -- is basically for first-time offenders only, as it would be here. And your second time through the system you would not be -- an alternative would not be teen court. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Brock, the State of Florida has a first offender's rule for misdemeanors, do we not? If you commit a misdemeanor crime and are taken to court, there is something to the effect of a first offender's rule that you can plead -- I think it's no contest. And then if you have no violations within a 6-month or 12-month period, it is quashed. I -- I -- the reason I -- I know that is I -- I filed charges -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Has a record himself? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- against somebody once, and they got off on a first offender rule. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Uh-huh. MR. BROCK: You -- you'll have to run that one by me again. You know, I prosecuted for eleven years. That -- I'll have to admit that it has been almost four years since I have been out of the system, but I am totally unaware of any such thing as a first offender's rule. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Basically adjudication withheld; does that ring a bell? MR. BROCK: Okay. Adjudication withheld is not something that is dependant upon first offender or anything other than the discretion of the Court. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But typically ad -- adjudication is not -- withheld time and time again. It -- it's kind of like a strike, if you will, isn't it? You give them a shot occasionally and -- and see if they screw up in the next year. And if they do, they come back and are prosecuted on that charge. MR. BROCK: No, sir. An adjudication being withheld is simply that the Court does not adjudicate one guilty of the offense for which they are charged. If they are placed on probation and the Court violates their probation, they bring them back; and by law they are at that point required to adjudicate them. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. All I know is in 1985 I was made aware by a Hillsborough County sheriff's deputy that there's something called a first offender's rule, and the person was not prosecuted on the misdemeanor charge. If they were a good boy for 12 months, it was then wiped clean, and off they went. They could only go through that process once; they couldn't do it twice. I assume, unless the statute has changed, a similar approach is still available in the courts, my point being, if -- I did a teen court when I was in sixth grade. I mean, we -- we did set up the court and that routine. It was really a lot of fun. But the truth is those people that were subject to those penalties, whether it's writing letters of apology or whatever, knew it was out there, didn't really take it that seriously. And that was for very minor school-related issues. We're talking about shoplifting, vandalism, possession of alcohol, disorderly conduct, trespassing, interference in a school function, petty theft. And my concern is if we create a program of teen court that really -- the -- you know, what we're saying is we're going to run you through a diversionary program, give you a taste of it, you know, so you know enough not to come back and do it again. Where's the hammer to that? If you're going to give some -- you know, a teen some leeway the first time, say, okay, we're going to run you through something a little less intensive than the legal system may be, because we're going to give you a chance to make right on this, what's the hammer? Just like drill camp; if they go to drill camp, if they violate certain things, they are hit twofold in violation. So, you know, I -- I -- I have yet to see the deterrent effect of this other than it being something that's going on right now, and -- and there are a lot of warm fuzzies attached to it. But I want to -- if we're going to give them a chance, they need to know there's a consequence that exceeds what would have occurred in the system had they not taken this route. And just from reading this, I didn't pick anything like that up. Does it exist? MR. BROCK: Digressing for a moment, you know, the statute imposed -- imposes upon the Department of Juvenile Justice to make a recommendation to the state attorney's office in juvenile cases. You have to draw the distinction. Juvenile cases are handled totally different than adult cases, and the Department of Juvenile Justice does an intake evaluation. And if, in fact, they make the determination that individuals are not subject or should not be subjected to prosecution for those juvenile offenses, they are going to direct them to diversionary programs. There are diversionary programs of one form or another already in existence in which those individuals are going to go to whether or not we create teen ca -- teen court or not. The only thing that we are doing by creating teen court, in my concept and I think the concept of all of the committee members that were involved in this, which involved the school board, the judiciary, court administration, and the clerk's office, is that we are going to do exactly what you said. As opposed to placing people in a diversionary program in -- which probably doesn't have any teeth and is not -- does not leave the individual with an impression, teen court is to create that impression in the minds of these juveniles so that they will understand that what they did is not acceptable to society. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can we -- why can't we stop funding the -- funding the ones that don't work and fund this one with that instead of creating a new fee? If we have diversionary programs that are ineffective, why do we continue fund -- I know you -- that's not an answer for you individually, but before we go creating a new program with new funding -- you know, it's kind of like making a law. If you're going to make a good law, take a bad one off the books. So, you know -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Two. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Take two bad ones off of the books. If we're going to start a new program because the diversionary programs aren't fitting the problem, why don't we cut one of them down and use those funds to create it? Has that even been broached by the Department of Juvenile Justice in this area? MR. BROCK: Commissioner, I -- I -- I don't know the answer to that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. BROCK: That is a legislative decision that is made back in Tallahassee as to the programs that are in existence. This program, I think, will be of benefit to those individuals that we can target to keep them from repeating what they did in the past. This is only for those first-time people. And if you will look at the program -- I mean, you -- we're talking about all of these volumes of cases that are coming through the system, and we are targeting only two every two weeks. So we're talking about what? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Fifty-two. MR. BROCK: Fifty-two or so individuals out of all of those peoples that -- all of those people that go through the process. It -- they will get the first evaluation by the Department of Juvenile Justice, and then they will be evaluated by the teen court coordinator. The hope -- hope of the process is that we make an impression, whereas, some of the programs that are in existence out there may not be designed to deal with these people that we have identified as really having a hope. And that's where we're trying to go with teen court. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I -- MR. BROCK: And as I said before, you know, the whole purpose for us creating it or trying to create it at this point in time is simply because the legislature provided for us, with the blessing of you five individuals, an opportunity to fund it with those who have created the system that they're now involved in. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My -- my analysis of this simply is that we have an ineffective system that will continue to operate for most of the juveniles, most of the kids who commit crimes; and here's a chance to grab a few of them before they become unable to be saved. And it's going to be funded by -- if it's traffic offenders, then I'd rather them fund it than the general public; but it's going to be funded by people who break the law. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I see -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And it's a chance to save some kids before they get too far into the system. Leave the ones -- leave the ones that we've lost in the ineffective system, but create one -- create one for the ones where we have a chance of saving them. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Unfortunately, Commissioner Hac'Kie, that is the same logic they used in selling us the other diversionary programs, is we're going to save that group we couldn't otherwise get. The reason -- you know, I'm not real sold on the concept itself. I'm willing to give it a try, but only if we admit that certain areas aren't working and take the funds that are allocated to those areas that are ineffective and apply them in a more effective sense rather than adding a new cost, a new program, a new fee, a new process. So, you know, obviously, Mr. Brock, I -- there's no fault in you in bringing this forward. You're doing your job, and I appreciate it. MR. BROCK: You can't do that statutorily with the funding mechanism that has been created by the Florida legislature. The legislature has said you can impose $3, which every penny of it must be spent in its entirety for teen court and nothing else. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's another case where the state has said, Where we have failed to accomplish the objective, you can create fees locally to try and do it yourself. COHMISSIONER BERRY: That's exactly correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that's getting -- that's -- that's a -- an argument as old as the hills in the State of Florida, and it's getting tiring. I think we need to stop creating more programs and begin pressing the state to give us effective programs in place of the ineffective ones. And I just think we're adding to that -- that cycle by -- by approving this today. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any other comments? COHMISSIONER BERRY: I will say there are some areas where it's been thought that the teen court is effective in dealing with certain individuals. But, again, I -- I totally agree with Commissioner Hancock. If they would remove something else -- if the state would do that and say, We're going to give you the option of doing this or doing -- you know, you -- you can have this or -- or -- or this, I think that would be fine. But, again, it's -- the state is handing it back to the locals and saying, We really don't want to deal with this; you guys deal with it and, here, we'll give you a little mechanism. We'll -- we'll give you -- we'll let you all -- you know, levy $3. And that's exactly what they're doing, and this goes on time after time. I've been involved with this kind of thing for over ten years, and as -- as effective as I think this might be, I think it really is time to send a message to the legislature and -- and we hear this -- I would be willing to support this if we could do it for a year and take a look and see how many we save. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I was just going to say that. MR. BROCK: Commissioner, it is entirely in your hands as to whether or not we implement it, period. As I said, I think the program was set up from the standpoint of we're not going to use ad valorem taxes to do it -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. BROCK: -- that we're only going to use those funds that have been made available by the legislature to do it. And if, in fact, after a year the program is not successful, we can certainly revisit the issue. If I could take the concept as it has been considered by the committee a little bit further, one of the steps that is hoped to be dealt with in teen court are instances involving disciplinary actions in the school. Now, that is not the way we are setting it up to begin with, but that is one of the extensions that would like to be made by the school board participants in the committee is that in addition to legal violators, that people who are involved in disciplinary measures in the school could also be sent to teen court to be dealt with through the teen court process. And if, in fact, they fail to comport to the demands of the teen court verdict, then they would be reverted back to the school system for disciplinary action. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Call me crazy, but it seems to me if a kid gets in trouble in school, the school system should be the first place that that's dealt with. But -- MR. BROCK: I don't disagree with you, Commissioner, but that was the example. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I un -- I understand. And, as Commissioner Hancock said, I'm not picking on you. I know you're just doing your job. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Don't shoot the messenger. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh. I -- is there any more comments from the board or --COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just -- yes -- that I can count to three, but so -- since what we want to do is send a message to the legislature that we're turning this down because we want them to do something different, could we make some presentation in -- at the legislative delegation on this issue? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Absolutely. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And I think between now and then we could formulate that again as an official position because -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, we'd better write it down -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- instead of a resolution. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The Juvenile Justice Council was formed to rethink the way we deal with juveniles. This isn't rethinking; this is heaping on top of an ineffective system. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And -- and shuffling responsibility. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And shuffling responsibility from the state to the local organizations. So, yes, we can take -- I think we need to take a position. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Absolutely. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And, unfortunately, this -- this program is going to see the way of the dinosaur for today. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me -- let me close the public hearing. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know if we need a motion since the action we'll be taking is not passing these ordinances. If you -- if Mr. Weigel tells us we need something on the record, I'll be happy to make a motion. But -- MR. WEIGEL: Well, you don't have to make a motion in that regard, but if there is a -- a direction from the board to bring something before the legislative delegation -- this is the clerk's agenda item, but I -- I need to know -- I think we all need to know who's directed to make that preparation for the legislative delegation. