Loading...
BCC Minutes 11/12/1996 R REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 12, 1996 OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:03 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: John C. Norris VICE-CHAIRMAN: Timothy L. Hancock Timothy J. Constantine Pamela S. Hac'Kie Bettye J. Matthews ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dorrill, County Manager David Weigel, County Attorney (The proceedings commenced, Commissioner Matthews not being present.) Item #3 AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I'll call the county commission meeting to order on this 12th of November, 1996. Mr. Dotrill, could you please lead us in a invocation and a pledge to the flag, please. MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we give thanks today, and on -- on this day, the day after our Veterans Day holiday, we give a special thanks and testimony and lift up to you those in our community who have served their country through the Armed Forces and in many instances paid the ultimate sacrifice to keep this the greatest country in the world. Father, we thank you for our elected leadership, and it is our prayer each and every week that you give them the courage and the due diligence that they need in order to make important business decisions for Collier County and its people. We give thanks for our staff and for the many citizens who do choose to participate in the government process in our community. And we'd ask you bless our time here together this morning. And we pray these things in Your Son's holy name. Amen. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill, I see we have scant few changes today to the agenda. MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. Good morning. I have just two changes today. The first one is one that you're aware of, and we did get that information late Friday afternoon concerning a grant. This is a -- a FEHA-type grant coming through DCA that requires the grantee to have a facility in place. It's operating funds, but we have under 10(B) a request to add a grant request for St. Hatthew's House for operating grant funds. And I have a request to continue for one week item 16(D)(6). The request is from the Collier County Golf Authority. This was the item that was scheduled on the consent agenda that would approve the required advertisement to post that property for sale as surplus property. That's all that I have, Mr. Chairman. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. Can you repeat that last one? MR. DORRILL: The last one is a request from the Collier County Golf Authority to continue for one week until the 19th that item which would authorize the advertising for the sale of the current landfill property to be surplus. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I'm a little hesitant. We have had hearing after hearing on that. I'm a little hesitant to continue that item -- I don't know how the rest of the board feels -- unless there's a valid reason. I mean, they're not exactly the petitioner. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. I got to agree, and I saw Jack just wander in somewhere, and -- and we've had opportunity after opportunity. We've been doing this for six months since that response came back. And in six months they couldn't meet the requirements of the bid, and I got to agree with you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Was there any reason given? MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. They've stated one. It says, "We've been advised by our attorneys that the Collier County Golf Authority Incorporated has received a preliminary approval which is still in effect that would preclude issuing a new request for bids." COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Based on that I'm not -- I'm not going to be supportive of the continuance. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is that -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Then that will not be continued. MR. DORRILL: That was all that I had, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Well, we need a -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to move approval of the agenda and consent agenda as amended assuming there were no additions. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Seeing where -- as I have no other changes, I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hac'Kie, do you have anything further -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- before we call it? We have a motion to approve the agenda. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Item #5A1 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 17, 1996, AS NAPLES CONCERT BAND DAY - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No minutes, so we'll go straight to proclamations. I'll start off with concert band. Dwight Richardson, would you please come up here and stand here and turn around so you can be shown on television with your Naples Concert Band jacket on? Whereas, the Naples Concert Band is now beginning its 25th season of providing a regular concert season for the enjoyment of Collier County residents and winter visitors; and Whereas, the Naples Concert Band through the proficiency of its musicians, directors, and programming has earned the support of the Collier County business community to augment that provided by the Collier County officials; and Whereas, the Naples Concert Band has through the years proven its increasing audience appeal with the concert attendance growing from 150 in its early concerts to more than 3,000 at the height of the concert season; and Whereas, the Naples Concert Band continues to welcome all qualified musicians of all ages to unite in harmony, to enjoy participation in rehearsals and concert presentations; and Whereas, the Naples Concert Band provides scholarships for deserving students in our Collier County school system who participate in the band during its concert season; and Whereas, it can be stated in this 25th season that the Naples Concert Band concert series is being highlighted this season by a special joint concert with the Greater Hiami Symphonic Band on November 17, 1996, in an effort to promote off-season tourism. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that November 17, 1996, be designated as Naples Concert Band Day in Collier County and encourage all residents and visitors alike to attend this special concert in Cambier Park as part of the 25th anniversary year celebration. Done and ordered this 12th day of November, 1996. And I'd like to make a motion that we accept this proclamation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: If you can hold it just for a second -- just for a second and we'll -- we'll call the question and get it approved and then -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Very controversial. It might not pass. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Very controversial. May not pass. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I can tell by the applause there's no admission charge. MR. RICHARDSON: You're right. Thanks, Tim. Item #5A2 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 10-16, 1996, AS YOUTH APPRECIATION WEEK - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We also have youth appreciation week. Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe Gerald Neff, secretary of the Sunset Optimists, are here -- is here to accept this proclamation if you too can come up and face our vast audience in television land. The proc -- the proclamation reads: Whereas, the vast majority of youth are concerned, knowledgeable, and responsible citizens; and Whereas, the accomplishments and achievements of these young citizens deserves the recognition and praise of their elders; and Whereas, Optimists International has since 1954 developed and promoted a program entitled Youth Appreciation Week; and Whereas, the citizens of Naples, Florida, have indicated a desire to join the Sunset Optimists in expressing appreciation and approval for the contributions of our youth. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of November 10 through 16 -- coincidently, that would be this week -- 1996, be dis -- designated as Youth Appreciation Week. Done and ordered this 12th day of November, 1996, Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, John C. Norris, chairman. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we approve this proclamation. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for approval. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Learning new job skills, Miss Filson? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That falls in under the and all other. Item #SA1 RESOLUTION 96-505 AMENDING RESOLUTION 96-27 CORRECTING A SCRIVENER'S ERROR FOR A CONDITION OF APPROVAL ADDED TO STIPULATION "b" WHICH HAD BEEN INADVERTENTLY OMITTED FROM EXHIBIT "D" OF SAID RESOLUTION; MR. JAMES SMITH REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE "1" AND "3" OF THE ESTATES ZONING DISTRICT FOR A CHURCH AND CHILD CARE FACILITY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That concludes the ceremonial portion of our agenda this morning, and we are ready to start business. So 8(A)(1) is a resolution amending resolution 96-27. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I believe this was just a scrivener's error. And with that in mind, I'll make a motion we approve item 8(A)(1). COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Item #8A2 PRESENTATION TO THE BCC OF THE 1996 ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY REPORT OF PUBLIC FACILITIES (AUIR) OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE - HPO TO REVIEW TRANSPORTATION ISSUE WITH FDOT AND BRING BACK TO BCC; LEVEL OF SERIVCE STANDARDS NOT TO BE CHANGED AT THIS TIME; JAIL FACILITY (CATEGORY B) NOT TO BE CONSIDERED THIS YEAR. LIBRARY LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS TO BE INCREASED TO 1.65; REPORT ACCEPTED; AND STAFF DIRECTED TO PROCEED WITH CHANGES DISCUSSED FOR CATEGORY "A" AND "B" FOR INCLUSION IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Our next item is 8(B)(2), presentation to the Board of County Commissioners of the 1996 annual update and inventory report. MR. LITSINGER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, commissioners. For the record, Stan Litsinger with comprehensive planning department -- excuse me, comprehensive planning section. This morning we have for you the seventh or the 1996 annual update and inventory report on public facilities. This report is required to be presented to you annually by both your adequate public facilities ordinance as codified in the Land Development Code division 3.15. Through this process we resolve any public facilities deficiencies, look at revenue solutions, new projects that need to be added to your com -- your capital improvement element, and receive direction from the board on specific problem areas as we identify them and also look for direction relative to policy on the various facilities that we outline to you. Today what I would propose to do is outsign -- outline some of the issues in the report which I would like to bring to your attention for which we need specific direction. As a result of reviewing this report today, the board will through its direction include projects identified in the AUIR in the next financially feasible CIE update and amendment which will be brought to you after the first of the year. And by establishing and amending this element, you will establish a concurrency situation for the next 12-month period. At the end of this presentation, we will ask the board to take three actions: Number one, we'll ask you to accept and approve the attached document as the 1996 AUIR. We'll ask you to give staff direction on category A and B facilities relative to inclusion with revenues in the upcoming CIE update that I mentioned. And finally, we will ask the board to find upon analysis and review and actions taken today to declare as required by division 315 of the Land Development Code that there is sufficient category A facilities through your actions to support development approvals in the next 12-month period. Before I go through an overview, are there any general questions on this process? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any questions? (No response) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Please continue. MR. LITSINGER: Referring always to your agenda page numbers, I would like to point out first on page 6 of your agenda we have a reconciliation of total projects and total revenue types. This is for the five-year planning period to be covered by your capital improvement element because that is the statutory requirement, a five-year period. Are there any overall questions on the summation of projects on page 6 before I go on to some individual project types? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I take it it has not been updated since the failure of the sales tax referendum regarding the jail. MR. LITSINGER: We will discuss that -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. LITSINGER: -- when I come to that item. If there are no questions on the overall summation, I'd like to ask you to turn to page 10, your agenda page 10. We have one specific issue in transportation which we need some direction from the board. In our traffic analysis, CIE project 72 which is the section of Davis Boulevard between the intersection of Radio Road and 951 -- you may be familiar with it. It's a very short section there, less than a half mile, pretty much comprises a intersection -- is currently operating at a deficient level of service standard. In their traffic conditions report we recommended that direction be given to do some analyses to look at some ways to alleviate the current deficient conditions. In the meantime, we are recommending that you give staff direction to include advanced funding for PD and E for this section in the FY '96, '97 CIE from available reserve funds and that you also advance funding for possible construction in FY '97, '98 in order to relieve a deficiency situation with this particular segment. Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Litsinger, when was the PD and E scheduled for in our current CIE? MR. LITSINGER: In the current CIE there is -- there is no scheduling at all. It's a state road project. And in a five-year planning period unless something has changed very recently, there is no scheduled activity by the state. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So by advancing funding, we're not really doing that. We're in essence paying for it and hoping for repayment down the road because it's not in the state's five-year work program -- program; is that correct? MR. LITSINGER: That's correct. There are -- I have the obligation to point out other alternatives to you. One alternative is to take no action at all which would be in conflict with your -- your ordinances relative to a deficient segment. However, I would not be a staff member to stand here and recommend that you establish a moratorium around a segment that small of two miles on each end and one mile on either side. I don't think it serves the public interest because I believe that we can look at some other remedial actions. What we may be able to do from a process standpoint by adding this funding giving staff some direction on working with the state be able to report back to you next year that the state has advanced funding or advanced this project in their planning process. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Isn't that an HPO -- MR. LITSINGER: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- priority then? MR. LITSINGER: Uh-huh. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Before this board makes a funding commitment, I would like the HPO with the presence of the DOT to review this matter publicly and then have it brought back. So if it's possible in this particular AUIR to remove that to be brought back to this board at a later date for, I guess, final direction, I'd like the MPO to review this with the FDOT present. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I concur. The -- I mean, we talk moratorium or we can talk any number of things, but the fact is it's a state road. And if we start taking responsibility, where does that line end? And Norm Feeder's the right guy to answer that question. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just think sitting here today we really don't know what the options with FDOT are gonna be. And I'd like to know those before we commit reserve funds particularly in a year where we're already a million short. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right. MR. LITSINGER: What I might suggest is we can probably have that information and reflect that in the proposed CIE amendment that we will bring to you in January or February. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. LITSINGER: And you can make your decisions based on that at that time as you give the MPO time to look at this situation on this particular roadway. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That'll be fine. If you'll give notice to FDOT and place it on the next available MPO agenda, please. MR. LITSINGER: Will do. Are there any other questions specifically on transportation segment? That was the only really issue that we thought that we need to bring up to you that had not been dealt with in your normal road transportation planning at this time. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any further questions? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: None on "A". MR. LITSINGER: If there are no other questions, I would ask you to turn to page 18 of your agenda package. Page 18 is the recreation facilities component of your AUIR. Reflect -- reflects current budget and revenues. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You mean your page 187 COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or the agenda. MR. LITSINGER: Excuse me. My mistake. Your page 23. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Gotcha. MR. LITSINGER: What we're asking the board to do, as has been a previously adopted policy, is to direct staff to amend the level of service standard for capital facilities reflecting current valuation based on the cost of construction index to $240 per capita. We have provided two spreadsheet analyses, one on page 24 which shows the condition and availability of facilities on your current level of service of $179. On the following page, 25 shows the result should you give us direction to amend the level of service to $240 per capita keeping in mind that this is an annual process. We review this on an annual basis and move upwards or downwards based on revenues and valuation of existing facilities. So the staff recommendation is to -- in the upcoming CIE to amend the level of service to $240 per capita. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Help me understand, if I may, Mr. Litsinger. We have a Growth Management Plan requirement that is -- I believe there's one that's acreage for population, and this is dollar value for population? MR. LITSINGER: Yes, sir. There are three separate level of service standards relative to parks. This being the first one is the capital facilities on your park land, things like baseball fields, stadiums, basketball courts, things of that nature. That's -- in other words, the value of the improvements on the land if you take a lot and the value of the structure on that land. And this shows the current valuation which is revalued each year based on the replacement costs and the costs of construction index as an inflater. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill, why would we want to increase our level of service that far? MR. DORRILL: I don't know that -- that you necessarily would. I think that's gonna be a distinction that you need to make on that one. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, because my -- you know, I understand that yes, the value of those facilities has gone up since the time we constructed them, and that makes sense. However, it also puts us in a position of having to provide those increased dollars per capita for future expansion. So it's a double-edged sword, and I'm not sure that the -- the -- that we're really gonna see a tremendous benefit by doing this. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I think particularly as we look at the ad valorem crunch we had this past year and we're going to see again in the following year, this is the kind of thing that can put an added burden on the taxpayer without, I think, a realistic -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We can always exceed that per capita, but it's when you fall short that you create your own difficulties. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And that's my concern as we've talked about in our library system level of service. We don't have any -- any concern if we exceed our level of service. But to put something in there that gives DCA the stick to beat us up with again at some future date is probably not the smartest thing to do. But, Mr. Litsinger, why are you recommending this change? MR. LITSINGER: It's in your -- in our current language in the recreation element, and I believe from recall in the capital improvement element it calls for an annual amendment of the level of service to reflect current valuation and current expenditure plans against the -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Looks like Mr. Olliff may be wanting to jump in here. MR. OLLIFF: The other issue is this is the only element that I'm aware of that's a dollar value based type level of service. And if you don't adjust the value of the inventory that's already in the ground, then you end up having your inventory being much less than what your current actual impact fees are geared to actually produce. So I end up with this gap that an impact fee was originally designed to generate what was $179 per capita's worth of value of recreational equipment. But that impact fee was based on 1985 or '86 dollars at what $179 would buy the general public per capita when they moved in. So today what we're trying to do is make sure that the impact fee has some justification to it still. And what you're seeing is the inventory does -- has a value that is greater than what we're recommending so that you're not creating a deficit situation for you, but we're trying to just recognize that the value of the stuff that you have in the ground actually has increased over the years, and what it costs us to build a ball field today is significantly higher than what it was eight or nine years ago if that makes sense. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It -- it does to some extent, but it sounds like -- maybe I'm incorrect in thinking this, but the two seem like they should operate independently. For us to look at the value of our inventory in our Growth Management Plan and to state an amount is one thing. But the calculation of impact fees by state statute I don't believe has to be connected to our Growth Management Plan. In other words, do the two have to stay the same number? We could recalculate impact fees on an annual basis and increase them or reduce them based on cost of construction upcoming. Are the two necessarily tied so that we are, you know, creating a -- if you will, a -- a -- a greater picture in our Growth Management Plan when we don't necessarily need to do that just to justify an increase in impact fees? Can the two be separate? MR. OLLIFF: They can be. Today they're not. I think that today the basis for the impact fees that we have in existence is the plan that you have in the way of the CIE. So I think we've tried to at least make sure that they are closely matched so that there is some justification for the fee that we're charging. MR. LITSINGER: One last comment if I might, Commissioner. We'd like to note also that on the issue of the impact fees as they affect the level of service and the level of service that we've proposed, you'll notice on your agenda package 23 that at the level of service proposed of $240 per capita, it is primarily funded by impact fees. The issue that Mr. Olliff brings up is that there's supposed to be some nexus between facilities that are built and expenditure of impact fees relative to a fairness issue which would need to be resolved through a reanalysis of the impact fee ordinances. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Maybe it's just lack of experience in dealing with this particular element, but it's not -- it's not becoming more clear to me why this is necessary. I can understand why it might make some sense, but why it's necessary is what I can't get past. MR. OLLIFF: My suggestion at this point would be to leave your level of service the way it was and have us go back and look at the separation of the two, the impact fees from the CIE, and see if there's a way we can go ahead and distinguish between the two so that what it's in your CIE says one thing, but then we've got the justification based on current dollar need for the impact fees. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: When you come up with that answer, if I for one could ask for an individual meeting with you to discuss that just so I can increase my understanding of it. MR. LITSINGER: If I understand, the direction on this particular facility would be to continue to value your inventory at its current replacement costs yet not to amend the level of service standard at this time? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's correct. MR. LITSINGER: Your agenda package 29, I need to point out some information on your regional park land level of service standard. Specifically on regional parks, we'd like to point out it's staff's recommendation to include an expansion of 500 acres of active recreation park land to be purchased in the county. Primary funding source for that, as you will see under supplemental revenue sources on page 29 of your agenda package, is a Florida community trust grant of up to eight million dollars. The reason I say up to eight million dollars is that we would propose to add this project and the prospective revenues to your capital improvement element, pursue the grant. And in the eventuality that the entire eight million or all of it was not achieved, you could adjust your element next year to reflect the -- not receiving those monies. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do we have to show it in the element to justify the grant request? MR. LITSINGER: I have not seen the grant application, but I would think that it would be a substantial -- have substantial impact on its success. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, my take on this is that we set a standard, we pursue that standard. And to go putting additional acreage and dollars in there that exceed that standard is an unnecessary step. MR. LITSINGER: Well, here it's a win-win situation. You exceed your level of service standard. If you look on page 30 of your agenda package, we exceed our level of service standard in regional park acreage by such a tremendous amount. Should the 500-acre project not become a reality, your level of service standard is still extremely safe. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, I'm going to take the conservative approach on this. Let's go ahead and pursue those funds. I think that's a great idea. I'm a big advocate of increased park lands, but let's not put it in our plan until we have the money in hand. Then we can put it in, and we don't experience any shortfall or the -- at least the appearance of a shortfall. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Agree. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We pursue it, but we don't bind ourselves to it. And I guess, I mean, you made the point for that, Stan. That is, we've got such a large surplus anyway that if for some reason it doesn't work, we're fine. But at least we haven't bound ourselves to it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I appreciate you going after it, though. Please do. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, please. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But let's -- let's add it once we have the money in hand, not prior to that. MR. LITSINGER: And neither the projects nor the revenues in the CIE. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That would be my preference. MR. LITSINGER: Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Agreed. MR. LITSINGER: On page -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Litsinger, before you start, let me make sure that I understand what we -- what we're asking to be done there. We're not -- did I understand the direction right that we're not to go after the grant? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, no, no. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The direction is to pursue the grant with -- with all speed, but we don't want to put it in our plan until the revenues are secure because then we have to -- we go back, and the appearance is that we are reducing our p1 -- you know -- MR. LITSINGER: Either way it creates no difficulties. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Oh, okay. I see. I see what you mean. Okay. MR. LITSINGER: The next issue I'd like to point out is on page 40 of your agenda package. Those facilities that I'm passing over, in staff's opinion we have no situations that require a specific board action. I will go back at the end and ask if you have any questions on any of those types. Page 40 is solid waste, ten-year raw land supply. I need to point out that as you look on page 40 that we have no -- at your direction obviously we have not identified a site, so we do not have a site identified for the CIE to include. I would like to point out to you on the next page, 41, that we have removed the -- the current 312 acres of surplus as the board has directed. I need to bring to your attention that lacking some action in that area we may be looking at a deficit situation certainly by the next AUIR relative to abatable land in our adopted level of service standard. That's information only. At this time you have no deficit. I want to make that quite clear. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We shouldn't have a deficit for 20 years. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't -- I don't understand that at all because we've been told the cell that is open right now has at least eight years' life left on it. And then we've got an additional cell if we choose to open that one on the existing site. So we certainly have more than ten years in that -- MR. LITSINGER: That's correct, but there's also a requirement to have available raw land I believe by statute and also by your comprehensive plan for expansion of the landfill available at all times. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that's only when you get within a ten-year window. We have to have available land once we have -- the red flag goes up when we'd have only ten years of capacity. MR. LITSINGER: Correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So I don't think that's a deficit -- deficiency right now when we have well over ten years' capacity at the existing site. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Since we have a documented report that lists as -- lists the minimum life of the landfill from this point forward at 20 plus years, I think we need to revisit this page, incorporate that report into your assessment. I think you'll find then that that trigger does not occur. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I understand your point, Stan. You're talking about raw land. But there is still an unopened, unused portion. MR. LITSINGER: I understand. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I mean, there is raw land on the existing site. MR. LITSINGER: I'm just bringing that up. As you see in the out years that as we continue to come back to you with this analysis, at least as your plan is currently written, there is a technical issue, concurrency issue on that, and I just wanted to bring it to your attention. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is our plan written as acreage per capita? MR. LITSINGER: We have level of service standard that requires ten years of raw land capacity at current disposal rates, and we also have a -- secondary level of service standards of two years' lined cell capacity at any given time. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We have both of those right now. MR. LITSINGER: That's correct. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So rather than showing a deficit in our AUIR, we should be okay. And I would just ask that Mr. Dotrill get involved in that and make sure that it reflects the information we received on the landfill. MR. DORRILL: I agree with the board. I'm not aware of any raw land requirement under the statute, but we will make doggone sure because our observation is the same as yours. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. LITSINGER: The next issue on solid waste, we're requesting direction from the board to amend the level of service standards of tons per capita disposal to 1.1 tons from the current 1.39 to reflect actual disposal rates that have been experienced in the last year. This is something that we do each time that the CIE is brought to you. And historically we've always been in a downward trend due to the various resource recovery projects that have been ongoing. But experience is 1.1 tons, and we'd like reflect that as a level of service standard. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Fine. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That sounds acceptable to the board? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. LITSINGER: The next issue I have for you on facilities would be the jail, page 45 of your agenda package. This is category B facilities. I'd like to point out all of category A facilities which we just passed through are your concurrency demands. In other words, you have to meet your level of service standard there or it's a concurrency issue. Category B are binding only in policy. County -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Interesting in that gotta have parks but you might or might not have to have jails. Just an observation. MR. LITSINGER: That's correct. Jail, I need to point out obviously this report was prepared in -- in anticipation of the referendum which was unsuccessful. Staff needs direction on two fronts, whether to continue to include this project in the capital improvement element and, if so, for the purpose of making the capital improvement element financially feasible to identify a potential revenue source. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I don't think we're gonna decide today how we're gonna pay for this. So I don't know that we could include it in the capital improvement element for the upcoming year. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Obviously it's an issue we're going to wrestle with in the next several months. And I know the sheriff's department will -- is diligently working on it now, but I don't think we have something to fill the plug with today. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can't it be there with a list of alternatives, that we don't have to select one today but there are alternatives available and -- MR. LITSINGER: The requirement for it to be financially feasible, it has to be a revenue source which the board has available to it which has not been defeated by the electorate. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So it doesn't -- we're not binding ourselves. I mean, I hate to see this coming out of the cap -- out of the AUIR. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That was my first reaction, but actually Commissioner Constantine makes a good point. I would like to see a full packet of information from the sheriff on the past ten-year bed capacity, what has it been, what do we expect, what are our options for construction. You know, we produced one package and one funding option to the general public. They turned it down. I think we don't -- rather than just looking at the funding, I think we need the opportunity to review the -- the entirety of the proposal, the what's being built, how many beds, at what cost since we are going to be the ones that are going to be responsible for the funding of that. So I'm with Commissioner Constantine. Rather than leaving it in this year, I would like to -- we know it's going to be back next year and we're not going to be able to get around this, but I think we need to take a full look at the entire proposal before leaving a 25 million dollar line item in here. I'd like that line item to be specific to what actually we're going to take to fund it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, what -- what is the basis for the 25 million dollars? Where did that number come from? MR. LITSINGER: At the bottom of page 45 you'll see an outline there that the actual jail housing is estimated at about 9.7 million dollars. Jail support and contingency facilities are additional 15.8 million dollars. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If I can interrupt you, I -- I read it, so, I mean, I know that's in there. My question was where did you get those numbers. What is the source of that information? How reliable is it? Is that what the sheriff is telling us we need, or was that our sort of guess of what we need? MR. GONZALEZ: Adolfo Gonzalez, capital projects director. Commissioner, that information was taken from some data that -- the previous consultant put together an estimate about three years ago for us, and it was updated to reflect today's current construction cost indices. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So that -- that I think adds credence to what you're saying, both -- both of you, that -- that we ought to get more real numbers from the sheriff before we just have this arbitrary number in there. So I agree. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Let's do that with the understanding that in some form or fashion it will be back in next year's AUIR. Going to be tough to duck that one. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Try as I will. MR. LITSINGER: So your direction would be to remove this item temporarily from your capital improvement element and pending the next update? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. MR. LITSINGER: Let's see. The next issue I'd like to address with you would be on page 47 of your agenda package. This is for information purposes only. The library buildings level of service standard, we show the one $6,000 Marco Island addition. As you'll notice, we have not included in this AUIR or lacking direction from you do not intend to include additional building projects in the coming CIE pending decisions on your regional libraries program. And I'm asking for an okay or whether we would like to take some other action in that area. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's fine by me. We haven't reviewed the regional concept in finality or capital plan yet, so I don't have a problem with that. MR. LITSINGER: The next issue is library collection. It is a staff recommendation, and I'll point out that staff analysis indicate that -- indicates that this is fundable with existing library impact fee revenue stream to have a progressive increase of level of service standard from the current 1.1 to 1.65 books per capita over the planning time frame of the CIE which would mean that each year we would come to you, look at the revenue stream, increase it by an additional .05 each year. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We've made an effort to do that every year. This past year did we budget enough to do that? My rec -- my recollection -- I see Tom nodding yes. MR. LITSINGER: Nodding yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But my recollection is we've done that carefully each year, so I don't have any problem upping that to 1.20. MR. LITSINGER: Coming CIE and then the understanding we'll come back again next year with the additional .05. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And impact fees are sufficient to fund that current five-year plan. Good. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wonderful. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Way cool. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. LITSINGER: The last facility which I want to point out to you is on page 53 of your agenda package. These are EMS units. We have a recommendation from your EMS staff to increase the level of service standard to .000068 units per capita. This is based on calculations and analysis by the EMS department of the number of vehicles and units needed to maintain the six-second -- six-second, that would be great -- six-minute -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That would be quick. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's gonna be a problem. MR. LITSINGER: -- average response time to each call which is the standard not only for your EMS system but others. And the funding sources are E -- are EMS impact fees and capital ad valorem. And the direction we're asking for is whether or not to increase this level of service standard and include the identified projects in the coming CIE. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Wouldn't it make sense if we're going to increase our level of standard in this that we increase our impact fee commensurately so that ad valorem doesn't pay for the bulk of that? If this, in fact, is a growth-related expenditure where we're buying the actual units and the hardware and the capital expenses, shouldn't we adjust impact fees accordingly rather than just rolling it into ad valorem? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think that makes perfect sense. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think it makes -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I mean, I think it just -- our impact fee ordinances are crying out for review overall in addition to, you know, this particular one. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Before approving this, I'd -- you know, I think we need to see that. Whatever the additional capital expenditure occurring from that increase in ad valorem, let's make the commensurate adjustment to impact fees and not increase the ad valorem subsidy to EMS. MR. LITSINGER: Suggestion. We could include the proposed level of service amendment in the CIE we will bring to you to transmit in January or February and showing the revenue source as impact fees totally which then would leave the intervening period for review of the impact fee ordinance. And at the time which will be probably about ten months from now when you adopt the CIE, we will have the information from you whether or not to adopt the level of service or not. But I would suggest submitting it for review that category B facility is not binding on you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm -- I'm comfortable with that. I feel like I'm at home. MR. LITSINGER: That is all the specific issues in the AUIR that I need to point out to you. Are there any questions the commissioners have on any specific facility type that I did not address? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I understand we have a three-step process here. I'd like to make a motion we accept and approve the report as amended by the board this morning. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second to accept the report as amended. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Mr. Dotrill, are we going to have any public speakers on this item? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. We don't have any. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Litsinger, you needed staff direction. I'm not quite sure what you were looking for. MR. LITSINGER: Yes. I believe we received staff direction on each category A and B facility. We have a direction I'd like to bring back to you in the capital improvement element. The only other action I would ask the board to take by motion and vote would be to find upon analysis and review of the actions taken here this morning that according -- and as required by division 315 of the LDC that we do, in fact, have required facilities to support development order issuance until presentation of the 1997 AUIR approximately 12 months from this date. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So move. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So move. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. 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. LITSINGER: Thank you. Item #8B1 CONTRACT TO CONSTRUCT IMPROVEMENTS AT THE MARCO ISLAND RACQUET CENTER, CIE NO. 729 - AWARDED TO VANDERBILT BAY CONSTRUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $313,986 CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item is -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, do we have any public speakers on this item? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- 8(B)(1). Do we have public speakers? MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. This is the item that is under big protest. Mr. Yovanovich is going to teach us about tennis courts. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This is the one with the bid protest? MR. DORRILL: Yes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So we have public speakers? MR. DORRILL: Yes, you do. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Gonzalez, do you have a short presentation for us? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Please. MR. GONZALEZ: Good morning, commissioners. Adolfo Gonzalez, capital projects director. This project is to construct three new tennis courts and replace one existing tennis court at the Marco Island Racquet Center. Along with the court construction, there's also some site improvements such as landscaping, irrigation, enhancement of the existing maintenance facilities. We received one bid from Vanderbilt Bay Construction who staff has reviewed and considered Vanderbilt Bay Construction to be a responsive bidder. There has been a bid protest. The purchasing director is ready to answer any questions you may have. I understand the county attorney also has some remarks that he would like to share with you before you direct the public speakers. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, do you have something for us? MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Pettit of our office would have a couple comments for the board. Thank you. MR. PETTIT: Morning, commissioners. Mike Pettit from the county attorney's office. I just wanted to set forth three guidelines for you as you consider the protest. First is that protest is limited to the issues raised previously to the purchasing director in an October 18 letter that was received from Mr. Yovanovich by the purchasing director and taken into account by the purchasing director when he rendered his decision. Second, our policy does not specify or entitle any particular format for these proceedings. There is a provision in the policy that would allow the county manager under certain circumstances at his discretion to appoint a hearing officer. That did not take place here. And finally, I want to leave you with the standard that governs this body in making a bid award in Florida. And this is a quote from a case, Capaletti Brothers versus State Department of General Services, that's reported at 432 So. 2d, 1359. In Florida, a public body has wide discretion in soliciting and accepting bids for public works contracts. And its decision when based upon an honest exercise of such discretion will not be set aside by a court even if it may appear erroneous and even if reasonable persons may disagree. In other words, you do have wide discretion to make any decision on a bid award even where reasonable persons might have other opinions. That's all we have from the county attorney's office at this point. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Camell, you have something for us as well? MR. CARNELL: Mr. Chairman, for the record, Steve Camell, purchasing director. I'm prepared to give the board a brief overview of the situation first if the board would like to hear that before we hear from the speakers. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. CARNELL: Briefly, Mr. Gonzalez has described the scope of the work in the bid that was issued by my office during the summer. And the plans and specifications that were issued by my office were distributed to 79 different firms, the large majority of which were general contracting firms. And shortly before the bid opening, we in my office received a call from the protestor, specifically Mr. George Todd of Welch Tennis Courts, who notified us of two things: Number one, that he had not received a copy of the bid invitation; and secondly, that he had object -- he was objecting to the specifications pertaining to the subsurface irrigation system which again is one component of the bigger project. So in -- this was two days before the bid opening. And in response to Mr. Todd's concerns, the -- my office postponed the bid opening for two weeks, and that gave us time -- obviously gave Mr. Todd time to get -- to obtain the bid documents in full, to review them, to prepare a bid offer, and also to discuss with him in more depth this issue of the subsurface specification. Now, in that subsequent discussion which occurred about a week after the postponement, county staff and Welch -- we heard -- we heard three particular issues from Welch. And when I say county staff now, I'm referring to the project manager from OCPH, myself, and a representative from the parks and recreation department. The three items that were brought to our attention specifically by Welch in these discussions were that, number one, that there was no substantive difference between the product that had been specified for the subsurface system which is known as CalCap, and several other products or systems, licensed systems, that are on the market. And we specifically in this conversation talked about two others, Hydrocourt and Hydro Grid, with most of our attention paid to the Hydrocourt system. The Hydrocourt system is presently in place as the subsurface system at the Marco Island tennis club. Now, the first contention again from Welch was that there's no substantial difference between the product that was specified and the other systems in the market that I referenced. Secondly, the statement was made to us that the installation down in Marco Island which occurred approximately four years ago was installed under a -- what's known as a modified linered design as opposed to a fully linered design, the liner being the canvas or surface area below the ground. And the -- that that, in fact -- we had commented to Mr. Todd in our conversations -- we had remarked on the difficulties that we had experienced with operations maintenance and performance of the courts on Marco Island and that Mr. Todd's response was, well, the design was flawed, that we had, in fact, put in a different design than what he would recommend or advocate today in the marketplace using the Hydrocourt product. The third issue that Mr. Todd raised -- and Mr. Todd, by the way, very early on identified himself as a licensed general contractor, and that's a very important consideration from your staff's point of view in this. Mr. Todd -- his third point that he brought up to us was the fact that he was not sure that he would be able to bid the CalCap product, that he would have to go out of state and deal with whomever which wasn't clear us to necessarily at the time who he was referring to and that there would be difficulties in being able to tender an offer through the CalCap subcontractor. Well, in response to the issues raised by Mr. Todd, we shared with him at the time the difficulties that we experienced -- experienced in Marco Island with the performance of the courts. And specifically there's two issues. The courts have experienced what's known as dry spots where there's a loss of traction on the courts which results in slipping and sliding for players; and secondly, that we have -- we have constantly struggled with excessive growth of algae on the courts which has resulted throughout the ownership of that project down there and the installation and the life of it of having to treat the courts above surface a minimum of two times a month regularly. And each time that treatment takes place, the courts have to be shut down because muriatic acid is applied. And obviously the acid has to dry and evaporate before you can let people back on. And obviously as a result, there's a domino effect with down time, lost revenue for the operation of the facility, and obviously the inconvenience to the users of not being able to use the facility. We also commented to Mr. Todd that we had not experienced these problems at Pelican Bay Park. Pelican Bay Park is using the CalCap subsurface system and has had it in place for about two years as we speak now. It was late 1994 that it was installed. And at no time in the two years that that system has been in place have we had to take the system down for the purpose purely of applying algae treatment externally. The algae treatment is provided subsurface. It's fed into the system, and it does not require an interruption of service or access to the courts. We shared that information with Mr. Todd. We also had shared with him initially some findings that the OCPM office had uncovered during their preparation of the specs. several months before the bid was issued and specifically some analysis that had been done by the office of capital projects in which they had found that the water consumption for the CalCap system was lower in many cases than for the Hydrocourt product. Now, that information was exchanged in kind of a general verbal way in a telephone conversation. And we asked Mr. Todd at that point in time to provide us additional information regarding his system. Specifically, we wanted to know a little bit more about this issue of fully versus modified liner design, and we also wanted him to give us his version of his water use data, let him tell -- hear straight from him what he said his water use consumption rates were. We also -- so we sent him a letter in writing asking for that kind of information after this conference call. In the meantime, we took his other comments under consideration and particularly the comment regarding the provision of the CalCap system. Now, remember Mr. Todd held himself out as a licensed general contractor. He made the comment to us that he was capable of installing multiple -- different brands or licensed systems, that he was not strictly married to one product or system. And so we contacted the license holder who was specified in the published bid invitation which is CalCap, Calico Systems of North Carolina, and talked to an officer in that corporation who explained to us that there are several different ways that somebody can install a CalCap system using their license. They have a proprietary license on their technology. And if one wants to do that as -- in other words, a bidder bidding on a municipal project such as this, they can either subcontract the work through one of three li -- full -- fully licensed and approved contractors within the state of Florida who can perform the work or the bidder, the prospective bidder, which in this case would be a licensed general contractor, can contract directly with CalCap even if they have not previously installed a CalCap system anywhere. And that's simply working out a business arrangement with CalCap directly which enables them to go in and do the installation themselves. Well, we discovered that information, of course, in talking to CalCap. And then we wrote back to Mr. Todd after receiving his information. And again, we got the response back from Mr. Todd. Among the things that Mr. Todd mentioned in his letter, he gave his water consumption rates estimated for the Hydrocourt product, and we compared those numbers again to the numbers that we had. They were not identical to what we had estimated for the Hydrocourt product, but they were still higher than the consumption rates for the CalCap. So based on -- oh, one other very important fact here. With the issue pertaining to the design, again, Mr. Todd has suggested that our problems down on Marco Island relate to the modified design being installed there rather than a fully linered design. And our findings were that prior to going out to bid, parks and recreation staff had visited some local Hydrocourt installations that were, in fact, fully linered sites. And in both instances those sites were experiencing problems with fungicide, and they were fully linered sites. So with that information in mind -- and I think another important consideration was the fact that we had done some previous research -- and again, this has been conducted by the OCPM office -- in which they obt -- obtained an independent consultant's report from the city of Delray Beach in 1993 in which they had evaluated very specifically CalCap against Hydro Grid which again was another product discussed with Mr. Todd. And they had come up with a very precise point-by-point analysis of the differences between the two systems and the advantage in their professional opinion of the CalCap system which the city of Delray Beach elected to go with. So when we take all that information into consideration plus the fact that Mr. Todd, being a licensed general contractor, had indicated he could bid more than one system plus the fact that the license holder had indicated a willingness to cooperate with Mr. Todd or any other bidder that wanted to contract to install a CalCap system, based on those factors, we denied Mr. Todd's original objection to have the specifications modified to allow more than just the CalCap system for again that subsurface component. We went forward with the bid opening. Prior to the bid opening, we had anticipated receiving potentially three bids. Again, we had mailed this out to many, many firms and also to several plan rooms and notification agencies. And immediately prior to the actual bid opening, it was our expectation that we would receive a bid from Vanderbilt Bay who did bid, from Christell (phonetic), another local contractor, and then prospectively from Welch Tennis Courts. At no time in any of my discussions with Mr. Todd did he indicate that he could not or would not bid the project. So that's -- again, with those factors in mind, we proceeded with the bid opening. Subsequent to the bid opening, staff has done an evaluation of the prices to evaluate them for competitiveness. And based on that finding, we have -- we're prepared to recommend award to the board at which time we received a protest of the bid award at which time Welch reasserted some of their previous arguments and also really broached two new arguments which was that we were violating our purchasing policy as it pertains to formal competition by the use of a single source specification and, secondly, that we had developed a justification for the CalCap system after the fact. And we in our protest response in -- in the decision that was issued by my office, we provided information back to the protestor on both of those facts. We believe there are significant arguments to counter both. And we think there's evidence to suggest certainly that the evaluation was done well in advance of issuing the bid. And also with regard to the question of formal competition, there was formal competition. It was advertised pursuant to the requirements of the purchasing policy. It was advertised among the -- what we believe was the logical group of people to compete for this business, licensed general contractors, given the broad nature of the work, given that we weren't just putting in a subsurface system. And so we believe we've complied with the policy. There are -- there were some other case law citations provided by the protestor which we responded to as well and we can talk about in more depth should somebody care to do so. At this point, though, we are recommending award of the contract to Vanderbilt Bay and be willing to answer your questions. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Camell, did Welch submit a bid using Hydrocourt, Aqua Grid, or another system? MR. CARNELL: No, sir. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So you never received a bid. MR. CARNELL: No, sir. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So now we have sealed bids that have been open that are out there for everyone to review, and Welch never submitted any bid whatsoever prior to their protest. MR. CARNELL: Correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: How many public speakers do we have? MR. DORRILL: I have several. I believe they're all with the same firm, though. Mr. Yovanovich is here and I presume will go first. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: He will go first. We'll -- we'll adhere to our policy of five minutes per speaker, Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: You will adhere to it? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We absolutely will. This is not a court of law. This is a -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This is a -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- county commission meeting. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's okay. We've -- we've accounted for that. But if you'll give me a second preliminarily -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You're using your five minutes. Hiss Filson, start his five minutes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. We've -- we've accounted for that, and we do have three additional speakers in addition to myself to address different issues. For the record, my name is Rich Yovanovich, and I represent Welch Tennis Courts. We have filed a bid protest in compliance with the county's purchasing policy. We have complied with every step we're required to go through. First, we notified the purchasing department that the spec. was an improper specification. They ignored our research. Then under the policy we filed a formal protest just like we were required to do. Your policy does not require that we submit on a specification that we do not believe in. And we didn't bid on a specification we didn't believe in. That should not be held against our clients. The purpose of competitive bidding is to, one, obtain a quality product at the lowest pice pros -- lowest pice -- price possible and to avoid favoritism. That did not occur in this situation. The purchasing policy was established to promote as much competition as possible on our -- on all purchases of commodities and services. You got one bid. You got one bid. That's not much of a competition. The competitive -- the purchasing policy allows you to use a sole source. You gotta do two things to meet -- use your sole source requirement. One, the vendor is the only one who can meet your standards; and two, the product is the only product that will meet your needs. We are here to tell you that there are four products out there that will meet your needs. Your needs is a subsurface irrigated tennis court system. That is what you need. CalCap is not the only system on the market. There's Aqua Grid. There's Hydro Grid. There's Hydrocourt, and then there's the CalCap system. The county claims that the only system that meets your needs is the CalCap system. Your staff has pointed out that the reason they feel this way is water usage. They stated that the CalCap system uses a tremendously amount -- less amount of water than the other systems, yet they've given you no data to support that other than manufacturer's specifications. We will show you -- we have metered all the different types of courts out there, and they all use essentially the same amount of water. So we have done the homework for your staff and have metered the different courts out there. Staff claims that there's less maintenance cost because there's no algae growth. We have called around to all of the courts or a majority of the courts, 56 out of the 63 CalCap courts listed as references by CalCap. Fifty-six of the six -- fifty-six we contacted. Fifty-six all have algae growth. So the major basis of the algae growth is not factually correct. Staff also pointed out that CalCap has this state-of-the-art sensor system so you know you'll always have proper water on your courts. We will show you pictures of how that state-of-the-art sensor system performs. The CalCap system is not the only system out there. Staff has said, you know, CalCap is just a small portion of the overall bid. Well, the overall bid was -- they said it was one-third. The information given to me is you have a $360,000 bid. One-third is $120,000. I would think that's significant. The most significant item raised in their rebuttal to us is we didn't bid the system. Well, we didn't bid the system because we couldn't live up to the specification you were setting. CalCap will not give you water consumption like you have requested. It will not give you a maintenance-free, algae-free court. So we didn't bid a court that can't be delivered. Why should we bid on something that can't be delivered? We didn't. We chose not to bid that specification. We have followed your policy. As far as competition goes, again, you've received one bid. It's $100,000 over budget. I believe the county would -- and the people of the county would be better served to open up the competition for substantially similar products, have true competition. Worse thing that happens is -- you know, we're not looking for you to award it to us. We wanted to be able to bid on the work. We were not entitled to bid on the work because of a proprietary spec., the basis for which we can rebut and will rebut through pictures and through data. And your staff has been very cooperative with me and has given me information when I've -- when I've asked for it. The only thing that we didn't get and in the last minute we got is when we were rejected on our bid protest, then we were given the calculations on how they came up with their -- I had a public records request in before I filed my bid protest. I didn't get the data until the end, and you will now hear from the rest of the speakers. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Yovanovich, quick question. Did your client -- yes or no. Did your client submit a bid? MR. YOVANOVICH: On the CalCap system? No. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did your client submit a bid? MR. YOVANOVICH: It would have been rejected if we -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's a yes-or-no question. Did your client submit a bid? MR. YOVANOVICH: It doesn't require a yes-or-no answer. The answer is no we did not because -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, it doesn't require a response from this board if you're not going to answer my question. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. No, we did not submit a bid. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I expand on that? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The very first comment you made in your presentation was "we have complied with all bid requirements." One of the requirements is to submit a bid. Now, if you think there is a portion of that bid that you disagree with, that's fine. But probably the best way to preserve your rights is submit a bid and note that one difference, not completely neglect submitting and then after the fact say, well, if it was different, we would have submitted a bid. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's okay. I'm not your county attorney, but I can tell you that the purchasing policy does not require us to submit a bid to preserve our rights. We have preserved our rights. We have done everything required by your purchasing policy. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're right. You're not the COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- you're not the county attorney. But you opened your comments. You missed my point completely. My point is -- MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I got your point. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My point is you said, "We have complied with all bid requirements." Well, you haven't submitted a bid, so I don't know how you complied with the requirements. Part 1 of the requirements was to have a bid submitted by a certain date. Obviously you didn't do that. MR. YOVANOVICH: We were not required to bid on the project to protest the project. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's not what I said. That's not my point. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question before you leave. Did I hear you say that -- that your -- that this one bid came in $100,000 over budget? MR. YOVANOVICH: That's what the agenda package said. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that correct? MR. GONZALEZ: No, ma'am, not exactly. There are two projects that we lumped together for the purposes of trying to get the best bid. One was the actual construction of the three courts and replacement of one existing court. There were also other site improvements that our parks and recreation staff wanted to do, thought it was a good idea to do at the same time and -- during the construction of the courts: Irrigation, landscaping, lighting, things like that. What we did was we -- we're asking you as part of this agenda item to combine the budget for the racquet court construction plus funds from another project, Tigertail Beach, which is now a costly prohibitive project to do, add those funds to this one so that we can accomplish all of the construction improvements at one time and hopefully save some money, mobilization, additional costs by combining it into one contract. Yes, it is over budget as far as this -- the construction of the courts is, but we expanded the project to include other site amenities, and we added the monies for that. It is -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: How much over budget is the court, the tennis courts portion? MR. GONZALEZ: Our original estimate was 284,000 -- $250,000 for courts, lights, replacing the walkway, and converting one of the courts. The budget -- the costs -- the bid for those four items came in at 284,000. So that portion was $34,000 over our estimated amount. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I have a question for Mr. Camell that is based on something Mr. Yovanovich said if I may real quick. Steve, Mr. Yovanovich said basically that the bid contained unattainable criteria if you will. Were the criteria listed in the bid consistent with the operation of a two-year history at the Pelican Bay courts? Are they -- are they the same? Is it apples and apples? MR. CARNELL: Actually, Commissioner, in response to that, the public's bid specifications did not state or mandate a certain water use requirement. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: This was in the verbal discussion with them where you were referring to what caused you to list the CalCap system that Mr. Yovanovich is referring to? MR. CARNELL: Correct, the analysis prior to. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. But those statements, are they based on fiscal operation in a two-year window of the Pelican Bay courts that we have had no trouble with? MR. CARNELL: Yes. They're based upon that and also research of the products in the market. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next, please. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Peterson. MR. CARNELL: I'm sorry. One other thing, Commissioner. They're also based on our experience with the Marco Island facility. MR. PETERSON: Okay. My name's Carl Peterson. I am a tennis court builder. I've been in this business for over 30 years. I am an employee of Welch Tennis Courts. At your photographs that are being handed out here right now, I'd like to bring your attention to a few of them. The first batch of photographs that we have, there's 23 of them from Delray Beach Tennis Center which was built in '93. And this was one of the models or one of the park facilities that your park board considered using for their comparison of building new courts at -- in Marco Island and using the city of Delray Beach's photos, tennis courts. If you look at photo number 3, you're showing -- you're stating that no algae grows on a CalCap system. And if you look at number 3's photo there, there's definitely heavy areas of brown, yellow, and green algae that is growing over the top of the tennis court. So the CalCap system doesn't totally eliminate any algae growth or maintenance. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Does everybody agree on the staff that this is a Cal -- photos of a CalCap system? Is everybody familiar with that? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And did the bids specifically state that the CalCap system absolutely had no algae whatsoever? MR. CARNELL: Correct. This -- again, our -- as Mr. Pettit said to you earlier, our bid protest policy requires that the protestor lay all of the issues and evidence out when they tender their protest. None of this was presented to us with regard to Delray Beach, none of it at the time of the first -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But is this a CalCap system? MR. CARNELL: I don't know. They -- what I know is that the city of Delray Beach installed some CalCap courts three years ago. I'm not in a position to speak to whether these are them or not. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just I saw Mr. Olliff nod but I -- the bid -- did this bid specifically state CalCap doesn't ever have any algae? MR. CARNELL: No. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's what I thought I heard this gentleman say, so I wanted to make sure that wasn't part of the bid. MR. PETERSON: Okay. Going on to -- photo 4 also shows the algae growth and the buildup of dead loose material at the net line and at the playing line area. Photo number 8 also shows calcification or hardness of the court surface at the net line which is a product of the Cal Cap-type court where you have hardness and it has to be scarified to maintain it and add your muriatic acid to soften the court up there. Number 9 is also another photograph showing the same thing at the net or at the playing line area. Continuing on down to photograph number 15 showing the algae and growth marks, even though the court has been scratched and scarified there -- you can see the ridge lines from a scarifying machine -- the algae growth is still there, so the park board has been trying to maintain these courts and to try to rectify the problem of the CalCap system. But we're still showing moss and algae in that court area there. Going down to the photo of 18 through 23 -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sir, I -- I -- I just want to make a point here. We could go out and get pictures of a Hydro Grid system that looks the same way. So what's the point? MR. PETERSON: The point that we're trying to clarify here is that the CalCap system is -- that you're recommending here is not a working system. It's not a viable court surface right now at a facility that has -- in a park district that has CalCap courts. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Where are the pictures -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You mean like Pelican Bay in Collier County, Florida? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Do we have any pictures from Pelican Bay here? MR. PETERSON: I do not, sir. These photographs I personally took myself. These were at Delray Beach. I took these October 10. It was a beautiful, bright, sunny day. If I can continue on with my photographs before my time runs out -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Please do. MR. PETERSON: -- 18 through 23 here does definitely show that these CalCap court has a bad sensor where the water levels -- the court was totally wet and saturated, water bubbling up from the bottom. The court was unusable because of a bad sensor system which is part of the CalCap system of subirrigating the courts to tell us when the court needs water and when it doesn't need water. And this court is definitely flooded, and it's unplayable where the other courts were. So it's not a specific function of any subirrigated court. It's the specific CalCap court that is not working. The sensors of their design is not working in there. More recently there's some other photos here from Coral Lakes Country Club in Delray Beach which is also a CalCap system. They were built in late '95 showing that they have algae and hard spots, calcification, moss, growth on top of the court. And that, again, is not working as a CalCap system. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, I -- you were interrupted during your presentation, so I'm going to just take a second and ask you, I know there must have been a point to your presentation here, but could you please explain it to us. MR. PETERSON: I'm trying to make a comparison of other types of subirrigated courts to the CalCap system. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And your point is going to be that CalCap -- MR. PETERSON: Does have problems with their system. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And no other system does. MR. PETERSON: All systems are going to have a -- certain degrees of problems, sir, but you're specifying one. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: If that's your point, I think we understand it. MR. PETERSON: Okay. MR. DORRILL: George -- George Todd. MR. TODD: My name is George Todd. I've been quoted a couple times. I appreciate the time. I'll try not to belabor this. I'm with Welch Tennis Courts. I initially asked for a meeting face to face where we could sit down and -- and have these -- these types of discussions. Unfortunately I was not afforded that privilege. I'm not used to public speaking, and you're used to people who are not used to that, so let me get through it. A couple things. I -- I went through all of the references that were on the list. My product was restricted from being able to be bid here because of water savings, supposed water savings. I have metered the CalCap and the Hydro Courts, and all the Hydro Grids come with a meter on them. Evaporation is equal for all of us, and that's what this is about. You've got plastic underneath and the sun up above. So to throw mine out because it uses more water is not true. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But -- MR. TODD: So there's one mistruth. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But how do you know they would've thrown yours out if you didn't bid? MR. TODD: I had conversations with Mr. Camell before that we were not allowed to bid the Hydro Grid, that we were to bid the CalCap. We would be a nonresponsive bid. And so we went through that discussion. He went through calling CalCap to see if I could get lined up -- lined up with CalCap. And -- and I told him -- I said, "They aren't going to save the water." And his response back to me -- and I've heard some of these comments coming from you -- is -- but the bid doesn't say you have to save the water. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. MR. TODD: Well, you know, I'm not going to sell you a product based on claims that -- that aren't true. I'm telling you they all use about 600 gallons of water, CalCap, Hydrocourt, Aqua Grid, Hydro Grid, all of them. They all are going to have some algae problems. Tennis courts have algae problems. The point of these pictures was to show you that other courts have scarification, that other courts -- that -- and scarification is not listed as one of the things that CalCap is supposed to have to have done to it. But I have evidence here that that happens on other courts. We called, as you heard, 56 out of -- 56 out of 63 people. Of those 56 -- courts, I'm sorry. Of those 56, 40 -- all hundred percent of them had algae problems. Do you now have or have you had problems with algae, controlling algae? Yes on all 56 that we contacted. One facility with three courts has replaced this with sprinklers, overhead sprinklers. Another facility with eight courts, JDH, which is listed as one of the references over here, made their decision last year. For the last two courts that they bought, they went from CalCap to Hydrocourt, a fully linered six-inch Hydrocourt, Hydrocourt. The Delray Beach facility, I'll get into the detail here, is actually controlled with time clocks. It doesn't rely solely on the -- on the sensors. It relies on time clocks. My point is if you folks -- you have pictures in front of you now, and you can see the Delray Beach facility. If that is the type of facility that two or three years down the road that you want, it's up to you. That -- that's fine. I just don't -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We also have Pelican Bay that's -- two years down the road that is a beautiful facility. So -- so, you know, that -- that, you know, diminishes your argument when you say if this is what you want, go with theirs because we have another experience with this particular product that's been favorable. MR. TODD: Yes. Yes, you do. And they've done an outstanding sales job, and they've got a good maintenance job in your facility that's keeping that. It's more a function of the water supply, the location, the weather, and the maintenance than it is of systems. And that's -- that's where it boils down to. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have a question for Mr. Camell related to this, and that is would -- did you tell this company that you would not accept their bid unless it had CalCap? MR. CARNELL: I don't know that I explicitly told them I wouldn't accept their bid. I told them that we weren't going to change the specification. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And could they have submitted a bid to meet your specifications without CalCap? MR. CARNELL: No. They would have been considered nonresponsive. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So -- so we're just, you know, semantics here. The fact of the matter is they could not submit a responsive bid without using that particular product. MR. CARNELL: Correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me -- let me just go back to something you said in your presentation; and that is, you spoke with an officer in the CalCap corporation who indicated that virtually any general contractor who had some inkling of how to work with tennis courts could have available to them that product. MR. CARNELL: I would even be broader than that. I think any -- any general contractor who was willing to contract with them, whether they had an inkling or not. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So -- MR. TODD: That's not an issue with me. I agree with that totally. I could have done CalCap. I -- I could have done it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know if there's another speaker. I got a couple of points I want to make if we don't. MR. TODD: Okay. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Todd Senior. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Is this the last speaker? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. I have one more after this gentleman. MR. TODD SENIOR: I'm George Todd Senior. I'm the old man. I think the only point that we're trying to make here today, we're not fighting for the bid for this particular job. We're only trying to make the point that we would like to be considered in the future as an equal in the tennis court business. I would like to submit to you for you to keep courts that I just built for Chrissy Evert and also for the Boca Raton Resort and Club. Cal -- the Hydro Grid court was selected as the state of the art for these people. They didn't even get bids. They just went out and investigated the tennis court systems, and we were selected. So we're not fighting for this -- this bid. I want you to understand that. We're only fighting for permission to submit bids to you in the future. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are you withdrawing your protest to this bid then? MR. TODD SENIOR: I am not withdrawing my protest. I'm -- as the old man, I'm looking down the road as far as our opportunity to bid again for Collier County. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Either you're protesting this bid or you're not, and I understand you want to work -- MR. TODD SENIOR: Yes, I am pro -- yes, I am pro -- we are protesting this bid. I won't change that point. But I want to just -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Todd, you -- you stated I believe, did you not, that you could have used the CalCap? MR. TODD SENIOR: We will not install the CalCap system. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You will not. MR. TODD SENIOR: We will not install the CalCap system. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that because you don't believe in it or because you can't be competitive in it? MR. TODD SENIOR: That is because we do not believe in it. There's two systems that we will not install. There's two systems we will install. We will not install -- install Aqua Grid, and we will not install -- install CalCap. And I'm not going to beat them about the ears about anything. It's just that we will not install it. We will -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Have you ever installed either system? Have you ever installed either of those two that you say you won't? Have you ever installed and had experience with either of them? MR. TODD SENIOR: No, we will not. We have observed them, and we will not install them. We install Hydro Grid and Hydrocourt. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, sir. MR. TODD SENIOR: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Hueller is your final speaker. MR. HUELLER: Good morning, commissioners. My name is Gil Hueller. I serve on the Collier County park and recreation advisory board, and I've also played on these courts. I refer to Marco Island, and I've played at Pelican too and Marco at least for the last 14 years. It seems to me that -- that these people are asking you to put in courts that have proven to be dangerous. I know of a half a dozen people that have fallen on these courts. One man dislocated his shoulder. Two of them split their heads open as they fell, hit the -- the metal incidently. Half the time they aren't even -- they aren't even playable. The maintenance people for park and recreation tell me that they're repairable which is, you know, a pretty sad commentary. We've had four or five delays on this thing now. We're into the season. We badly need these courts. We've increased our membership down there. The courts are inadequate as far as the number of courts are concerned and the quality of the courts. We have, I must say, the worst courts of the seven installations in Collier County, and that's -- that shouldn't be. We need them badly, and I urge you to proceed with this long overdue project. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Hueller, do you know if this -- the irrigation for those courts is connected to the city water on Marco? MR. HUELLER: I believe it is, yeah. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, I'm -- I'm surprised that any algae would grow in that SSU water at all. MR. HUELLER: I can't explain that. I really can't. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Just a joke, Mr. Hueller. MR. HUELLER: But the prob -- the thing is that we had some people object to these courts, some people that live immediately adjacent. And we met with them on five different occasions. And they were promised some berms and promised proper drainage, and that's probably the reason why this thing has gone a little bit over budget. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh. MR. HUELLER: But I really think they deserve it. They were promised by their realtor that there would always be trees there, and they're quite upset about it so -- as an explanation as to why. But Commissioner Mac'Kie hit it right on the head when she said why should we switch to courts that are proven to be faulty when we've had experience with courts in Pelican Bay that have been marvelous? And those are the kind we want to put in. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's a good point. MR. HUELLER: Thank you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I got a couple of questions for Mr. Camell. When submitting a bid like this, are some sort of references required? HR. CARNELL: Typically they are. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did you get references from Mr. Todd? MR. CARNELL: Well, Mr. Todd didn't submit a bid. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Thank you. Did the bid have a due date if you were going to submit a bid? MR. CARNELL: Oh, yes, sir, time and place. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Was Mr. -- was Mr. Todd's bid in on time? MR. CARNELL: No, sir. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess -- and I want to point out, Mr. Yovanovich, you've completely missed my point. When you say you protected your ability to protest, that's fine. That wasn't my point at all. My point is you opened by saying you have complied with all bid requirements, and you clearly have not complied with all bid requirements. There's two examples right there. And -- and I'm going to make a motion that we go ahead and award the contract along with staff's recommendation in -- in compliance with staff's recommendations. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may, I have a question for Mr. Camell before this vote is taken. Mr. Camell, whether it be CalCap or another system, is there a -- is there performance criteria that should the system not meet it, assuming a set maintenance schedule, that the vendor is still on the hook? Or is it once it's installed it either does what they say it's going to do or -- you know, I'm just -- I'm curious. We're looking at there are several systems out there. If we are so sold on CalCap through our individual experience which I understand has been very good so far, if we're going to install that system or another, is there a performance guarantee by the manufacturer of the system? MR. CARNELL: There's a warranty period following the installation. I don't know that -- the window of time off the top of my head. But beyond that, no, there are no assurances past the warranty period. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is there a maintenance schedule that the manufacturers of these systems provide to the purchaser that if you follow these maintenance steps, our system will perform to the greatest extent possible? MR. CARNELL: I don't know the answer to that question. I don't know if other staff does. MR. OLLIFF: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was Tom Olliff. Okay. I'm going to support the motion for the reason that we have had individual experience with the CalCap system that is proven far, far better than what we have in place which is similar to what the protest argument is -- is discussing. However, if, you know, as the Pelican Bay courts grow and if there is a case to be made that other systems are acceptable, that needs to be made on the forefront. It needs to be made commensurate with a bid. If today we had two bids in front of us and we were being asked why should we approve the one that is more expensive and we discuss the parameters of both bids, then we have at least something substantial to talk about. But I am concerned that we are sacrificing the integrity of the bid process by allowing bids to be open when there was an unresponsive bidder by not even submitting anything and then we're gonna go back and revisit it now. So I'm '- I'm going to support the motion. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is that a second? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It is a second. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I agree with that. There's just one thing I'd -- I'd like to be sure comes out of this, though, is the process is so critical that it be carefully preserved and -- and that it -- it be as straightforward and honest and as open as it possibly can be, and fortunately nobody has alleged anything to the contrary about the honesty of the process, and that's the good news. The only -- what troubles me is I would like to have a bid -- if the bid says -- if you're not going to accept a bid without a specific product, say it straight out. If -- if you're gonna have specs. and people want to make a case that their product can meet those specs., then accept the bid with the different product and let them make their case for meeting the specs. That's the part that I hear today that I didn't like is that you, you know, told them there's really no point in submitting a bid without a different product. We should let them make a case and submit their bid with or without a product if it's -- if they can prove that it will -- or if they can at least argue that it will meet the specs. of the -- of the bid. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I guess at some point, though, the bidder has to take responsibility, and they can choose to do that or not and to say, well, staff has to reel them in, tell them they can do anything they want and -- but it will be up to the purchasing department to try to define after the fact what's -- whether it meets bid or not but we'll still encourage them to turn it in, I mean, the bid specs. are very clear. And either you meet them or you don't. And if you don't, there's nothing to prohibit you from still submitting it and arguing your case. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, they said they wouldn't have taken it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think that's what Mr. Camell said. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what I understood and -- MR. CARNELL: I did say that and -- but -- but let -- but you raised a very important point, Commissioner Mac'Kie, I think we need to follow up on here. In many, many instances where a product or a system could be specified within a bigger contract such as this one or, for that matter, if this was all we were buying and we had -- within our purchasing policy, contrary to Mr. Yovanovich's representations, we can have competition among one product line if you've got more than one source. It's not a sole source if more than one can bid that product. Now, getting to your point, our specifications at the -- we did consider Mr. Todd's contentions. We considered them at the point he raised them initially prior to the bids ever being opened, and you reach a point in time and -- where certainty becomes a very key element in the bidding process. The bidders either -- they need to know what's off limits and what -- what is fair game and what isn't. And in this particular instance, we considered modifying the specifications to allow for CalCap or equivalent. We seriously considered that. But the reason we didn't do that is because we felt like we had done the analysis on the front end. We felt like the data that had been gathered from other sources that had bid this previously such as the Delray Beach study were going to point us back to the same plans. And we had given Mr. Todd a chance to convince us otherwise through the data he submitted. And when it came -- we felt it was more straightforward, more honest to tell people this is what our requirement is and not leave them guessing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And again, my point is if some -- if I wanna bid on something, itws up to me to do that and to bid in whatever way I see fit. And -- and at some point the bidder has to take responsibility for their own actions. And so I guess I just disagree. I think Mr. Camell does a great job, and I donwt want it to reflect that he is somehow rejecting people verbally or something because I donwt think that was the intent. He said, look, this is the bid specs. This is what we expect to be met. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, to get this moving, you know, wewre talking shades of the same subject. If wewre going to spec. a certain system, we need to list the reasons why. If another system can meet them, that -- that tells you you can meet those specs. Even if itws not the same system, go ahead and submit a bid, and then you have the right to protest. Iwm saying that we did follow our bid procedures correctly. But thatws not to say with a slight modification those procedures couldnwt be a little bit better. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Exactly. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And from all experiences we learn. But we did follow those procedures as theylre outlined, and Iim going to support the motion. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You seconded it. In -- in this particular instance, the critical point is that the protestor has stated on the record that he -- he could have -- there was nothing to prevent him from submitting a bid with CalCap, and he chose by his own free will not to do that. Thatls the critical point here. So with that Iill call the question. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And we will take a short break, let the court reporter change paper or whatever. (A short break was held.) Item #8C1 EXISTING CONCESSION AGREEMENT REGARDING THE COCOHATCHEE RIVER PARK FACILITY TERMINED AND STAFF AUTHORIZED TO ADVERTISE FOR A NEW REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR ANOTHER CONCESSION AGREEMENT CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Weill reconvene the county commission meeting. Our next item -- next item is a recommendation -- excuse me -- recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners terminate the existing concession agreement at Cocohatchee River Park facility. MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. For the record, Tom Olliff, your public services administrator, and the item is just that. Itls a request that we terminate the existing concession agreement at Cocohatchee. As -- as youlre well aware, we went out to bid for concessionaires at that particular facility. Welve had a contract in place for almost one year. In fact, the anniversary date is coming up on the 21st of this month. Unfortunately, because of performance issues -- and Iim going to try and keep this presentation fairly short. But just simply because of some performance-related issues in terms of the days that the facility has been open, performance in terms of payment of the minimum concession fee to the county, and in terms of some of the major items that were required as part of that contract that be provided in the way of public service that have not occurred, the staff doesn't believe that there is a reasonable opportunity for that contractor to -- to make amends and become successful under that current contract. And for those -- those reasons, the staff's recommending that we terminate that existing agreement and rebid the entire facility there including fuel this time which wasn't included in the original bid. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Olliff, have we given the contractor ample opportunity to correct deficiency? MR. OLLIFF: I would think if we erred anywhere it would probably be erred in -- in providing too much opportunity. I think -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Obviously I think I sense an agreement on this item. However, my concern is that we are entering season, and we have lost a tremendous amount of ramp fees at this location. This is probably during season one of the busier ramps in town and has been since the day it opened. Mr. Olliff, how fast can we get -- the RFP's already done. It's been sent out before. It's the same RFP. How fast can we get it out there, get respondents, and get a new vendor selected? I -- I would really like to fast track this thing because there's a great service that can be provided there, and I know we're going to get more than one bidder this time. MR. OLLIFF: I'd venture to say if we gave you two weeks to actually get the bid out, two weeks to respond, and then two weeks to be able to sort the bid and get back in front of you, six weeks to -- to two months on the outside. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We could have it by the 1st of the year. MR. OLLIFF: Hopefully, yes, sir. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would like it -- I was hoping for 30 days because, you know, the -- you know, it's just -- as fast as we can get that done and be reasonable would be my -- my hope because every day we don't have a responsive operator out there, you know, we're losing revenues and not providing service at a really super facility. MR. OLLIFF: I -- I agree, and that's one of the reasons why it's here in front of you today, that we -- we wanted at least to have an opportunity to try and make a season. And the 1997 season is pretty much on us. And the faster that we can try and resolve this, the better off the county will be. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can we target six weeks or less? Is that reasonable by your estimation? MR. OLLIFF: We will -- we will shortcut that process as much as we possibly can. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Olliff, is it our intention to -- to terminate this contract effective immediately and operate the park with the county employees? MR. OLLIFF: No, I don't think so. I think that there are a number of existing contracts that the concessionaire probably has with vendors and also in terms of improvements and shelving and those types of things inside the actual building itself that we probably legally need to provide a reasonable amount of time for her to be able to remove those items. But the actual collection of the ramp fee we would probably go ahead and shift over to the master meter which is already on site so that we wouldn't have to -- to worry about that. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: With that -- MR. DORRILL: One speaker, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: One speaker. MR. DORRILL: Your concessionaire is here, Hiss Kilgore. MS. KILGORE: Good morning, commissioners, Chairman Norris. I'm Lisa Kilgore. I'm from Captain's Cove. That is my business. I stand here before you to talk about something that I really believe in, and I have chosen to be here without counsel again just as myself. My first thoughts about this termination was to explain all the adversities I've faced this first year in business. I am now a disabled woman who's had failing health issues, and I am a single parent. That is my reality, but I'm still trying to build the American dream which is what the commission labeled it last year when we came before you on September 5. I have made a lot of errors in operating this business, and I have used poor judgment. Host of all, I've let a lot of my adversities get the best of me and even use them as excuses. But most -- most of all, I've let a lot of people down. But to terminate the contract now would be a bigger letdown, not only to my American dream but to the people that use the community that I provide a public service to, my daughter who I'm now sole support of, and the creditors who I need this business to pay back. All I can do is learn from these mistakes and make arrangements to cover what I cannot do personally myself because of my health or whatever. I have hired a business consulting firm to come in and take over totally and rearrange the accounting, the payment system, kind of put my business on track. Because of being a small business, not having the fuel operational yet, I've been trying to keep my costs low, and I felt I had to do a lot of it myself and still deal with everything else that I've had to deal with, and I haven't been able to do it all. I admit that now, and I have hired people. I have people -- I have staff in there now that run the business for me when I am not able to be there which is almost most of the time. But I have a full-time staff that has come in, a retired contractor that is now working for me full time who is taking on the construction aspect of the whole park. I'm respectfully asking that the board give me time to turn this around, a short period of time, if that. And if I cannot do it, then I would more than agreeably let you terminate my contract. I've survived now through the off season, and this is my peak too. The commission knew back last year that I invested a lot of time and effort even before I had the bid awarded. It was my hard work, my passion for what I believed in that got the fuel approved that now will give you more prospective bidders. This was the third time it was out for bid again. I mean, it was the -- the work that I put into it that I believed in, my efforts that got -- and I was the only bidder the third time out. The length of my contract was determined by all the effort, by the money, the expense that I had put into it. And now you're cutting me short without even the ability to finish it and complete it to the point where I can pay back the creditors. It's kinda hard. If there had been as much time looking for the good things that I've done down there as there has been looking at the faults, I think there would have been just as much good as bad. The people that I've taken care of at the park, the community, have not suffered at all. In fact, they've benefitted. Even before me, the parks and rec. department did not keep somebody in there to collect the ramp fees. I mean, they didn't have people down there for the bait and tackle. And whether it's 30 days or 6 weeks, I mean, here again, inconsistencies are gonna affect the community, and I don't think that's fair to them. Once again, all's I can close with is just ask to let me have the opportunity to turn this around. The same passion, hard work, and what I believe in is the same thing that will make me make this American dream work. I'm just asking for the time to do so. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Olliff, when was the first notice given to Miss Kilgore of failure to meet contractual obligations? MR. OLLIFF: I think the record shows that in writing we probably started this in July. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: More than four months ago? The problem we have, Miss Kilgore, is that from July till now there has been just a record of failure to perform, a response of promise to perform and a continued failure to do so. There's a track record of at least three times in which the county were -- was told you would deliver X on this date and you didn't do it. And then we waited for the second date, and it didn't occur. And we waited for the third date, and it didn't occur. Your personal problems aside, we have an obligation to the rest of the county to provide a consistent service at that location. That hasn't happened. You've been notified in excess of four months of failure to meet those obligations, and I think our obligation to the balance of the county that uses that park is as or more important than your desire to succeed. So I don't feel there's been a track record for me to stand here today after what you've said and have any comfort level whatsoever that what you're telling me is going to happen. I'm sorry to say that, but it's been that performance record that has -- has built to this point. So I wish you the best, but I don't think we can continue to sacrifice the success of this one concession for your personal needs at this point. MS. KILGORE: Well, it's not just my personal needs. It's -- it's -- I mean, regardless of me, I mean, I have creditors. I went out and had a tank built per specs. for the site, I mean, the most environmentally safe, sound tank that is now gonna sit there and not be able to be delivered. And it wasn't -- if I was just out for me, I could have gotten just a plain double walled, steel tank and, you know, cut corners and done everything else. But I've done the best. And as far as my saying that I would do this on certain date and not be able to, that was because of my health issues. I've corrected that. I have people -- Collier Business Consultants will take over that for me and be there when they are told to be there or need to be there. You know, once again, I did what I thought I had to do being a small business. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I'm not sure the problems have been corrected completely because you had an appointment with me on Friday that you called and canceled ten minutes prior to the appointment. And that in and of itself isn't necessarily such a big deal except for the consistent track record of that type activity that Commissioner Hancock has already outlined. MS. KILGORE: I apologize for that. Once again, I tried to explain. This past week I've been very sick because of drug therapy that I'm on for my disease, and it has affected me greatly. I can't deny that. I even asked starting Thursday for a postponement of this issue so I could get back on my feet more and be able to do things I needed to do. I was sick. I could not be there. That's my reality. I can't help it. But I cannot stop my everyday life because of how I feel. You know, I start -- when I made the appointment with you, it was with all good intentions to be there. But because of my health I could not be there. That is my disability. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the point I made is that the track record continues, and it's gone on for several months that you've been scheduled to meet with our staff and have not and scheduled to meet in this case with the commission and have not and scheduled to deliver materials and have not. And while you may very well have a valid reason for those, as Commissioner Hancock has outlined, it is interfering with a service that the public has to receive and is not receiving appropriately at this time. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Rather than -- rather than turn this into an issue-by-issue debate, you've outlined the difficulties you've had in operation of the concession very well. Unfortunately, I don't feel that it is necessarily our job or our position to overcome those difficulties for you. Our position simply in my opinion is to make sure the concessionaire that's there is qualified and able to handle the operation. That has not proven to be true in this individual circumstance. And I'm going to move that we terminate the existing concession agreement and put this out for bid on a fast track as soon as possible to catch as much of the season services as are required. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. If there's no further discussion, I'll call the question. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Item #BE1 A. G. EDWARDS APPOINTED AS SENIOR MANAGING UNDERWRITER AND SMITH BARNEY TO ACT AS CO-MANAGING UNDERWRITER FOR THE CONVERSION OF A PORTION OF THE COUNTY'S VARIABLE RATE TAX EXEMPT COHMERCIAL PAPER TO A FIXED RATE BOND ISSUE - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item is 8(E)(1), a discussion of the finance committee's recommendation of underwriters. MR. HCNEES: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, commissioners. Mike HcNees from the county manager's office. A few months ago we discussed with you the possibility of issuing fixed-rate bonds to pay back a number of tax-exempt commercial paper variable rate instruments that you've entered into for various projects. And we told you at that time that given a certain interest rate availability that we thought financially that would be a good idea. With the market getting to a point where we think this is probably going to be a viable issue, staff issued a request for proposals to select an underwriter to undertake that financing or at least to bring forward a proposal to do so and to stay on top of the market. We received proposals from ten different firms that your finance committee read and ranked. We had two firms that split the first place vote. We had Smith Barney who was the first place selection of three of the finance committee members. A. G. Edwards was ranked first by two of the members. We're hence making a recommendation to you that Smith Barney be appointed as the managing underwriter for this project and that A. G. Edwards be added to the deal as the co-managing underwriter. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Who are the -- who's currently serving on the financial committee? MR. HCNEES: Myself; Mr. Mitchell, your finance director; Mr. Smykowski, the budget director; Ed Finn, the public works operations director; and John Yonkosky, the department of revenue. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there a copy of the score sheets anywhere? MR. HCNEES: I don't think it's in your package. I can make that available to you. We only had -- of the ten firms, there were only four that received votes at all. Smith Barney had 12 points; A. G. Edwards, 10 points, William R. Huff, 6; and Merrill Lynch, 2. And none of the other six firms got votes at all. We can provide that to you very quickly. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What specifically are the dollar savings to be achieved or to be realized by taking this step? MR. HCNEES: We're not really talking about net present value saving. We're talking about taking away one, the variable interest rate risk and fixing what our variable rate instruments -- fixing them at a -- at a rate that's low today when the variable rate may go up later. Also we have balloon payments due on a couple of these in '88 and '89, and we take the risk of having to refinance at higher rates when the balloons come due if we can fix these now. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And we're fairly confident through our finance committee that those rates are going to inch upward as opposed to downward? In other words, a year from now, we're not going to be kicking ourselves? I know you don't have a crystal ball. I'm just -- I'm asking for the opinion of the finance committee because not having the benefit of that meeting. MR. HCNEES: We hope that a year from now you won't be kicking us. But yeah, we think -- we think that now's the time, and we had -- we had established a target interest rate that would make all this make sense, and we think that we're about to get there. So yes, in our -- in the best judgment of the committee and in particular of your financial advisor, now's the time. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess -- I don't have any objection with doing the transaction now. I guess I would like to see -- as personal preference -- I'd be interested to see what the rest of the board thinks. But I'd like to see A. G. Edwards be the primary and Smith Barney secondary solely because it seems as though we do -- and maybe my recollection is wrong. But it seems like we do an awful lot with Smith Barney as the primary, and I'd just like to mix it up a little bit. I don't want to give the same firm everything. MR. HCNEES: In all frankness, the reason we included A. G. Edwards, at least one of the reasons was sensitivity to exactly that issue. We haven't done any bonded debt for a few years, so really we haven't -- we haven't had anybody on board. In fact, most of the current members of the finance committee have no existing relationship with Smith Barney. They -- they weren't on the committee and weren't involved when we did our last deals. But it was our sensitivity to that issue that made us recommend that -- that we add A. G. Edwards as a co-managing underwriter just because of the perception that maybe Smith Barney's -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I don't -- I don't have any knowledge of any particular individuals at Smith Barney or whether or not we've been with them too long. But I'd like to join in support of that, that having a new face frankly just based on, you know, the unfortunate history we had about the one broker who got too much of our investment work, and I'd like to see that diversification so -- and I'm confident A. G. Edwards -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is that a motion? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we appoint A. G. Edwards as the primary with Smith Barney playing the backup quarterback role. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. MR. DORRILL: No speakers. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) MR. MCNEES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Before we continue, could I ask the people in the audience with small children, the crying of small children is a little disruptive. Could -- if they're going to cry, can we take them outside, please? They're very cute. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not that that deserved applause. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Some us actually used to be small children. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Some of us actually what? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Used to be small children. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh. Only some of us. Not all of us. Item #9A AGREEMENT APPROVING AND PROVIDING FOR COUNTY TRAFFIC CONTROL JURISDICTION OVER IMPERIAL GOLF COURSE BOULEVARD AND OTHER ROADS WITHIN THE IMPERIAL GOLF ESTATES SUBDIVISION - APPROVED COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, this next item, item 9(A), I don't know if you've had a chance to review it, but I find this actually silly that it actually had to come before us. Everyone and their mother had to sign off on it. If there are no speakers that -- that are opposing this, I'd like just to move approval of the agreement approving for county traffic control jurisdiction within Imperial Golf Estates. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, pardon me. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Maybe not. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Although there are no registered speakers, I appreciate that I can comment briefly, and I have met with Mr. Herb Oehlers and Miss Patricia Lawrence of the Imperial Golf Estates Homeowners' Association and Greater Imperial Board respectively. And they had one question which appears -- and although I provided you the documents this last week, I provided them again this morning. On page 3 which is where I have numbered number 2 with a little flap and highlighted the bottom of the page, they had indicated that their insurers had had a question or concern about including Collier County and the sheriff's office as additional insured which is surprising because typically there's no problem whatsoever along that line. And, however, above that sentence at the bottom of that page, both organizations provide complete and full indemnification to the sheriff and the county in regard to this patrol service over the private roads. And part of the reason that this language is there is not for pure complication or legalese. But since these are private roads which may be or may not be at current county standard at any particular point in time or that may have potholes or may have flooding or issues of that problem -- of that nature at some point in the future, the county and the -- the sheriff as -- as participants, particularly the sheriff as an active participant, look to their interests to be protected in case some inadvertent accident should Occur. The indemnification is there. They've requested that if it cannot be worked out that the insurance -- additional insured for the county and the sheriff not be an absolute requirement. And so it's on their behalf that I bring that to this board. If you have any question, I'll certainly try to answer, and they are here too if you'd like to speak. Also like to commend Sergeant Todd Taylor of the sheriff's office for his work. This agreement is required under state statute 316.0063B. It requires the sheriff to be involved. It does ultimately re -- require the county to be involved, and that's how we are here at this point. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Certainly was not a commentary on your involvement but merely that it seemed like a lot of work to go through for a fairly simple agreement. But now we have one in hand, so it shouldn't be a problem from here on out. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. Item #9B PROPOSED W. J. JANES MEMORIAL SCENIC DRIVE PARK LEASE, INTERLOCAL PATROL AGREEMENT AND DUSK TO DAWN ACCESS PERMITTING PROCEDURES - APPROVED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item, Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: Yes. Thank you. I'm pleased to bring before you three related documents concerning Janes Scenic Drive also known as the W. J. Janes Memorial Scenic Drive Park. And this is -- these agreements are before you based upon a previous memorandum of understanding that was approved by the board and the Department of Environmental Protection parks and recreation department. And what we have here in brief is a -- an approximate 99-year lease of the roadway area which is specifically identified. The swath includes Janes Scenic Drive and land on both sides of that drive that are county owned, a lease from the county as lessor to the DEP as lessee for 99 years. And with that, concurrent with that, is an interlocal patrol agreement that is with the county and the sheriff's department, already approved by the sheriff. And also with this is a dusk to dawn permitting procedures document for approval by this board. We are waiting for final approval from the DEP in both the lease agreement and the permitting procedures. We think that that's forthcoming probably even today. We would request the board if they wish if there are no truly substantive changes and the board desires to approve these agreements and documents that we would exercise minimal changes if required by the DEP. But if there's anything substantive, we would bring it back to you. And I'll certainly entertain any questions you may have in regard to any of the agreements or the procedures. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, has the deed to the airport been signed, sealed, and delivered to Collier County? MR. WEIGEL: Long ago and recorded, and they have received our deed for 1,920 acres of strand property long ago, and it's recorded too. And from that -- from that standpoint I think these issues just sort of fall back -- I don't want to say they're of secondary importance. But I think the impetus from DEP is certainly subsided significantly. But the patrolling has been occurring as per the memorandum of understanding for essentially a year now, and I think everybody's ready to come aboard. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have -- and I'm sorry Commissioner Matthews isn't here because she's the one that closed the agreement on this. But I had met with the DEP on some of the specifics on this. And item 17 in here I want to see if you can clarify for me a little bit. MR. WEIGEL: Where is that? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Seven -- seventeen. Page 4 of the agreement, page 5 of our packet, item 17-A, breach of lease. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The nonbreaching party may continue the lease and recover damages from the breaching party. I want to know how far that opens us up, and I want to also go down under B of that. And regarding the special conditions, should the lessor, the county, fail to provide the agreed-upon level of patrol services, the lessee shall have the right to contract for or otherwise provide for the correct level of such patrol services. MR. WEIGEL: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And lessor, county, will be required to reimburse the state. How will failure be defined if we fail to do that? That just seems very objective, and I'd hate to think -- MR. WEIGEL: Fine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- 12 years from now when you have a different secretary of DEP and none of these commissioners here and no one that agreed to this has any idea -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Page 14 of your packet. MR. WEIGEL: Each of these agreements, the interlocal patrol agreement and the lease agreement, both reference and even include the original memorial -- memorandum of understanding. And they reference each other in the parts and specifications of each. In the interlocal patrol agreement, it specifically provides that there shall be 28 patrols monthly with 21 occurring nightly, and logs shall be kept. So the standard is -- is rather clear. These are also public records that can -- although it provides for review by the DEP, people, anyone can review those records to see if there's a failure or falling behind. In regard to the breach-of-lease provision, paragraph 17, this is kind of standard lease language. We are dealing with two sovereign entities here. And so to the extent that sovereign immunity may and does apply, there are some limitations there. But I don't know if I responded to your question entirely. It is not an entirely risk-free agreement. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we have some sort of interdepartmental agreement with the sheriff's department that they will do this for 99 years? MR. WEIGEL: Yes. In fact, that is number 2 of the 3 agreements that's in here. And Sheriff Hunter has signed off, in fact, long ago. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I had similar concerns because it states that -- under the interlocal agreement with the sheriff, it states that the sheriff will commit and -- include committing the sheriff to provide a specified patrol service which is the 21 such per week between dusk and dawn, 28 total. There is a nonwaiver of breach in here. As I read it, Mr. Weigel, that states that if we perform 20 dusk till dawn, what does the nonwaiver of breach mean to us as an entity? MR. WEIGEL: Okay. What that means is is that there can be cure -- I would think and hope -- like to think that in dealing with offices of state and local government that these -- any misunderstandings would not continue for very long. But under regular -- this is typical contract language with contracts between almost any party. And that is that although you can agree that there's not a problem -- to be a problem in the future, the party who has been breached against may, in fact, consider that as a breach for future records and issues that may come up. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm just so leery of agreements with the state at this point after what we've gone through in recent presentations regarding south block and other things. I understand we need to do this, we made an agreement. But I think we need to keep our '- MR. WEIGEL: Well, these agreements -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I share your concern, and I'm just -- MR. WEIGEL: These agreements are not signed. Pardon my interruption. They are not signed or finally agreed to by the DEP. And respectfully, we can -- can convey your comments or directions in these agreements still at this point. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I share your concern, but I will say this is completely consistent -- a very pleasant surprise -- completely consistent with the conversations I had with DEP and I got to assume that Commissioner Matthews had with DEP. This does meet what we had asked for. There were several -- we had several meetings where they had folks come here to our Tuesday meeting that disagreed with this basic substance and tried to get more and tried to get all kinds of things. And I think this meets what it was we agreed to. And because that's what we asked for, then I'm not going to vote against it now, but I share your concern. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Instead of keeping a log of going through, maybe he can just -- you know, they can count spent shell casings. He can fire one round before he heads in. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Or not. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: A little paperwork for the sheriff's office involved there. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Perkins. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Perkins, your time is running. MR. PERKINS: Good morning, commissioners, ladies and gentlemen. People at home, listen up. Topic is naturally Janes Scenic Drive. And if you people have never been there, I highly recommend it that -- that you go there. It is a county park. You're paying for it. You've been paying for it. As of October the 12th, '96, the department of -- of the state forest declared southern Golden Gate Estates the Picayune State Forest. In their brochures they have labeled Janes Scenic Drive as being a way to get to Jane -- to the park for camping, horseback riding, swimming, boating, fishing, bird watching, and all of the rest of the goodies that every environmentalist will tell you over and over and over again, the point being the other end of Janes Scenic Drive is at Copeland which most of you people don't even know where it's at. It's on Route 29. The state forest that we are talking about as far as Janes Scenic Drive being a way to get to it has yet to stop the hunting out there which they advocate trespassing and discharging of firearms on private property. And needless to say, I'm going to put this -- or the -- Collier County on notice again that they're assuming some of the liability out there if one of these people get hurt. The only thing that I've got of concern is that we do not change the status quo as far as disrupting what we have in place. I highly recommend, needless to say, because of the other organizations that I belong to, that we protect Collier County and its citizens, we protect the money of Collier County, and we protect the citizens of Collier County, meaning we need to be able to take and get ambulances in and out of that area. For the people who don't know, Janes Scenic Drive and the Fakahatchee was on the agendas four years ago. Two of our new two-year-olds, commissioners, weren't here. Pam, I couldn't help that One. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's okay. I like it. I haven't been a two-year-old in a while. MR. PERKINS: The idea was that the state of Florida deliberately lied to us about closing Marco Island airport if we did not bow down and transfer the title of the Fakahatchee and Janes Scenic Drive to the state. (Commissioner Matthews entered the proceedings.) MR. PERKINS: Well, we found out that they were lying through their teeth and so was the DEP and all of the related agencies for -- for their own benefit. Now, the one big item I want to bring up is if they happen to declare this surplus property which they've done in the past, the DEP, do we have the right or can we take the right to confiscate that property back and maintain Marco Island's airport? In other words, let's turn this thing around for a time. When I'm lied to or if a contract is being lied, I have the right to take and cancel the contract and recoup my losses. Does the county in this particular case? We're talking about a lot of land. We're talking about a lot of natural resources that this county needs to maintain and keep in our possession, not let it go to some bureaucrat up in Tallahassee who will sell it on the courthouse steps in Tallahassee to one of his insider relatives. With that I'll close. I think I've stirred the pot far enough. Back to the hunting. Discharge of firearms is illegal out there because there's all roads. Please do something about it on behalf of the people of this community. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Erlichman. MR. ERLICHHAN: Gil Erlichman, East Naples. I'm speaking for myself. I have a few -- few questions, and I don't know who to address the questions to, Mr. Chairman. But what -- what is the necessity for patrolling this road? I thought Fakahatchee Strand was part of the area that the South Florida Water Management District was gonna flood. Is that true? I don't know. And so I -- I'm at '- I'm mystified by this whole procedure and this question. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Gil, I can answer that one. When we first went through this process and they wanted Janes Scenic Drive -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This is all part of the agreement. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- they wanted to put up gates and do all kinds of prohibitions. They wanted us to give them the land, not lease it to them. And they wanted to put up gates and prohibit anyone from accessing that property. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Actually they wanted us to vacate the road. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's true. MR. ERLICHHAN: What -- why? Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Initially it was -- the reason changed several times, and I would never accuse a state agency of lying to us. But the reason changed several times, and first it was because poaching, and then it was for any number of different things. And bottom line came down was we could meet their request of making sure there weren't people in there at night who weren't supposed to be there by sending a patrol through. The sheriff's department said he drove through there once and often twice a night anyway. And so it really wasn't putting an additional burden, and it met -- the reason we were told was to avoid the poaching or avoid any illegal activity going on out there. And by sending the patrol through there, they made sure of that. And yet we kept it open during the day for anyone who wanted to access it. And as A1 said, it's a beautiful drive out there. So what we did is that was the -- after several months of negotiations, that was the agreement we came up with was we will commit to continue to patrol long term, and we would lease them the property instead of sell them the property. MR. ERLICHMAN: Well, I'm -- I'm -- I'm still questioning why we have to provide patrols by the sheriff's department. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Let me answer that. MR. ERLICHMAN: What's -- who are we protecting, or who are we trying to prevent from going in and out or using the road? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Erlichman, we're not trying to prevent anybody from going in and out from using the road who have a legitimate right to use the road. One of the things that we were made aware of in the course of -- Mr. Dotrill, what was it? More than ten years of negotiation on this -- was that poaching was going on. People were going in and taking animals, and people were going in and taking orchids. And there are orchids -- there are species of orchids who grow in the Fakahatchee that grow nowhere else -- else in the world. Now, one of the things that was explained to me in the process of this is that because Janes Scenic Drive is a public thoroughfare and the Fakahatchee on both sides of it is a state preserve, the sheriff was going through there patrolling. And he would -- he would see some of the poachers, but they would leave the roadside, go into the strand, and the sheriff has no authority in the strand. MR. ERLICHMAN: No jurisdiction, right. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So part of this agreement is to give each other, the forest rangers and the sheriff's office, permission to work together so that the people who are doing the poaching cannot avoid capture, I guess, by moving from one jurisdiction to another. And that's -- that's a good bit of -- of -- of what this is about. It's to stop the poaching and to stop the interjurisdictional use that the poachers are using. MR. ERLICHMAN: But this is not going to restrict the public use of any area in -- in this Fakahatchee Strand. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Not in the daytime. But between the hours of dusk and dawn roughly, people who are -- are -- are traversing the road will be required to have a permit. The very use of that permit on their car, if -- if a patrolman goes by and sees the permit, he knows the person has the right to be using that road in the hours from dusk to dawn. He will not stop them and ask them what their purpose is. If you do not have the permit, you will be stopped and asked what's your purpose. MR. ERLICHMAN: How do you get the permit? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The DEP is going to institute a program, and the appeal process on it will include the county manager, a representative from the DEP. And, Mr. Weigel, who's the third person? MR. WEIGEL: A third person is a permit holder. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: A permit holder -- MR. WEIGEL: That's right. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- who is -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Gil -- Gil, the reason -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- who is not an employee of the state I believe. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The reason behind that is you don't need a permit during the day. At night there are people who live in Copeland or wherever that use that as a cutthrough or obviously want it open for emergency vehicles. But, quite frankly, there's no reason, there's no logical reason, why you or me needs to drive down there at 1 a.m. And it's just one more mechanism to help out the sheriff's department so that -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So he knows who belongs there. MR. ERLICHHAN: Okay. All right. Thank you very much. MR. DORRILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion, please. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to make -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh. I was going to say which -- which item are we on? The whole thing? Are we doing all agreements at one time? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: 9(B). COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: All of them at one time, okay. So your motion encompasses authorizing the chairman to -- chairman to sign them all. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Good. I'll second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) MR. WEIGEL: Thank you very much. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: One relieved county attorney. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What's that? Twelve? Twelve years? Item #10A RESOLUTION 96-506 APPOINTING JAMES LANDRUM TO THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Item 10(A), appointment of member to the TDC. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chair -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: One vacancy, one applicant. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Difficult choice. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Move James Landrum. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Landrum was not one of those city councilmen who recently resigned from Everglades City I hope. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Come to think of it he may have. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If it is, we'll see it back next month. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Does anyone know the answer to that? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Jody says he was not one of the ones. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: He was not one of the ones? MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Tim Smith recently resigned. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. There -- there were two, though. Mr. Smith resigned. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If we make a mistake, we can just bill the paper. I'll let my motion stand. The name doesn't ring a bell. And if it is, we'll see it back soon enough. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I know Mr. Landrum, and I have not heard that he has resigned. So with that in mind, I'll have my second stand. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Item #10B ST. MATTHEWS' HOUSE GRANT REQUEST - DENIED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item is -- if the board members will recall -- you -- you have a little packet here. I know it's -- it's late date for you to get it -- the -- last year St. Hatthew's House applied for a grant and the grant application had some false information in it, and we declined to approve their grant at the county commission level if you'll recall that. This year again they brought this on as an add-on because they found out apparently that the deadline is the 15th. Did we confirm that, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. All right. We did confirm that the deadline is the 15th. So this was not properly advertised, and they want it in on an add-on. I read through this yesterday, and the -- the objections that I have within it are fairly minor this year. They -- they claim that there's 2,000 homeless people in Collier County at any one given time. There's no documented evidence to support that number. The sheriff, when he did an inventory during the season, found a very much smaller number one year. The other one is that they -- they claim a 75 percent approval rating -- I mean a -- I'm sorry, a success rate of their -- the people that go through their program. But the definition that they use to declare success is that they complete the program and are released. It -- they -- they -- it doesn't -- doesn't have anything to do with what they do the next day or a year from now. So that -- that success rate is a bit suspect. But my real objection is that St. MAtthew's House as opposed to the other homeless shelter proposal, St. MAtthew's House, at least three of us will recall, battled the community for a year actually and -- and located their facility against strong objection by the community when it would have been much simpler to be a good neighbor and a good part of the community by locating in a -- in a more favorable place. In any case, there was a long, extended battle. We all remember it. And now they come up and ask the county commission to help them. I -- personally I can't see it, but I -- I brought it forward for the board's consideration. I don't intend to support the application, but it's up to the board to do so. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess my objection is -- is more that I have a 30-page document that I just started reading 30 seconds ago and I'm being asked to put my stamp of approval on it. I can't do that. I want to read something and know what it is prior to getting it, and we just got it. And I'm not gonna approve something that I haven't had an opportunity to read. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can -- can I just point out one of the things that we have is attachment i-A, is the cover on top of the application package itself. And I think the wording in it is very important. We're not being asked to approve the grant application or to acknowledge that any information in the application is true. I think actually this is a really superfluous piece of paper because whether we like it or not, this shelter has been approved where located in Collier County. And that's all we have to say, that the Collier County commission has approved the project which is located at this address. And that's a fait accompli. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I appreciate that comment. The -- the -- the way this was represented to me was that that cover sheet is what needs to be executed for Collier County to a -- approve the -- the submittal of the grant from our perspective. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But that's not what it says. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- I'm just not prepared to do that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I understand that, but I just wanted to point out to you that the document speaks for itself. And all it says is that the location of this -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I understand. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When did you get a copy of this, and how do you know what the document says? I mean, I -- I -- I have all these pages here that I haven't read. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I -- I got a copy of this attachment that I'm referring to when I sat down this morning. It was waiting for me here. But -- but I did get a copy of the grant application itself provided to me yesterday as I think was offered to members of the board. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. It was given to me also yesterday. I -- I read it last evening. And Commissioner Norris is correct in the items he points out. But again, for the purpose of -- of the mission St. Hatthew's has, I'm not sure that that's all that important. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It's not. I stated that that was fairly minor. I just wanted to point those out. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not being here during the time that this came about and only reading what I read in the paper, I recognize the contentiousness, and -- and I -- I have to agree. If I were sitting in your shoes at that given time, I probably would -- would harbor a lot of those feelings and carry them with me. My concern is separate and apart from that. This is federal emergency shelter grant funds. They're asking for $200,000 in -- and I'll say it again -- federal emergency shelter grant funds. It's -- yet 100,000 is going for daily operation of the existing center. If you look at the grant application, half of it's going to just achieve the -- the day-to-day goals. When I look at why our federal government sets money aside to increase the availability of federal shelters -- and you all -- you all know I'm involved with the Red Cross. Disaster sheltering is one of my duties with them. We use schools. Schools don't differentiate between homeless and not homeless. It doesn't matter. If you need a shelter during an evacuation period and those schools -- or the last time we did this it was vo-tech. And of the people we had, the majority of them were homeless. They didn't go to St. Hatthew's. They came to us. This isn't -- I guess it's not addressing what I think the federal funds are intended to do. It has nothing to do with whether I like or don't like what St. Hatthew's is doing, like or don't like their location. These funds are to be used to increase, as I understand it, the ability for emergency sheltering. What these funds are doing, according to this application, is paying for $100,000 of operation, putting 12 additional beds in a shelter that will be used for daily operation, not set aside for emergency. So my concern -- unless someone can answer that effectively for me, how are these funds being used for the intent of the grant, I can't support it because then what happens is next year the funds go there. And when our county maybe needs storm shutters for a school, we have to end up competing with someone who's already gone out and got the funds so -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe the applicant can shed some light on that because I think that's a good point. MR. KIRK: My name is Jim Kirk, and I'm the vice chairperson of the board of St. Matthew's House. And I'd like to go back to what Commissioner Mac'Kie said earlier. We're not asking you to approve the grant. We're not asking you to judge the merit of it. That will be done in Tallahassee. I can assure you that the application does meet the criteria as put forth by HRS. I can assure -- assure you of that. What we're simply asking you to do as it says on that one page is to approve that the program is legally allowed to exist where it does, which it is. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's all the form says, guys. I mean, I think that -- that it wouldn't be -- I think it'd be dishonest of us not to sign the form when we all know as a fact that the shelter is permitted where it's located, and that's all the form says. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, dishonest might not be an accurate -- if we put a letter out that said it can't happen, that would be dishonest. But to not to take action isn't the least bit dishonest. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. My kids know that if you don't tell the whole truth you have lied so -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, no. And that's not not telling the whole truth. That's just declining to participate in the process. And, I mean, again, I go back -- my reason -- like Commissioner Hancock, I'm not saying it's because of something that happened two years ago. That's -- that's water under the bridge. But I haven't read it, so I don't know what it says. And as I read it, I can -- I'm -- I'm circling and underlining furiously because I don't think it's accurate. And Coll -- Collier County has 2,000 homeless individuals each year. I don't think that's accurate. Affordable housing rents have been set at 575 per month by HUD. We don't use HUD statistics in the county programs. We -- we set a lower line because we realize the numbers are unfairly inflated. So that's misleading. You talk about not telling the whole truth. I mean, that's not telling the whole truth. And you can go on, I assume, through this. I haven't read it. There are 25 more pages I haven't read yet. But COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- there are -- I mean, even in three minutes I found a number of problems that I don't know are accurate, and I'm not prepared to sign off on it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just -- I want to go ahead and put on the floor a motion to approve the request as made. And the request is -- and I'm just going to read it -- to sign a certification that says, I, duly authorized to act on behalf of Collier County, hereby approve the following project, task force for the homeless and hungry, which is located at -- it says in -- 2001 Airport Road South, Naples, Florida. That's true. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And listen to what you said. Hereby approve the following project. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Project. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Task force for the homeless and hungry -- hungry which is what this is that I'm reading. Either we approve of it or we don't. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a project that's permitted to be located where it is. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's not what you just said we're asking for. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's exactly what I just said. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: If I could ask a question back to the idea of what the grant's supposed to do, how many beds does St. Matthew's currently have that you use for daily operation? MR. KIRK: We are permitted for 84 beds. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And you have 12 short of that existing now? MR. KIRK: We're currently -- our capacity right now is 72, yes. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And those are generally full. You don't have a lot of vacancies. MR. KIRK: Well, we have -- the way the grant is written, we have eighty -- we have the capacity for 84 beds. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct. MR. KIRK: And we're not going to exceed that with or without this application. But because of our current staffing level, we've only been able to adequately use 72 of them. So we're hoping that -- that if we are successful in receiving this grant, that we will be able to have the necessary staff in place and the necessary structure itself to -- to then accommodate 84 people. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If there were a -- an emergency sheltering need right now, would you lay out 12 additional cots in order to fill your capacity in order to shelter those people? MR. KIRK: Well, my understanding is that -- well, not my understanding. Collier County has a cold weather policy, and I think it kicks in if the wind chill factor goes blow 40 degrees that there's a number of shelters that are allowed to take in anybody who comes, and so we would take in -- at that point we would take in anybody who comes under that emergency situation. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. How -- how would this $200,000 increase your capability to do just that? That's the focus of the grant as I understand it. You may have a different understanding, but we're kinda working on mine right now. How would -- how would that increase your ability to handle emergency only sheltering? MR. KIRK: Well, my concern with the question is that that's not at all the scope of what we're asking. That's a group of people in Tallahassee who will receive this application and then judge the merits of it based on -- on very specific criteria that they have. I mean, I can give you my opinion, but -- but that should not be germane to whether or not the county commission feels that it is appropriate to sign that -- sign that one page. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And can I point out too just one other little bit of information because we're all doing this sort of quickly that you're right that the funding program is federal emergency shelter grants, but it's program for the homeless. It's the federal emergency shelter grants program for the homeless, not for hurricanes, and that this is submitted to HRS, not to FEMA. So we may be, in fact, mixing our -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: The problem we have is federal programs tend to take on a life when the dollars are assigned maybe different than the inception. When I look at the term federal emergency shelter grants program, that tells me that when we have an emergency sheltering need in Collier County, these funds are intended to augment or accent your ability to -- to accomplish that -- that sheltering. Why we as a county didn't apply for some of these funds because I know when we have those sheltering needs we don't always have everything on hand we'd like to have yet the demand comes to us because it's Mr. Pineau that makes that call if I'm not mistaken -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But it's because this is for the homeless. Keep reading, Commissioner Hancock. MR. DORRILL: As -- as odd as it -- it may sound, the Federal Emergency Management Agency is the principal and primary agency of federal government that deals with homeless shelters, soup kitchens, and, for that matter, fuel oil. And they contract for the purchase of fuel oil in the -- in the northern states. And they're the largest entity of contract purchase for that to -- to buy fuel oil for older people that won't otherwise afford it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Then, Mr. Dotrill, you can answer for me when it drops below a 40-degree wind chill factor and we have to open shelters for the homeless, what is our priority there? How -- how do we go about doing that, and how will these funds assist us and assist this operation in making sure that's available? MR. DORRILL: The policy that is in place is administrative and on the recommendation of the emergency management director. I authorize and then we flash facts to the participating entities in Collier County. There are a number of churches, and there are two existing properly approved homeless shelters that they for that evening and that evening alone may bring anyone in or the sheriff may deliver to those facilities anyone who is otherwise homeless and at their discretion would warrant harborage for that evening. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Now we're getting to the base of this. We know what it is that causes homeless people to need to be sheltered on an emergency basis. Now, they arrive at your door. Explain to me how this $200,000 is going to help you handle those individuals. MR. MEEHAN: Oh, it's real easy to answer. First of all, I'm -- my name is Frank Meehan. I'm the executive -- M-e-e-h-a-n. And I'm the executive director of St. Matthew's. I'd like to just back up just a little bit and answer your question a little further. Ken Pineau or Gary Arnold contact myself. I am the cold weather coordinator for Collier County. And I call Assembly of God, whether it be East Naples Methodist Church, St. Paul's, the Baptist church, whatever, to get them to open their doors. I'm the one that does that. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Uh-huh. MR. MEEHAN: We have cots set aside. We have plenty of cots set aside for anybody who needs shelter. During the hurricane, we put up the police -- the sheriff's department over at St. Paul's Church. We had 14 cars over there. They were off the road. St. Matthew's van was still running. We -- we need this money. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: For? MR. MEEHAN: For the homeless. That's what it's for, for the homeless. The grant is for the homeless. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Meehan, can I interrupt you for a second -- MR. HEEHAN: Sure. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- because I wanna just -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm really trying to get to an answer here, Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But just notice one thing. I think your focus is on emergency. And because of your experience with Red Cross, you're thinking of those kinds of weather-related emergencies. The emergency exists by virtue of being homeless. That is the emergency that this grant seeks to address, not a whether-related emergency. MR. HEEHAN: Right. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Now -- and I'll stop I promise. MR. HEEHAN: And I believe being homeless is an emergency. There's no doubt in my mind. When you have a woman and three children come in with no home, that's an emergency. And I think we should be able to take care of those women and children and we should have someplace to put them. And we're not asking you to approve that grant. We're just asking you to approve that you did let us build on 2001 Airport Road. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are your grant funds -- you're using $100,000 just for operation. What happens next year when the hundred thousand's not available? You built the beds. You've increased your capacity. Now the hundred thousand isn't available. What happens then? MR. HEEHAN: The good Lord will provide for us. He will. Other things will happen for us. They always do. MR. KIRK: In a -- in addition to that -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews, do you have a question? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes. MR. KIRK: -- I've got a further explanation. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Kirk, if I could interrupt, I had a question. Mr. Dotrill, you had said that your office declares an emergency or -- with the help of -- of Mr. Pineau for the cold weather emergency use. On -- on the nights that that's declared, does the capacity for -- or is the capacity at St. Hatthew's House allowed to increase beyond the 84 currently permitted? MR. DORRILL: Yes, it is, as would other churches that are not otherwise specifically zoned to be homeless shelters, and they're all over town. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So they can -- they can take in as many occupants as they can handle up to whatever capacity they feel is -- is deemed reasonable and helpful. MR. DORRILL: That would otherwise be upset by maybe a fire code provision or something. That's never been a problem. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. There's a motion on the floor I believe; is that correct? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll second it. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. KIRK: To continue with the answer on -- on the funds, one of the things that was -- that made it possible for us to build the new shelter is that we -- we're able to get a mortgage. And one of the things that we'll be able to do is we'll be able to redirect funds in such a way that the mortgage would be paid down which means that our overall budget goes down per month, and that allows us other funds in successful years to continue what we hope that this will allow us to do. I will also once again add that these funds that we're applying for are specifically for helping those who are chronically homeless. These are not for people who live in a house and because of flood waters are displaced for a period of time. These are specifically for the people that we're already dealing with. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It just seems like you're telling me the word emergency crept in there by accident. MR. KIRK: I didn't put it in. That's part of the -- that's part of the way the grant came. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, Mr. Kirk, I believe I heard you say now that -- that looks like what your real intention is to make a paper shuffle here and use these funds to pay your mortgage down. You did say that. MR. KIRK: Uh-huh. It seems to me that that's a very reasonable thing to do to try to pay down a mortgage as quickly as possible. I will remind the commission that there is a homeless facility in Collier County that did receive these same funds last year, and that's Friendship House in Immokalee and that the county did approve that application much the same way we're -- not the application but approved that program much the same way