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, let me -- let me go ahead and -- and with thanks to the clerk for bringing this item forward today, let me make a motion that we do not approve the ordinance providing for a teen court and the $3 fine assessment attached to it. In addition, I guess I'm looking for the -- the -- we really -- it really needs to come from the board. If the board will allow me to at least develop a -- I guess a position statement for your review prior to the legislative delegation regarding asking the state to assume its responsibilities correctly and fairly, that would -- that would be the totality of my motion. (Hr. Dotrill entered the boardroom.) COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Item #12C3 AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FUNDING FOR THE JUVENILE ASSESSMENT CENTER AND SUSPENSION PROGRAM THROUGH COUNTYY DELINQUENCY PREVENTION FINES PURSUANT TO SECTION 775.0833, FLORIDA STATUTES, AS AMENDED BY CHAPTER 96-382, LAWS OF FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR A HANDATORY COST OF THREE DOLLARS ($3.00) T BE ASSESSED AGAINST EVERY PERSON CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF A CRIMINAL STATUTE - DENIED; COHMISSIONER HANCOCK TO DEVELOP MISSION STATEMENT FOR THE LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION That was quite unanimous. Mr. Brock, you have another item that's very similar. MR. BROCK: Correct, very similar. The -- the Juvenile Assessment Center -- the department of -- or the Juvenile Justice Council has asked me to draft a proposed ordinance to the board for a very similar -- created by the same legislative package to fund the special assessment center operation. As I understand, the board is in the process of reviewing a special assessment center contract with the Department of Juvenile Justice, and the purpose of this is to fund the operations of the assessment center. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Why -- why -- why do I remember that we were told we wouldn't be asked to fund -- I guess they just meant general fund dollars not -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. And I'd -- I'd make the same argument. And, again, I -- I'm not going to make the same argue -- I won't go into it. I'm going to make the same argument. But if you close the public hearing, I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to deny -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- or not to pass the ordinance. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Are -- are you going to formulate a -- a position paper for the legislative delegation? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just like the last motion, I'll suggest Commissioner Hancock formulate a position paper us -- for our reviewal prior to January 16th. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think -- I think the two can be combined. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. BROCK: Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think it can too. Thank you, Mr. Brock. We have a motion and a second. Do we have a second? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) That will teach those rascals. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, assuming they're listening. Item #12C4 ORDINANCE 96-87, AMENDING ORDINANCE 91-24 BY EXTENDING THE MORATORIUM PROHIBITING THE INSTALLATION OF DRAINAGE CULVERTS INCLUDING PIPES OR OTHER APPURTENANCES WITHIN THE SWALES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE AREA GENERALLLY KNOWN AS NAPLES PARK UNTIL JUNE 30, 1997 - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Item 12(C)(4), a recommendation to consider the adoption of an ordinance amending Collier County Ordinance No. 91-24 extending the moratorium -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is this our annual extension? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This is a -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is a little different. We're not doing an annual extension; we're doing a six-month. And the reason is Mr. Wiley has been working with the engineers to develop a cross-section that will allow people to fill their swales in properly with a -- a perforated concrete pipe. We're going to go ahead and work with the state on say -- getting the DEP to try and give us a sign-off on it. So the -- and we expect that to either occur or be denied within a six-month period. So I -- I'm just try -- trying to push the time frame here and not let it lag for a 12-month period. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Anything to add, Mr. Wiley? MR. WILEY: That also concurs with the completion of construction on the project. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And what is your name, sir? MR. WILEY: My name is Robert Wiley with your office of capital projects management. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That -- that all also includes the fact that we're not really sure the moratorium is necessary, but that's a whole other issue. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have any public speakers, Mr. Dotrill, on this -- MR. DORRILL: No, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- particular item? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to move approval of extension of Ordinance 91-24, but for a period of six months to terminate on June 30, 1997. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Item #12C5 RESOLUTION 96-592/CWS-96-15, RE PETITION AV-96-020 TO VACATE ALL PUBLIC ROADWAYS LOCATED ON ROYAL WOOD GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB UNIT 1, ROYAL WOOD GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB UNIT 2 AND ROYAL WOOD GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB UNIT 3 - ADOPTED Thank you, Mr. Wiley. Next, Item 12(C)(5), Petition AV 96-020 to vacate all public roadways located on Royal Wood Golf and Country Club, Unit 1. MR. HULLER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record my name is Russ Mullet with the transportation services department. Item 12(C)(5) is a public hearing to consider Petition AV 96-020 to vacate the public's right to ingress-egress travel upon all roadways within the Royal Wood Golf and Country Club development. The location of the development is north of the Rattlesnake Hammock Road across from Augusta Boulevard in the Lely development. This is a single-entry development. The reason for the vacation is one of crime or fear of crime. Letters of no objection have been received from Collier County engineering review, stormwater management, the sheriff, East Naples fire control and rescue district, Collier County utilities, Collier County planning, FPL, Sprint, and Cablevision. The public benefit to the -- to the vacation of these roadways would be the reduced maintenance cost and possible improved value to the community. In 1995 we received a -- an original petition. On that petition there was -- a majority of the property owners were in favor. That petition was 474 for and 163 against. Last week we received a petition stating that a majority are opposed with 320 for and 354 against. In addition, I've received four letters opposing the vacation and one letter in favor. A resolution was prepared and approved by the county attorney's office in accordance with Florida Statutes 336.09 and 336.10. Based on the public benefit, without transportation concerns, staff has no objection to the vacation. I think the board's options are one of approval, denial, and maybe to continue the item until January 14th with direction to staff to verify the petitions. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Considering how upset some of the folks were that we took a lunch, they probably don't want to wait until January 14. So I'd just as soon go ahead and hear the item today. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Mullet. MR. HULLER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Who -- you -- what -- what was the date of the first petition? MR. HULLER: It was in 1995. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What -- what date? MR. HULLER: It was about -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: About -- just give me -- MR. HULLER: It was about a year ago. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. And who conducted that poll? MR. HULLER: It's my understanding -- the petitioner's agent may be able to address this better, but it was my understanding it was -- the Royal Wood Homeowners' Association conducted a poll. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. And do you know who conducted the most recent poll that conflicted in the results? MR. HULLER: Property owners that were opposed to the -- to the vacation. (Audience responded negatively) MR. HULLER: Maybe I'm wrong. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Folks -- folks, everyone's going to have their chance to speak that registered. So boos, hisses, and even applause is not appropriate. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thanks. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Maybe someone will be able to answer that question as we go to the public speakers. How many do we have? MR. DORRILL: We have 15, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have 15 speakers. Mr. Dorrill's going to call your name and ask you to come forward. Our policy on public speakers is we allow you five minutes. We ask you please to be concise in your remarks. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are we using the on-deck circle? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah. We -- we're -- we're using the on-deck circle, too, Mr. Dotrill. All right? MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: He'll call two and ask you to come forward. I also point out that -- that you may not need to be redundant. If someone has already made your points, you might just agree to verify that that is your -- your position as well. And remember that you catch more flies with sugar than -- than you do with vinegar. So when you're ready, let's get started, Mr. Dotrill. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Hart, if you would, please, sir, and then Mr. Allmendinger. I believe I had that correct; A, double 1, m-e-n-d-i-n-g-e-r. If I could have you come up here and stand by, please, sir. Mr. Hart, good afternoon. MR. HART: Thank you. Excuse me. Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name's Tom Hart, and I'm representing the Royal Wood Homeowners' Master Association, and we are the applicant for -- for this vacation today. I -- I just wanted to hit some highlights. Your staff has presented this to you. You have the backup material. There are some important highlights. To answer that first question, however, let -- let's get that taken care of. The petition that our association obtained was done -- was concluded on February the 26th of 1996. That petition is in my hand, and I'll show it to you momentarily. In fact, I'd like to submit it to -- for the record. We don't know about another petition. We don't know who took that, but it was not an official petition of the master home -- master associ -- excuse me -- association. The process that we have come to this day by is that about a year and a half ago the master association was asked by a number of its residents to consider the option of privatizing the roads. The association looked into it, saw the benefits and the burdens, and -- and concluded that it was a benefit to the community if they could privatize the roads. Before going forward, however, even though their -- their articles and bylaws permitted them to do that, they decided that it was -- because it was so important, they should ha -- take a vote of the membership. That process involved two letters from the association to the membership. And in one of those letters was a petition, and those -- those petitions were signed by the homeowner or lot owner and then returned to my office, and they were tallied by my secretary. The -- importantly, the petition is per lot; it's not per person. And so we have a -- we think a -- a valid tally of what the residents wanted. After the petitions were returned -- and I'd like to submit those now for the record. As you can see, they were 3 to 1 -- these are the for; these are the against -- 3 to 1 in favor of going forward with this request that is now before you. If I might, one other -- very quickly, the -- the letters that were sent to the -- to the residents to explain this process to them, I would like to submit those to you. You have most of the items in your backup, but these two you do not. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Never mind. Never mind. MR. HART: And if I might -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. That's -- never mind. MR. HART: This is -- there are copies here for each commissioner. Thank you. There's a very important point to be made, and that is that there is a big difference between Countryside and this petition that's before you today. That big difference is that the roads within Royal Wood do not connect at -- at other than one location. They connect to Rattlesnake Hammock, but they do not provide a traffic interconnect to any other road or to any other community. We think that makes your decision today a whole lot easier. The public benefit is pretty obvious. The county will not be required to maintain these roads in the future or resurface them. The private benefit is that the community will have control over its own roads. Its -- it will have an enhanced quality of life and a greater sense of community and security and safety. The burdens to the public are none. There are no burdens to the public from making this change. The burden to the -- to the homeowners, of course, are the requirement that they maintain these roads. Now, the association, in order to look at that burden, has -- has gotten two contractors to give them an estimate of the time and the expense involved in maintaining those roads. They took those estimates to Mr. Archibald and had him verify that those were within the ballpark. And then they took those numbers, and they put a substantial portion already in reserve optimistically hoping that you would approve this today. There is something that is very similar about this request to that which you heard last week, and that is that all the residents are asking you to do is vacate the public's right of access. This does not affect the right of emergency services, sheriff, fire, etc., to co -- to come into the community and to serve the community; and it does not affect any public or private utility easements. There are letters in your backup material of no objection from all of those services, and they recognize that. We understand that there's been a last-minute claim that there's some -- there's some additional people that are against this; but we wanted you to know that the board had those votes counted very carefully, that they have -- that they have maintained that integrity, and we believe that the accurate count and the accurate voting was done and it was done properly. I've got to -- I understand that I'm just about out of time. We have only three speakers. We have limited our speakers. I want to tell you that there was a -- a bit of misinformation that was sent out. I've seen one letter that some of the opposition sent out. It said the sheriff would not be able to come into the community if this was granted, and we know that's not true. And it said that this vacation meant that the community would become gated, and that is not true. The board has always said that they will gate the community only after they've had time to study it and only if the residents have discussed it and voted on it. And so this was not raised. And I appreciate your attention. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me ask you a question. MR. HART: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You're -- you're an attorney representing the master association? MR. HART: That's correct, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I believe I heard you say that it is not a requirement of the association's bylaws to make this decision contingent upon a favorable approval of a petition; is that correct? MR. HART: That is correct, in my opinion. I have looked at those bylaws. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So whether the petition is for or against, really, under your bylaws is fairly immaterial. MR. HART: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. HART: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. HART: And we'll be available for questions. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just -- I -- I -- I do have one question. MR. HART: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You went into some detail about the petition that was mailed out, and it had a little -- you said two mailings, actually. And it had a -- MR. HART: Correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- letter in with it giving some information on what would happen. It might assist people in making their decision. The -- I assume -- I'm trying to remember what you said. Every owner? MR. HART: Every property owner. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Every property owner? MR. HART: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTATINE: And -- and I assume there was some methodology to make sure no one was omitted from that process and MR. HART: We -- we got a list from the homeowners' association of all of their members who are the owners. And we have since gotten a list of all the -- the taxpayers, and we've verified that. So we think we've hit everybody. Now, mistakes could be made, but I'm not aware of any. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And -- and how many were sent out? MR. HART: There were a total of, I believe, 800. We had a 79 percent return of that 800, and of that 79 percent -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Three out of four. MR. HART: -- 74 percent were in favor. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Thank you. MR. HART: And as I said, the speakers are representatives of the associations. So we think they're elective people who can speak for the associations rather than having everybody that's in favor come up here. We know your time is valuable as well. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Allmendinger, and then Mr. Connelly. MR. ALLHENDINGER: Good afternoon. My name is Raymond Allmendinger, and I'm a -- a resident of Royal Wood, a relatively new resident. I've only been there a year. I, for one, signed the original petition that was presented in favor of it. I had just purchased the condo I live in -- my wife and I live in, and I thought at that time it made sense. When I arrived down here in December of last year, I started talking to folks and getting their opinions on what's right and what's wrong, which makes sense, which doesn't make sense. I changed my mind somewhat, but I still tried to listen and pay attention to the pro -- proponents and the opponents. As I listened to them, I found that I really was in a quandary. There were no easy decisions on this one. I think the master association was well intended when they tried to do this. There were obviously people who wanted this done. I looked at the new petition that was presented to you folks within the past couple of days or this morning or whenever; and there are people who changed their mind, I being one of them. I signed the original petition. I signed the -- the second petition, because after listening to people and being concerned about ingress, egress, liability, what happens, as I understand it, the county would deed from the center line to the property owner. The property owner would then turn that back to the master association. There are people who signed this petition against takeover who live on Royal Wood Boulevard. Suppose, in fact, they don't want to turn that property back over to the master association for whatever reasons. I live on a private road up north in the summertime. We had the exact same problem. People didn't want to turn it back. It became a very protracted legal experience, a lot of hate, a lot of dishonest feelings amongst both parties, which really wasn't warranted. I think in this instance here we've got possibly a 50/50 standoff. Originally it was two-thirds to one. Now it's supposedly 60 to 40 with the position changed. I try to rationalize and say, If I were you folks, how do I handle this thing? You've got a community kind of split down the middle. I would like to see, as an individual, either -- put this on hold and don't vote on it today. Allow the association -- the master association to go back in -- in its next mailing and say to folks, All right. Here's the list of the proponents. And let -- let the people who are proponents of this thing put their -- their -- their ideas on, and let the people who are opponents of this put their ideas down, and then have another vote. That doesn't sound very democratic. You had one vote, supposedly; now you're going to have another vote. But you've got a 50/50 split here. You've got neighbor talking against neighbor. You've got rumors going crazy. There's so many things on the master board's plates right now that one runs into the other automatically. So I think if you -- if I were you folks, the right thing might be to do is just sit back, do nothing now, and possibly let this thing -- if it's that important to the master association, let them come back to us with the -- both ideas, the good and the bad of it. That's not hard. There's no great expense to that. And I think it would make you folks -- a lot easier if you knew the true sentiments of the community. It's a difficult decision for you, and I understand that. You're going to get either booed, or -- or -- or applause are going to be given to you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We get both either way. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Either way. MR. ALLHENDINGER: Well -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Either way we get both. MR. ALLHENDINGER: Yeah. I know that, unfortunately. But I think this might be a way. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hay I ask you -- MR. ALLHENDINGER: Or else vote against it today and allow the master association to come back again at it at a future date. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hay I ask you a question. How did this petition come to you? How did it come to your attention? MR. ALLHENDINGER: It was brought to me by one of the -- one of the residents. Which -- which -- the first or the second? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The second. This one (indicating). MR. ALLHENDINGER: That was brought to me by one of the residents. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Like a door-to-door-type thing? MR. ALLHENDINGER: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MR. ALLHENDINGER: You're welcome. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Connelly. And then, Mr. Barra, if I could have you stand by, please. MR. CONNELLY: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name's Doyle Connelly, and I live at 3865 Royal Wood Boulevard. As president of the Royal Wood Master Association, I'm here on behalf of the owners of Royal Wood Golf and Country Club to request that you approve the vacation request. The Royal Wood Master Association is comprised of one representative from each of the seven communities in Royal Wood and the country club. Last year after much con -- consideration our board recognized the several benefits of privatizing our roads in the community. According to Article 4, Section 1 of the Royal Wood amended and restated bylaws of the master association, the master association board has the right to ask for this vacation without a membership vote. It was felt that we needed to take the issue to the membership. We, therefore, sent information about the subject and the process involved to each of our residents requesting that they send back their vote indicating whether -- whether we should come before you, the county commissioners, making this request or not. We received the 79 percent response to that request, which 74 percent voted to go forward with the privatization of the roads. Seventy-four percent of our residents actually signed their names to petitions indicating yes, they were in favor of privatizing our roads and requesting that the roads be vacated. These figures were challenged. We had -- we then had Mr. Hart bring the ballots in a sealed envelope to a committee appointed by the board, who in turn canvassed them and satisfied themselves that it was an accurate count. The cost of maintaining our roads has been thoroughly researched in that we have had two different contractors give us cost of maintenance and an over -- cost of maintenance and an overlay of a -- of an inch of asphalt. We ran these numbers by your department of transportation to satisfy ourselves that they were realistic amounts. They indicated they were in line. We then broke that down to a cost per unit, which came out to $13.50 per unit owner per year. This figure has already been established in a reserve account for 1997. There will be no special assessments. As an individual resident of Royal Wood, I firmly believe that privatizing our roads will enhance the quality of our life and our community. I believe that we will as residents benefit from a greater sense of security, common pride, neighborliness, and enhanced property values. In conclusion, I would simply say to you that we appreciate your favorable consideration of this request. Vacating the roads in Royal Wood will not only provide a benefit to the county, but will also provide a significant benefit to the residents of our community. There are no adverse consequences to the county. And our residents, your constituents, overwhelmingly support your doing so. Thank you for your attention and your favor -- favorable consideration of this matter. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Barra. (Applause) MR. DORRILL: Then, Reverend Lawlet, if I could have you stand by, please, sir. MR. BARRA: My name is John Barra. I live in Royal Wood. I originally did a lot of research before I bought into a place because Iwm on a fixed income. I came here after seeing the rules and regulations, and I was happy with the expenses that I was going to be able to meet. Now I find the expenses are getting greater and greater. Privatizing the road -- he mentioned something like $12 a year. Well, that would be very hard to believe that you can maintain a road for that small amount. But in any case, itws not only privatizing the road. If you allow the road to be privatized, there are many other ideas that they have -- to have a guard at the gate; to fence in the whole area, which is going to start to become a very big expense. And then I would have to leave the -- and Iwve spoken to quite a few of my friends and neighbors in the -- who have changed their minds since, because they find now that in retrospect this is going to become quite a big event. So I feel that if you do that, therewre going to be many people whowre going to leave the place because itws going to become too expensive. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Reverend Lawlet, then Mr. Connelly. Doyle Connelly. MR. CONNELLY: Thatls me. MR. DORRILL: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Hews already -- hews already spoken once. FATHER LAWLER: My name is Father Lawlet. I've been called other names. And I am a -- a resident of Royal Wood. I might have to iterate some of the things that have been said, but I'd like to make a point. I have been there for five years, and I get to know some of the people. The original ballot that was mailed out to us was very vague. They had two points that were favorable and two, perhaps, that were unfavorable. Many people took them very casually, I'm sure, as I did at first. Although I've been dealing in these matters not only in the parish and the service -- I grew up in Boston politics, and that should tell you something. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: At least it wasn't Chicago. FATHER LAWLER: My uncle was the campaign manager for Jim Curly (phonetic). Now, what I'd like to -- to say here is that when I came down here last fall, in talking with one of the members of the board, I was told this is a done deal. With political background you know what that means. I said, "And who said so?" Well, that's what the count was. I said, "How many people honestly knew what were the pros and cons in this statement that you asked them to answer yes or no?" The answer was, very few understood the implications. Now, I ask you, consider it yourself. You have a roadway. You want to take it over. Why bother? The county's going to maintain it. You don't have to maintain it. You are paying taxes, and that goes to the maintenance. No. We want the road. Why? Well, we want it private. It gives a sense of affluence. We're going to be able to keep out undesirables. There's no undesirables that come into Royal Wood. There's nothing to see. We had -- we had one incident and only one incident, and I was here at the time. VOICE: What about the robberies? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let him speak. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah. Let's -- let's -- FATHER LAWLER: There was that one incident, and they got the perpetrators and put them in jail. There is no way to have security in Royal Wood, because you can enter it from any side of this development, any side. There is one entrance. And if you find where they say we don't have -- we're not planning on a -- a security there, look at your application. And you can have no security even with that gate. That would not have prevented the incident that took place in one of the homes. It will not prevent any robbery, because they can walk in anyplace. And all they're doing with their security gate is putting in further expense. Now, why impose on the people in that community -- and many of them -- and I'm not speaking for just the poor people. You say, Well, you're perhaps one of them. No. I have a sufficiency of funds, and I -- it's not because I was scooping. It's because I spent 28 years in the Air Force and saved it, and they were keen enough to realize my abilities and promoted me accordingly. And so now I live off of that. But I can't stand to see people's money wasted because of the ambitions -- we have here in Royal Wood, as every golf course does, a character. I was taken in by it the first time I drove in there. Now, if you don't like the personality of Royal Wood, why did you buy here? And now you in -- you are in here. Now you want to change everything. Well, there's other courses you can go to that will perhaps comply with all of your needs as far as golf is concerned. But I'm concerned with people. (Applause) FATHER LAWLER: First time I ever gave a sermon and I had that on the thing. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I hope my priest is watching; that's all I know. I got an idea -- MR. DORRILL: Mr. -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- for Sunday. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Hasker, you'll be following Mr. Connelly. MR. CONNELLY: My name is Ron Connelly. I'm an owner at Royal Wood, not related to Doyle Connelly, same spelling. I'm against this; shows that Connellys can be, you know, in opposing views. I'm against it for two basic reasons -- three, really. The first is that we're here today, as you can see, with dissension. The master board failed to get the point across intelligently, in my opinion, and that's why we've got all this confusion. There are -- are a lot of people at Royal Wood that perceive this to be an expensive undertaking in the future. And, again, as someone previously said before me, people on fixed incomes that live in the building I live in are frightened to death of this. I think that driven by the fact that we're told that this will increase security -- well, the only way you're going to increase security is to hire a security force to come in there and maintain the place, because the last gentleman was quite right; there's accessibility on all four sides to Royal Wood. One of the reasons I was told that privatation -- privatization would be beneficial to us was that it would eliminate a pass-through on our road to any adjacent developer that built property. It's my perception -- and you can correct me -- that if a developer or developers built adjacent to us and there had to be accessibility down Royal Palm Boulevard, that through eminent domain you could do that, which negates the whole process of maintaining that privacy. Because the county felt it had to have accessibility to those developers, then that's what would happen. That's basically all I have to say. Thank you very much. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Hasker, and then, Mr. Hall, if I could have you come forward, please. MR. HASKER: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. My name's A1 Hasker. I live in Andover Way in Royal Wood. I am also the president of the Andover Condo Association, which consists of 144 units. Andover voted in favor of privatizing our roads in Royal Wood -- Royal Wood. We believed that the proposed privatization of our roads is a -- real and substantial benefits to each of the residents of Royal Wood. I'd like to echo Mr. Connelly's statements when he told you that our residents are strongly in favor of this request. Our com -- community is made up of seven individual associations, both single-family and condominium association, each of which has its own president. The president of each association meets regularly as a presidents' council, and I am chairman of that group. Our council has discussed this issue on a number of occasions, and we're -- we are aware of the benefits and burdens, such as they are, associated with the privatization of our roads in Royal Wood. The ma -- majority of us believe that the proposed privatizations of our road is of a real and substantial benefit to each of the residents in Royal Wood. It will be an improvement to our quality of life, and we think it will enhance our property values. It will allow us as a community to have better control of our facilities, and -- and we think it will bring our neighbors and residents closer together. I would like to state at this time that all associations within Royal Wood voted in favor of privatization. As president of our associations, we are mandated to recommend to the master association the way a majority of our members voted. I want to thank you ladies and gentlemen for your time, and I request that you vote favorable on our measure. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, sir. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Hall. (Applause) MR. DORRILL: And then Mr. Sousek. MR. HALL: My name is Wayne Hall. I am the president of Cranbrook Colony, which is one of the seven neighborhood associations in Royal Wood. Cranbrook Colony consists of 120 condominium units. A poll of our unit owners regarding the proposal to privatize the streets in Royal Wood resulted in a response from 99 owners, or 82.5 percent, which indicates the interest of the unit owners in this matter. Of the 99 who responded, 89, or 90 percent, voted in favor of action to privatize -- the petition for (sic) privatize the Royal Wood streets. This certainly indicates the desires of the members of Cranbrook Colony to support the petition action. To support the statement made by president Doyle Connelly regarding the vote of the membership, at the request of some of our members, a subsequent canvass of the membership vote was authorized by the Royal Wood board of directors. I served on that committee with four other members representing both sides of the question. This intensive canvass verified that the reported vote was complete and correct. One factor mentioned by several members is the fact that the golf course layout at Royal Wood requires that golfers and golf carts must cross internal streets nine times during an 18-hole round of golf. Each crossing of a public street is an opportunity for an adverse safety incident. Needless to say, the membership I represent support the action to privatize the streets in Royal Wood. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Sousek and then Mr. Bloom. (Applause) MR. SOUSEK: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Orland Sousek, and I live at 6058 Westborough Drive in Royal Wood. I'm here to be against the privatization because of all the false rumors and just complete obfuscation of some of the things that have been said. Now, I know this: that the estimate that is given of $13.20 a year per person is not going to be correct, because on my street it's already deteriorating. The ca -- the developer was supposed to put in 3 inches of macadam. There is not 3 inches there, because I've seen the holes and the chuckholes. It's about an inch and a half. So, I mean, this road is ready to be paved or chuckholes filled. And there's gravel that comes loose from the macadam, and it's just a matter of time. People have said, Well, you aren't going to do anything for 20 years. That is false. This road needs to be paved right now. And the other particular things they have on is the security. Well, I have a neighbor who just moved into that place from another development that had a gate and privatized roads. He got robbed two times last year, and he just received notes from his neighbors that there were seven attempted break-ins in his old neighborhood. Another person that lived in the Vineyards told me that being in a private place does not sell your home faster. In fact, it's -- it's -- it is a deterrent. And further on, I wish to address that the lots that are north and northeast of Royal Wood -- there's a number of lots there, and it is so -- let's say it's complicated in that there's a lot of -- there's a few homeowners there and a few lot owners that no big development can handle or can be put on that thing. You'll have a small condo, but you never can have a unit development like we have. So I urge you to vote against the privatization. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, sir. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Bloom and Mr. McGarity. (Applause) MR. BLOOM: My name is Elmer Bloom. I live at 3655 Amberly Circle. I want to go on record as opposing this privatization. My history is a good deal the same as Mr. Allmendinger, the first speaker. I originally supported the -- the petition, and I later called the attorney's office and told them to withdraw my support. And I also this year wrote a letter to your chairman indicating that I was now opposed. I want to endorse the statements that were made by the opponents thus far and add just one additional thing. From the beginning it was my understanding that a lot of people were afraid that the Royal Wood Boulevard being public, it would be easy to make a connection to Whitaker or some road to the north and, thus, if it were privatized, make it a -- a throughway. I question that very strongly. I think that fear is overblown. I recently walked around the north side of -- of Royal Wood and the east side; and I know that Whitaker is connected to Polly, which is a street just a -- a few hundred feet to the east of Royal Wood Boulevard. Whitaker is connected to a Pol -- through Polly by a right-of-way of some kind. You can stand on Whitaker and look down that right-of-way and see Polly and, in fact, see all the way to Rattlesnake Hammock. And it would seem to me that -- at the present time that appear -- apparently is a drainage ditch. But it is quite wide, and it would seem to me that if there were some desire to connect Whitaker with Royal Wood, that it would be very simple to utilize this right-of-way, thus, not disturbing anything and being just about as easy and just as good a connection between Whitaker and Rattlesnake Hammock as going down Royal Wood Boulevard. Thank you very much. I think we're being asked to buy a pig in a poke here. We have the best of all worlds at the present time, and I urge you to leave it that way. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, sir. MR. DORRILL: Miss McGarity. (Applause) MR. DORRILL: Mr. Erlichman, you'll follow this lady. MS. McGARITY: Good afternoon. I have a little bit different story to tell. I've been in -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Name, please. MS. McGARITY: Ruth McGarity, M-c-G-a-r-i-t-y. I have lived in this area of Collier County for 20 years. I lived in a home in Lely for quite a while. I was a member of Lakewood Golf Course. And later on my husband and I decided to buy a condo in Royal Wood, because we really liked the -- this part of Naples. It's quiet. It's crime free -- almost crime free thanks to the sheriff's department. They do a good job. And it's not an area where people travel through. It's really quiet, and we chose it for that reason. We did not choose it because it would be a privatized community. As a matter of fact, we would have chosen to live elsewhere. Now, there are enough privatized communities in Collier County if people want to live in those. We did not choose to live in one. So I think this is kind of misrepresenting the whole community to sell it as a public community and then eight years later decide, for what I think are absolutely false pretenses -- it's not a dangerous community. There's no crime. There's no traffic. We love it there, and I don't think it needs to be privatized. And I think the large majority of people who were sold on voting for this are really -- I hate to say this word, but I think they're snowbirds. And they think this sounds good in Massachusetts and Michigan and places like that. Our community is going to be protected, but I say we don't need protection. They were mislead, and I don't think they should rule a community where the rest of us know that it's going to be lovely, not only now -- and it has been -- but it will as long as we're going to be there, I'm sure. I don't think we need privatization at all. It's -- as a matter of fact, there are only two permanent residents in my condominium all year round, and you know, I kind of like it that way. It's quiet. It's peaceful. It's pleasant. Do I need protection? No, thanks to the Collier County Sheriff's Department. And thank you for allowing me to speak, and thank you for answering my questions when I wrote to you. Thank you. (Applause) MR. DORRILL: Mr. Erlichman. Mr. Smith, you'll follow Mr. Erlichman. MR. ERLICHHAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners, Gil Erlichman. I reside at -- in Royal Wood in the Amherst Cove Condo Association area. I've been a -- a unit owner there since its inception in 1989. When my wife and I come down here to Naples in April of 1988, we rented a -- a condominium in Kings Lake, and we looked around. And at that time -- later on in the year I -- Royal Wood was starting to be developed. So we -- we explored the area, and we liked the convenience of where we were living in Kings Lake with its -- with its nearness to the commun -- Collier County center -- Government Center and our position and lawyer, etc.; so we decided to purchase in Royal Wood. We liked the idea of living on a golf course. We do not play golf. I brought -- I brought -- I brought down a set of clubs, and I think I played once and that's it. I have -- my time is too valuable to spend on the golf course when I have other activities to do, but people that like to play golf, fine. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Really -- MR. ERLICHHAN: We like -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- I think you ought to take it up. MR. ERLICHHAN: We like -- (Applause) COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm just teasing you, Gil. Just kidding. MR. ERLICHHAN: I'm glad I'm making you laugh. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Give him an extra minute. I'm sorry. MR. ERLICHHAN: Okay. But we like the openness of the area of Royal Wood and the -- the trees and the vegetation and so forth. And it's nice and quiet, and we liked it because there was only one entrance, period. So there was -- wasn't going to be any through traffic, and this is why we chose to live in Royal Wood. We have no -- we have no inclination or no desire to live in a -- in a gated community, and this is what I think this privatization is leading to. You have a certain mind-set, a certain group of people -- I -- I think most of them are homeowners in Royal Wood -- that want to create a private enclave, gated community. This, they think, is going to enhance their property values. Maybe -- maybe so; maybe not. And this, they think, is going to prevent crime. You cannot prevent crime. I don't care where you live. I mean, you could live in a -- in a high-rise in -- on the Gulf Coast, and I think that you might get -- you -- you'll probably be mugged going into your -- your apart -- your condo. But, anyhow, as I said, there's only one entrance. We have no through traffic. We have no problems with speeders. There are very few families with school-age children. So, therefore, I don't see the -- the reason for privatizing the road and putting up a gate. We have a speed limit in there. Our restaurant was just made public about two weeks ago by a petition through -- to you commissioners. Now, if they want to make the rest -- the restaurant public, why do we want to create pri -- a pri -- and privatize the road? Most people that own and -- and reside in Royal Wood are retirees and are on fixed incomes. I'm one of them. And when I purchased -- when my wife and I purchased the unit, we did it because of its affordability and our ability to pay for the necessary maintenance required. Privatizing the road means that I'm going to have to pay for maintenance of the road plus I'll be still paying my taxes to maintain the other public roads in Collier County. As I said before, I don't believe in living in an exclusive enclave to prevent the so-called riffraff from driving through. And I don't like -- I don't like the idea of stopping -- to stop at a -- at a gate, identify myself before I can proceed to my home. Now, they -- people that are -- that are for this privatization say, Oh, this -- they're only doing this because they want to prevent the -- the -- the building of a -- of a -- or development of some area northwest -- on the northwest -- the northeast corner of -- of the -- of Royal Wood and that in the future that road might be used as a through road. I'd like to wrap this up by saying let's not go back into the middle ages and live in the walled -- in walled cities as the people in those times -- those times had to do because of the high women and the cut-throats that were around -- running around at night. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, sir. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Smith. (Applause) COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hey, Gil. Gil, we're in trouble, because we're going to be agreeing on two things today. It can happen. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're slipping. You're slipping. MR. DORRILL: Ms. McLean, you'll follow this gentleman. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dorrill, how much -- MR. DORRILL: Ms. McLean's the last one. MR. SMITH: County Commissioners, my name is Claude Smith. I've lived in Royal Wood in the Amberly Village for -- this is -- will be my seventh year. I've enjoyed it immensely. It's a great golf course, and I've met a lot of great people. It's been fun for me and my wife. I am the bearer of that opposition petition. If you want to know where it came from, it probably originated at our place in Armberly. It was supported by a -- a great many cooperative and helpful people throughout most of the Royal Wood community. It was provoked probably by, again, questions that were encompassed in the early letters that were directed to everybody. I happen to have a corroborating tally of what transpired, and I'll just give you a little history of that. And I'll -- you've heard a lot of the aspects of pros and cons, and some of them have been somewhat redundant, we all recognize. The original petition mailed by Tom Hart from Fort Myers was originated by or authorized by the Royal Wood Master Association. The original tally, as I have been made aware of, was 461 for privatization, 163 against. There was efforts extended and letters written, and I think you've had some accumulation of letters that were directed to the commissioners as well as Mr. Hart's office as well as the Royal Wood Master Association. We've tried to keep everybody abreast of what we were doing in this opposition group, if you want to call us that. Some people call us something very much more drastic. But we tried to be honest and aboveboard in what efforts we were doing. We did accumulate a number of petitions, and it was only just recently that I was given the opportunity -- I'm, by the way, on the Royal Wood Haster's Association. I'm a board of director, and I am the secretary. I went up to Tom Hart's office a -- a week ago Friday on -- I believe that was the -- December 6th; and we, again, reviewed all petitions that he had in his file both for and against. We did this for a specific reason. We wanted to cross-check the original petitioners' votes with what we had been accumulating since February of this year. We tried to get a unbiased response of those people to vote their convictions since the opposition became a concern for at least many people. We found that by a very prudent and concerned analyzation of the petitions, signatures that we had obtained, there was 141 people who had originally voted for privatization who had changed their vote to against. There was also an accumulated vote of 50 petitions from people opposing Royal Wood road privatization that had previously not voted. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Smith? MR. SMITH: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How -- MR. SMITH: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- was that -- this petition circulated? MR. SMITH: It was circulated by hand. A few of them were mailed. And I presume that, our petition being a -- a straightforward petition, you have a copy of it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And over what period of time was it? MR. SMITH: We started with letters probably in January -- late January. One la -- one letter was over the signature of Rolly Pions, a civil engineer. And it was a concerned letter pointing out some of the issues that we thought should be made aware of the total membership of Royal Wood. And then we did circulate the petition, most of it by hand. We discussed things with the various people throughout the condo groups as well as some of the homeowners' groups. (Audience responded negatively) COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Allow him to have his opportunity to speak, please. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Come on, let's hold the comments down, please. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Give everyone the same courtesy, please. MR. SMITH: We didn't make a total mailing or distribution of our petition against Royal Wood privatization of roads simply because we were working on a zero cost or zero budget. We were doing this all by our own good efforts. We didn't have the $25,000 that Royal master board spent for the petition that they actually originated. Any questions of me? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, sir. Seeing as -- that you mentioned that the letter under Mr. -- is it Peons (phonetic) or Pions? MR. SMITH: Pions. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Pions -- signature, that's where I tend to derive the greatest difficulty with a lot of the new petition's signatures that you circulated, because some of the points in here are factually incorrect such as sheriff's patrols not being allowed in the community or that they would not continue in the community. I know that not to be true. The element that storm sewers, if they begin destroying the roadway, who pays for it? Well, that depends on who owns the storm sewers, the easements for them, and who operates them. If it's the county, the county -- just like when we have sanitary sewer that goes bad that -- or will begin leaking in an area and begins to create potholes, we have to fix the sewer and then fix the road on top of it. So I -- I guess I want to ask what research went into this letter that you then indicated to people that the sheriffs were no longer going to patrol -- patrol, that you had no idea who was going to fix the roadway if the storm sewers went bad, and -- and the other points. I guess -- who did the research and came up with these points? MR. SMITH: That was a personal letter originated by Rolly Pions, and it was used by his own mailing as well -- or giving out as well as mailing. And you -- you know who it's addressed to? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, the master board of directors. MR. SMITH: That's right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But it was circulated among the community. MR. SMITH: That one wasn't circulated. The one that was circulated is a two-page -- with the petition. Is that what you're referring to? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. Actually I was referring to another one. But -- MR. SMITH: Okay. But I'll -- I'd like to -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're not Mr. Pions; so maybe my question's inappropriate. But I was just curious if you knew who had contacted the sheriff's office to inquire about these things or who had contacted county utilities to ask about them. The big concern I have on these petitions -- MR. SMITH: I -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- is -- MR. SMITH: I appreciate -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- the information be valid and correct. MR. SMITH: I appreciate where you're coming from, but that particular letter was basically addressed to the Royal Wood Master Association at Royal Wood. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. SMITH: And we even had sent letters to Tom Hart expressing some concern, but the letter that was -- accompanied the -- the individual petition is a two-page letter, and I think it's dated somewhere around the -- late February. And I think you all have copies of those. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. SMITH: It's a two-page letter. I think that's the one that more realistically embraced the concerns and the information that we were actually trying to convey to the -- to the people for their edification before they actually took time to consider voting against the road privatization. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Smith -- MR. SMITH: Anything else? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- let me see if I can -- I'm not clear on a couple of things. I'm going to see if I can get you to help me with it. Tell me again the time frame which you circulated your petition. MR. SMITH: We started -- is -- I just went back through some of the dates. It seemed like the dating of the petitions were starting early in February, and some of them were even consummated as recently as a week ago. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So you've been collecting petitions for eight or nine months? MR. SMITH: We didn't do it during the summer, because most of the people who were working on the project against the road privatization are snowbirds. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. And did I hear you say that you are a member of the master association or board yourself? MR. SMITH: Yes. I am the secretary of the Royal Wood Master Association. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. And how long have you been in that position? MR. SMITH: Since February. I took the place of Ed Keyes, the president, who resigned. And he -- then I represented Am -- Amberly at -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: When did the -- when did the master association vote to support privatization? MR. SMITH: Interesting that you would bring that up, because I searched the -- the Royal Wood Master Association meetings during the entire 1995 period, and there was no minutes of Royal Wood Master Association -- Association voting on a movement to privatize Royal Wood roads. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The petitions that the master association circulated were completed in February of -- MR. SMITH: No. No. The Royal Wood Master Association petitions, they were mailed out November 21, 1995. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But completed in February. I guess that's what we're -- MR. SMITH: The -- yes. The tally was made in February; that's correct. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. So you as a member of a board are actively working to subvert what the board has agreed to. MR. SMITH: I started it before I ever had any thoughts of becoming a member of the Royal Wood Board of tru -- Board of Directors. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Not that there's anything wrong with representing a mi -- minority petition. MR. SMITH: I appreciate that. Now -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well-spoken. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. I'm doing a lot of that too. You and I disagree all the time, John. He's entitled to disagree with the board. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes. But when I lose one, I don't go out and actively try to -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's right. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- subvert the will of this board. (Applause) MR. SMITH: I'll re -- I'll repeat -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But the issue's not decided yet. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I understand. MR. SMITH: No. I -- I just want to repeat the fact, Commissioner Norris, that -- that I started my efforts, if you will, with the group -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have one more -- MR. SMITH: -- late last year, late 1995. And I wasn't even appointed until -- and I think I was appointed to some degree because of the opposition for road -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, sir. MR. SMITH: -- maintenance. MR. DORRILL: Ms. McLean. (Applause) MR. DORRILL: I think they're applauding the arrival of Ms. McLean -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Spontaneous '- MR. DORRILL: -- who is your final registered speaker. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Now that I'll applaud. MS. MCLEAN: Commissioners, I want to speak to a single point. And I think it's important to speak -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Name, please. MS. MCLEAN: Oh, I'm sorry. Barbara McLean, and I'm a resident of Royal Wood. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. I can't hear her with that gentleman holding his conversation across the aisle back there. MS. MCLEAN: Okay. I'm Barbara McLean, and I live in Amberly in Royal Wood. The single issue that I see, anyway, presented to you is to vote to privatize the road, and all of the other issues have come to the fore either because of newspaper articles or private conversations. And what I see your business is this one single point: the privatization of the road. All of the other stuff really doesn't matter today. And so I'd like to say that just to underscore the importance and the relevance of this point, and it's a simple One. One of the most desirable attributes of Royal Wood is the existing no-through-traffic pattern. Private -- privatization would guarantee that this would never change. Not privatizing leaves the absolute potential in place for losing this desirable no-through-traffic pattern; therefore, privatization is essential to pre -- preserve the existing situation and literally changes nothing else. And that's the -- in my impression, the only business before the board, and all of the rest is distraction. Thank you. (Applause) COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We've got -- I'm sorry. I don't know. Who's first? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Go ahead. Go on. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I've got a couple of questions for staff, but the one thing I want to mention -- I've said this before -- is you could have a -- a ballot among a homeowners' association on what color of the carpeting in the clubhouse should be, and you'll get a split vote. You know, you're never going to see unanimity in associations. It's -- it's -- it doesn't happen. What I'm concerned about is the division here and why the division has occurred. It was -- I mean, 74 percent is a substantial percentage to vote for something to then be changed later, and that's what I'd like to get to. Mr. Mullet, are there communities in the county that have private roads but are not gated? MR. HULLER: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Are -- are there several of them? One or two? MR. HULLER: Lots. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So one doesn't necessarily mean the other, and we've seen that throughout -- because I'm not sure. I don't know. I've -- I've only lived in one gated community, and we had private roads. But -- but there are communities with private roads that don't have gates. MR. HULLER: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. The second thing -- and this may be something Mr. Cautero needs to answer. We used to have a requirement that if you came in to develop a parcel, your density -- allowable density was based on whether or not you interconnected with the adjacent properties. Now, if the property to the north of Royal Wood is to be developed -- I know Youth Haven sits there, and there's some vacant parcels -- is their density in any way based on interconnection to adjacent parcels? Mr.: I believe that's still the case. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. You can -- you get four units an acre unless you don't interconnect, and then it's three units an acre in the urban area. Is that -- that's my understanding. Mr.: I believe that's similar. I can verify that for you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So if they want four units an acre, they're going to have to interconnect to the adjacent parcel. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Actually, I'm pretty familiar with that, and I -- I think it says you get -- that you -- you lose the unit if it's possible to interconnect and you choose not to. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. Which I'm looking at a perimeter road and a couple locations that are -- that would be possible, and then there's Whitaker Road to the north. So I'm just -- I'm just trying to find out if that is a viable concern. Mr.: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But it sounds like it may be. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And the -- the third thing -- and I've already mentioned it -- is in the letters that the association sent out, you can say they didn't have enough information in them. I think that can always be the case. I'm more concerned about the letters afterwards that skewed information such as the sheriff's patrols and -- and who pays for what and -- and so forth. That may have something to do with a lot of the signatures that have come in since then, and that concerns me a little bit. But we just have -- the first decision we have to make is, is there a public purpose to these roadways remaining as public right-of-way, which is exactly what we had to do at Countryside. And this one -- in that case it is even clearer that the general public has no benefit of these roadways being public. I mean, we -- we don't gain anything as a community from them. So once we get past that, it then becomes a question of how much rights do you give the property owners inside there who collectively want to pursue something. And that's what it boils down to today with those other things being answered. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's what I wanted to say, is there are two distinct questions. One, has the proper body or authority come forward and asked for this? The master association has that authority. It -- it certainly appears that they have gone to great effort to have some measured scientific result as to what the majority of the people in the community want. And, as Commissioner Hancock said, there are always going to be disputes within homeowners' associations, and there obviously is one here. But the disputes -- the individual disputes within the association isn't within the purview of this board. We don't have any -- any ability for that. What we have is a vote that went out that's been certified by a local attorney. It went out to every homeowner, every property owner with some quantifiable results. So I'm comfortable that that question has been answered, that -- that it is the proper authority asking it, and are they reflecting the will of the majority. The -- the second part is exactly what you said: What are the merits? And this is really what we've got to get into is, have they met the merits? What is the merit of the request? And -- and, as you said, this is even more cut and dried than a week ago. There are no letters of objection. Our staff has no objection. The fire department has no objection. EMS has no objection and so on. There is zero impact on the public traffic or on safety. There's a positive impact fiscally on the county. And so, I mean, if -- if -- if we are looking simply at the merits of it and we can -- are comfortable that it's been brought forward properly, then I -- I'm not sure how we can oppose that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any other comments or questions -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have one. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- before I close the public hearing? Yeah. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I have a question about the process. Is the process for review created by ordinance -- for staff review of these applications? Mr.: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because -- Mr.: But not ordinance; resolution. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: By resolution. I -- I think that the -- that the process is faulty in that we don't have any review by long-range planning or any planning staff. The responsibility all falls on Mr. Archibald as the only nonengineer -- you -- you may have that expertise, and I don't even know, but -- to look at how -- what effect this may have on the overall transportation system of the county. And I'd -- I'd like to ask that we consider revising the process so that the -- the long-range planning staff look at -- look at these so that we get some advice from them about how closing a road might or might not affect future growth in the county. And I'm just opposed fundamentally to the concept of continuing to close private roads -- I mean, to privatize roads that are presently public, especially until we have an overall review of what effect they're going to have on the future transportation needs. The current, as of this moment, transportation system indicates that this is not -- there isn't a loss of a public benefit. But we're not looking at the long term, and that's what concerns me at this -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are you suggesting that maybe at some point we should interconnect this and have traffic flowing through this community? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I am suggesting that we should look at it before we make decisions. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Some of the no votes may have just changed their mind. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That -- that's no problem. Everybody's entitled to their opinion. I think that the -- the -- that the process is flawed, because we're not looking at the overall impact for the county. We're looking bit by bit at the neighborhoods. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I -- I have to disagree, because it's Mr. Archibald's department that is responsible for the long-range transportation planning. Long-range planning doesn't do that solely for the county. If there's any other entity that should be involved, maybe the HPO. But -- but it is Mr. Archibald's department and Mr. Mullet that actually review the transportation impacts, and that's a part of your staff recommendation, if I'm not mistaken. So I -- I think it is being addressed. And the idea that -- that we should enter into this or not enter into it because we think we may some day want to subject the people on Royal Wood Boulevard to creating a through road between Whitaker and Rattlesnake Hammock, well, I think is a -- is an -- a fairly incredible leap and probably something they would not expect. So I'm -- again, that being the reasoning, I -- I disagree respectfully. But -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, if you look at the map and the Santa Barbara extension that's planned, it wouldn't make any sense to have the interconnection there anyway, which is probably one of the reasons our staff came up with no objection. I think that Commissioner Hancock's point is right; Mr. Mullet and Mr. Archibald are the ones who are looking at what our needs are long term. And they did look in this case, and they did look a week ago and did not see a problem and then filed that as part of their executive summary. And you may disagree with that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Uh-huh. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But don't suggest that the process isn't being gone through just because you don't agree with the end result. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I would like to have a broader view, and I'm entitled to that opinion. I would like to have a broader review than just the transportation review. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm afraid you're not allowed to have an opinion. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I understand. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're not -- you're not -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No opinions allowed. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No opinions. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Are there any further comments or questions for the staff? If not, I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to make a motion to put this on the floor. And I'm -- just as we did for Countryside, I think it needs to be qualified for the -- on the basis that there -- the Royal Wood Boulevard and interior streets really serve no public purpose other than access to private property. And based on the -- an official survey of residents citing a 74 percent approval rate of privatization of the roadways, I'm going to move approval of the application. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel's trying to jump in here. MR. WEIGEL: I -- I would ask if maybe Mr. Constantine might lead the group with any disclaimer of any outside information he may have had prior to the hearing today. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have had some correspondence and telephone and live- and in-person communication; however, as required by statute of the State of Florida, I'll base my decision solely on the information provided during this public hearing. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I, too, have had numerous contacts on this item, both written, personal, and by telephone; but I will base my decision solely on what we have heard in this hearing today. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to give it a ditto. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Ditto. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Ditto. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to second the motion, recognize the -- recognizing the uniqueness of this request. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That motion is successful. (Applause) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll take a short break. (A short break was held.) Item #12C6 ORDINANCE 96-88, AMENDING ORDINANCE 72-01, AS AMENDED, WHICH CREATED THE COLLIER COUNTY LIGHTING DISTRICT BY ADDING QUEENS PARKS AT LAGO VERDE PHASES 7 AND 8 AND SABAL LAKE PHASE 2 TO THE COLLIER COUNTY LIGHTING DISTRICT - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll reconvene our county commission meeting. Next item is 12(C)(6) concerning a lighting district -- district at Queen's Park. MR. ARCHIBALD: Board members, Agenda Item 12(C)(6) is a public hearing to amend County Ordinance No. 72-1 as amended for the purposes of adding some streets that are already lit in subdivisions that are already part of a street lighting district. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have any public speakers on this? MR. WEIGEL: I don't see any. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This one's high. This one's for sale. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me, Miss -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No comment. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Who's paying the bill on them right now, Mr. Archibald? MR. ARCHIBALD: I believe the developer is until such time as he turns it over to either the association or the county. In these two cases these are part of old, ongoing street lighting districts that were rolled into the countywide street lighting district. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: These are extensions of those old districts? MR. ARCHIBALD: They are, yes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. ARCHIBALD: Probably the last two that you'll see. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll move approval of amendment to County Ordinance 72-01. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Item #12C7 - Continued to 1/7/97 Item #12C8 RESOLUTION 96-593, SETTING FORTH THE INTENT TO USE THE UNIFORM METHOD OF COLLECTING NON-AD VALOREH ASSESSMENTS FOR INTERIM GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES FEES WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA AND THE INCORPORATED AREAS OF COLLIER COUNTY - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES Next item, 12(C)(8), a resolution setting forth the intent to use a uniform method of collecting non-ad valorem assessments for interim governmental services fee. MR. YONKOSKY: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. For the record my name is John Yonkosky. I'm your revenue services director. Agenda Item 12(C)(8) is a recommendation to have the Board of County Commissioners adopt a resolution in accordance with Section 125.01, Florida Statutes, and 197.3632, Florida Statutes. This resolution is based on your action on November 5th, and it's a notice of intent to use the uniform method of collection to collect the interim governmental services fees on the -- the nan -- non-ad valorem assessment on a countywide basis on the tax roll for 1997. There have been some changes since the resolution was prepared including the executive summary. There -- there -- and Mr. Weigel can explain those to you in just a minute. I believe he has passed out the new resolution to the commissioners. This re -- use -- or putting the item on -- the interim governmental service fee on the tax bill requires that you adopt a resolution -- a notice of intent resolution prior to January 1. And after -- or upon the adoption of this resolution it must be provided by first-class mail to the county tax collector, property appraiser, and the State of Florida Department of Revenue by January 10, 1997. There's one thing that's in the executive summary that I want to point out to the commissioners, that at the time of writing the executive summary, the city commission was not sure whether or not they could meet the schedule to have an ordinance in place to allow this to be collected in the city by February 1st. Since the executive summary's been put together, they have notified us that they can make that schedule, and they are -- they've already established their two hearings. As a matter of fact, they'll have the first hearing on this tomorrow. So there is no need for the board to make any change as to date in the intent resolution. And basically that is just -- MR. DORRILL: No speakers, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, do you have anything for us on this? MR. WEIGEL: Yes. Thank you. Just for the record to note that I had passed out to you and placed in the agenda book in the hallway for the public a revised resolution where a couple changes were made, and -- and I'll just iterate those very quickly. The first and third "wheteases" appearing on your resolution before you are new. And also paragraph 1 shown under the "now, therefore" part -- paragraph 1 on the top of page 2 of the resolution is also new, as is paragraph 4. And the reason that I've made these changes is really for clarification. I want to state that in communication with the tax collector after the board had acted in November, we had provided him copies of all that had come before the board at that point. And he had submitted them to his attorney, Mr. Ken van Assenderp, who had provided an opinion back to Mr. Carlton. And Mr. Carlton, in curious manner, had provided me with a copy of his opinion. The opinion -- the changes I have made here are to clarify that, in fact, a finding of need is being made to use the uniform ad valorem method of -- of collecting non-ad valorem assessments. And, also, he had stated that he thought a true, legal description would be required. And although I differ with him in that because I think the legal description of Collier County is static and is provided for under Chapter 74 of the statutes, I took the opportunity to speak with Mr. Skinner and have provided as an attachment an exact legal description of Collier County, its boundaries, as well as the legal descriptions of the City of Everglades and Naples. We will be waiting, if the board should adopt this resolution, to determine if the City of Naples and Everglades City should go forward and adopt consenting ordinances, which would work with the county's ordinance that it would adopt -- potentially adopt subsequent to this resolution. One other change that I am making -- would recommend making is in the second "whereas ...... whereas" paragraph in the second line. It talks about an asse -- an ad val -- non-ad valorem assessment is the most feasible method to collect. I think for clarification I would state it's the most feasible method to impose to collect. I would add the words "impose to" there midline on the second whereas. And those are those changes there, and I'll respond to any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any questions for Mr. Weigel or -- or Mr. Yonkosky? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was going to ask if we talked to the tax collector, but the seven-page legal response tells me that we have. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. So I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to move approval of -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Adoption of the resolution? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. Adoption of the resolution setting forth the interim government services fee. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Item #12C9 RESOLUTION 96-594, AMENDING RESOLUTION 95-642, WHICH ESTABLISHED A FEE SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT RELATED REVIEW AND PROCESSING FEES AS PROVIDED FOR IN DIVISION 1.10 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 12(C)(9), proposed amendment to Resolution 95-642, fee schedule for development-related review and processing fees. Mr.: Mr. Chairman, Vince Cautero for the record. This resolution amendment we've talked about on several occasions. The carried-forward positive variance was greater than $1 million as Mr. Smykowski and I have pointed out to you in your executive summary; therefore, we do not recommend an across-the-board 50 percent fee increase for development review and building permit fees until such time as we can conduct a more in-depth review, keeping track of our time better. In the meantime, I have recommended to you some fees that are brand new. I've outlined those in the executive summary and have also recommended that all reinspection fees for construction inspections be raised. And I'd be happy to answer any questions and outline those. I -- Commissioner Hancock has a question. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Cautero, how are we doing on that time study that the board authorized? Mr.: The consultant that is establishing our permit software for tracking -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All right. Mr.: -- is developing a special timekeeper program so that we can be selective on what programs we want to track and which COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Mr.: -- ones we don't. We believe we're going to get better data from that. We should that have -- should have that ready to go prior to the permit system going live in late January, early February. And at that time I'll be able to instruct staff on what to keep track of. And during your budget workshops, I should be able to give you some good data. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Great. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Move approval. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. Do we have a second for that? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. The motion's waiting down here for me to do that? Sorry. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Item #13A1 RESOLUTION 96-595, RE PETITION V-96-26, SUZANNE CHARNOCK OF THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, REQUESTING A 25 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 50 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK TO 25 FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6167 JANES LANE, PARCEL 238 (J & C INDUSTRIAL PARK) - ADOPTED 13(A)(1), Petition V-96-26. HR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows with planning services. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Bellows, I really, really like that tie. MR. BELLOWS: Hey, thank you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Very festive. MR. BELLOWS: For Petition V-96-26, the South Florida Water Management District is requesting a 25-foot variance from the required 50-foot setback in the industrial district for property located at 6167 Jane's Lane. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's a hardship. MR. BELLOWS: The parcel is adjacent to and south of the existing Big Cypress field station. Proposed office requirements for Big Cypress -- they need 4,200 square feet to meet the district needs. Unfortunately, it doesn't meet their building envelopes once the setbacks are applied and -- because there are existing easements around the building and -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would those be water management easements? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. And -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I didn't expect the answer to be yes, but okay. MR. BELLOWS: It's staff's opinion that a conforming structure could be placed on the site; however, due to the existing field station location, easements, and the need to interconnect with the existing field station buildings, imposed encroachment is necessary. In addition, only 2 of the existing build -- 15 buildings now on Jane's Lane meet the 50-foot setback requirement. The others are preexisting, nonconforming structures; therefore, staff is recommending approval. The Collier County Planning Commission reviewed this petition, and they also recommend approval. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What was the vote of the Planning Commission? MR. BELLOWS: It was unanimous. MR. DORRILL: No speakers, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Questions? Close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Since this is not a -- a landowner looking to expand their business at the detriment of the county solely for the purpose of receiving increased revenues, I think it's worth saving the taxpayer some dollars here -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. Make a motion. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- approving -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm just trying to drag it out until five o'clock. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: A motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No ~esponse) Item #14A DISCUSSION RE JOB ANNOUNCEMENT AND DESCRIPTION RE COUNTY MANAGER'S POSITION - DISCUSSED Okay. Commissioner Berry, anything further? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes. Last week I was informed I was to bring some information back to the commission. I believe you should have received something in your mailboxes from a process that was used by the school system in selection of a recent high school principal. In the meantime, you've also gotten -- or we've all gotten something from our own human resource department. Basically what I provided you is a time line that they used, which isn't too inconsistent, I think, with really what we're looking at. Maybe it's a little longer. I merely provided this to you as a guideline, nothing more. If you have any further questions, we can certainly discuss it. Other than that, I don't -- I think it's all self-explanatory. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, thank you very much for that. That will be helpful. Commissioner Hancock? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: No, sir. Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, and all that other good stuff. Item #14B DISCUSSION RE CONVERTING GAS TO ELECTRICITY FOR THE LANDFILL - COUNTY MANAGER TOO CHECK INTO THE ISSUE OF STAFF NOT BRINGING THIS MATTER TO THE BCC CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just one thing that I -- I'm worried about that I thought was going to be on this week's agenda that didn't make it. It had to do with a gas recovery conversion -- converting the gas to electricity at the landfill. And I had, frankly, been approached by -- by Waste Management and had been aware that there was going to be something on this week's agenda, because if -- if we're going to do -- if we're going to look at the waste -- at the gas-to-electricity system, it would be best if we could look at it in some detail prior to the end of this year, because if Waste Management can get the tax credits, then the cost recovery to the county goes from 20 to 15 years. And I was wondering if anybody else had heard anything about this, if we had expected -- you know, how did this come not to be on the agenda? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. I -- I, too, discussed it with Waste Management, and all it is is really preserving the right to make a decision in March of next year. Without it the decision has a material change. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A big change of five years' cost to the county. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Who theoretically made the request to be on the agenda? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I don't know. I know that there was a contract Mr. Weigel's office was working on. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Maybe no one made the request. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel, were you -- did you pull it from consideration? MR. WEIGEL: Well, I didn't pull it. We received it as a request for legal services from David Russell, the solid waste director, and worked with him very assiduously on it in the time that we had it. And there were, frankly, some fairly important issues that we could not finalize to bring it to the agenda; and -- and -- and -- and so he determined not to put it forward. It was going to be, I think, a solid waste agenda item. But -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: When was -- MR. WEIGEL: -- we -- we had some questions that we just couldn't answer. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did -- did you just notice this or -- or -- I guess I'm wondering why we didn't bring this up at the beginning of the agenda. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Frankly, I didn't realize that it wasn't on until I saw the Waste Management people here and said, You know, whatever happened? Why -- why isn't this here? I thought it was going to be here, and it isn't. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Likewise, apparently Mr. Bigelow thought it was going to be on the agenda as -- based on our meeting, so did I. I -- I never saw it on there. I -- it's just not something I specifically picked out. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just wonder if there's any interest in the board or if it's possible for us to take any action that would be sufficient to preserve -- we don't have to enter into any kind of a contract until April. But if we don't take some kind of an action before the end of the year, we lose that tax credit opportunity, and it costs us five years of -- of dollars. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is there some action we could take? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And if the -- the -- if it doesn't cost us anything to explore it a little further, I don't have any objection to it. But if -- if we're -- if you're asking do we want to move forward with a -- with an investment that pays back over 15 years, I don't know. I think we can put our money in the SBA and do better than that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I don't know either if it's what we ought to do, but I know that I want to get the opportunity to look it at. And I'd like to get the opportunity to look at it with a 15-year payout instead of a 20-year payout. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If -- if we don't have to make a final decision on April -- until April, why do we need to do something now to reserve our rights, Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Well, we were looking for the IRS code site and provisions that -- we were told that was necessary to have an agreement of a type in place before December 31st of this year and then a finalized agreement by April 1st or 15th of next year. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What -- what type would that be? MR. WEIGEL: Well, what -- what we have proffered before us initially was a kind of letter agreement that was not signed off by a -- a company named RUST, which is a -- a subsidiary connected with Waste Management. We -- we determined that in order to do this kind of agreement, we actually had -- we couldn't just do a letter agreement with RUST. We had to involve -- pursuant to our landfill operations agreement, had to bring in Waste Management as a signatory also and actually amend that Waste Management agreement. And we -- we -- we crafted forward. Part of the elements that we're dealing with are -- there -- there's a 3.7 million estimated capital expenditure to -- to ultimately factor in based on sale of royalty -- royalty rights on gas. And the county was -- was under the purported agreement to sell the rights to that gas, but determined the fees at some point later with some rather -- what initially looked like rather -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Uh-huh. MR. WEIGEL: -- curtailed -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. I'm sorry. My -- my -- I was just wondering how complex the agreement would have to be; and, obviously, it's more complex than we can do now without something in front of us. But -- MR. WEIGEL: And there were questions of sale as opposed to lease. Originally we were told to -- to lease, and then they changed to sale. And so we wanted to try to determine, based on the IRS code, which was absolutely necessary. We never actually determined that before we got to the board meeting today. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, when was this first broached? When was the first notice of this idea involving staff that you're aware of? MR. WEIGEL: It came to our office just over a week ago. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And do you know if Mr. Russell had it before then? MR. WEIGEL: I know. Yes, he had it sometime before that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, what -- what's the pleasure of the board on this item? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd -- I'd like to at least take action indicating -- if it's by resolution or otherwise -- it might not be sufficient for the IRS, but I'd like to take a shot by -- by making some resolution that we are interested in pursuing this further, that we're in the process of finalizing a contract draft that will be before us before the deadline. We don't make commitments today to enter into any agreement, but we do commit to look at it thoroughly between now and this April deadline. MR. WEIGEL: If I may respond, I think it's going to take a contractual agreement, because there is a determination of actual property rights that has to be determined prior to the end of the year. If the board were to authorize the chairman to sign an agreement that the county attorney creates prior to the end of the year that is -- is legally sufficient, we'll do that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But that is as general as I just described in the form of -- I -- I was describing it in a resolution. You're saying it has to be in the form of a contract. MR. WEIGEL: I -- I expect it's going to have to be a contract to -- to show rights of parties. That's -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I don't like it any more than you do, Commissioner Hac'Kie, but it sounds like we missed the window this year. I would like to get an explanation from Mr. Russell why this board wasn't at least given an option of hearing something before the end of the year, because it's 12 months of an opportunity that -- that we may have -- have got earned revenues on that we will now lose. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, let me just make a short comment, and then, you know, we'll do whatever you want to do. But the -- the proposal is to install machinery to generate electricity from burning the gas. If it takes a 15- to 20-year payback at best to -- to recover your money, then I suggest that you would be better off to put your money in an SBA and continue to flare the gas. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, that's exactly what I -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And -- and, you know, there may be other things you can do with the gas that would gather you more money. I don't know that. I -- I have no idea. But there may be something else you can do, some other place you can sell the gas; perhaps compress it and sell it to someone else at a -- at a quicker recovery rate for your money. But to -- to do it at 15 years -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- it's -- it's not cost-effective. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I -- I tend to agree with you, but I really think that this board ought to -- should have had that information before us, and -- and we should have been able to have made that decision. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I don't disagree. I'm just saying that from the -- purely investment standpoint, it doesn't make much sense to -- to pursue heavily something that -- that's -- that, at best, a 15-year payback. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I agree with Commissioner Berry. We should have had that information. Unfortunately, we don't. And I don't know that we can spend a whole lot of time discussing something we don't have. COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's true. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, two things I'd like: I'd like Mr. Dotrill to let us know how Mr. Russell had the authority to -- to make such a, you know, significant decision. You know, I think something's wrong with the process if -- if he had -- strictly been his purview to pull this. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'd ask you to look at that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And -- and then is there any interest on the board in entering into a contract that's as general as I described before, that we have an intention to look into this matter, investigate it thoroughly to see if it's possible for us to -- if -- if we choose or -- or don't to go forward? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: As much as I would like to -- to do that, entering into a contract on -- on basically those verbal terms, I think, is just not something we want to make a habit of. I'm as frustrated as you are on this, but I just -- I don't think that's appropriate, regardless of how much I would like to pursue it, at least not within these 12 months. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dotrill, anything further? MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. Just to, again, relate that I had -- had sent you some information, and I wanted to advise you that I made a decision last Wednesday to send the job announcement as it appears on page 3. And the rationale for that was to -- last Wednesday was the deadline for job announcements for both the January 2nd Florida Newsletter and the December 23rd International City and County Manager's Newsletter. And so the -- the ad will run as it is shown here. It can be modified subsequent to us receiving some resumes or expressions of interest, but I made that decision in order to run the ad on the schedule that I thought that you wanted to adhere to. And we provided for 30 days for a closing period that would close expressions of interest on January the 31st of 1997. There's also a questionnaire that has been developed there, and I'm encouraging each board member just to review that and fill it out. I think it's important, because then you collectively determine the traits and experience and ability, both managerially and personality and otherwise, that you're seeking in your next manager. And I think it's important for the board to -- to do that. That's all that I have, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. Mr. Weigel, anything further? MR. WEIGEL: No. Nothing. Thank you. Have a good holiday. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine, anything further? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I don't have anything. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But thanks for asking. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We just hadn't gotten to you yet. Miss Filson -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Merry Christmas to all -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- is there anything further? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and to all -- MS. FILSON: No. I don't have anything. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- good-bye. Item #15A REVISION TO PUBLIC PURPOSE ORDINANCE - STAFF DIRECTED TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE MS. FILSON: But under staff it says revision to public purpose ordinance. MR. DORRILL: We, as part of the board's merit plan, need your acknowledgment that we need to rewrite the resolution that in lieu of cash merit that a portion of the money could be used to obtain noncash incentive awards, and we need to be able to amend the ordinance to do that. That was something we had discussed during budget time. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that like those baseball caps you gave Kevin Hendricks a couple years ago? MR. DORRILL: Coffee mugs; it could include training. It could include other material incentives for performance, bonuses in lieu of cash. And unless the board has a concern with that, Mr. Weigel and I will work to develop that revision and bring it back in the new year. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That will all occur with the input of the human resources department and the employee advisory council? MR. DORRILL: I believe it already has. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. With that, then we are dismissed. ***** Commisisoner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner Hancock and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent Agenda be approved and/or Adopted: Item #16A1 SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE RESOLUTION 96-344, PROPERTY OWNER: RUTH G. AND ELIAZER VALDEZ, LOT 2 OF BLOCK 2 IN EDEN PARK Item #16A2 SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE RESOLUTION 96-348, PROPERTY OWNER: FULVIO AVA SALVADOR, LOT 3, BLOCK 786, MARCO BEACH UNIT 25 Item #16A3 SATISFACITON OF LIEN FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE RESOLUTION 96-115, PROPERTY OWNER: NORBERTO PEREZ-URRIAAND ZOILA PEREZ-URRIA, LOT 5, BLOCK 246, GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 Item #16A4 RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF PELICAN STRAND WITH STIPULATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT Item #16A5 RATIFICATION OF AGREEMENT FOR 100% DEFERRAL OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES WITH EAST RIDGE PARTNERS, LTD. FOR VILLAS OF CAPRI Item #16A6 RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF SAPPHIRE LAKES PHASE 3B WITH STIPULATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND ESCROW AGREEMENT Item #16A7 RESOLUTION 96-583 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE TO THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER, AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PALT OF CRYSTAL LAKE RV RESORT, PHASE FOUR AND RELEASE OF MAINTENANCE SECURITY Item #16A8 RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF TIHARRON UNIT ONE WITH STIPULATIONS, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND LETTER OF CREDIT Item #16A9 RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF SILVER LAKES PHASE 2C WITH STIPULATIONS, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND LETTER OF CREDIT Item #16A10 RESOLUTION 96-584 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR SAFE HARBOR AND RELEASE OF SECURITY Item #16All ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES FOR CARLTON LAKES, PHASE 1-A WITH STIPULATIONS Item #16A12 RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF TIHARRON UNIT TWO WITH STIPULATIONS, LETTER OF CREDIT AND CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT Item #16B1 BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $70,000 TO COVER LEGAL EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE CASE OF WESTWIND CONTRACTING COMPANY VS. COLLIER COUNTY FOR THE IHMOKALEE ROAD FOUR-LANING PROJECT Item #1682 - Deleted Item #1683 REVISED STRATEGY FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LELY AREA STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Item #1684 CHANGE ORDER FOR PERFORMANCE OF ADDITIONAL SERVICES UNDER THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. FOR THE MARCO ISLAND BEACH RENOURISHHENT PROJECT Item #1685 AGREEHENT TO THE ROAD IHPACT FEE CONTRIBUTION AGREEHENT WITH THE DEVELOPERS OF CARLTON LAKES FOR ADDITIONAL COST IN BUILDING A SEGMENT OF LIVINGSTON ROAD Item #1686 RESOLUTION 96-585 DESIGNATING THE INTERIH PUBLIC WORKS ADHINISTRATOR AS AUTHORIZED OWNER SIGNEE FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT, THE MARCO WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT AND THE GOODLAND WATER DISTRICT FOR EXECUTION OF ROUTINE DOCUMENTS RELATED TO PUBLIC WORKS MATTERS Item #1687 CHANGE ORDER TO CONTRACT NO. 95-2391, MARCO ISLAND SEGMENTED BREAKWATER IN THE A_MOUNT OF $63,333.15 WITH KELLY BROTHERS Item #1688 WATER MANAGEMENT FAIR SHARE CONTRIBUTION AGREEHENT WIHT TARPON COVE PUD Item #16B9 REJECTION OF A PORTION OF BID #96-2580 AND RE-AWARD OF THAT PORTION TO SUNSTATE METER COMPANY FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITIES FOR WATER OPERATIONS Item #16B10 EMERGENCY PURCHASE FOR ONE RADICON GEAR DRIVE UNIT TO HORVATH ELECTRIC MOTORS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $24,915 Item #16Bll BID NO. 96-2576 FOR AN ALL TERRAIN EXCAVATOR AWARDED TO PIONEER HYDRAULIC SYSTEMS, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA IN THE AMOUNT OF $191,105 Item #16B12 WATER MANAGEMENT CIP BUDGET (325) TO REFLECT REVISIONS IN CAPITAL PROGRAM Item #16B13 BUDGET AMENDMENTS RECOGNIZING CARRY FORWARD AMOUNTS FROM FY96 FOR ROAD PROJECTS IN FUNDS 313, 331, 333, 334, 336, 338, 339 AND 340 Item #16C1 CHANGE ORDER FOR GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER IMPROVEMENTS TO VARIAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,250 Item #16C2 AUTHORIZATION OF AN AGREEMENT FOR THE RENTAL OF BOAT SLIPS AT THE COCOHATCHEE RIVER PARK IN THE AMOUNT OF $7.00 PER BOAT FOOT Item #16D1 - Deleted Item #16D2 RESOLUTION 96-586 RATIFYING SPECIFIC EXPENDITURES AT THE COLLIER COUNTY EMPLOYEE PICNIC AS SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE Item #16El - Deleted Item #16E2 AMENDMENT OF AIRPORT AUTHORITY FY 96/97 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FUND (496) Item #16E3 COUNTY MANAGER AUTHORIZED TO APPROVE CONSENT/EMERGENCY ITEMS DURING THE BOARD'S RECESS - DECEMBER 30, 1996 THROUGH JANUARY 6, 1997 Item #16E4 COMPETITIVE PROCESS WAIVED AND PROCUREHENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES TO ASSIST IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LONG TERM CLAM BAY RESTORATION PLAN AND TO COMPLETE THE SHORT TERM RECOHMENDATIONS FOR THE CLAM BAY SYSTEM AUTHORIZED Item #16E5 BUDGET AMENDMENTS 97-051, 97-052, 97-061 AND 97-069 Item #16G1 CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE 1996 Real Property No. Dated 58, 62 and 63 11-25 - 12-05-96 1996 Tangible Personal Property No. Dated 30 - 32 11-10 - 11-19-96 35 - 40 11-25 - 11-27-96 Item #1662 SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER Item #1663 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED The following miscellaneous correspondence as filed and/or referred to the various departments as indicated below: Item #1611 RESOLUTION 96-587 AUTHORIZING THE HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY OF LEE COUNTY TO ISSUE SINGLE FAMILY MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS IN COOPERATION WITH THE COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY, A PORTION TO BE USED TO FINANCE QUALIFYING LOAN PROGRAMS IN COLLIER COUNTY AND TO AUTHORIZE THE LEE AUTHORITY TO OPERATE IN COLLIER COUNTY FOR THIS PROGRAM AND TO AUTHORIZE THE COLLIER AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE LEE AUTHORITY FOR THESE PURPOSES There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:40 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL JOHN C. NORRIS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Barbara A. Donovan and Helissa Hilligan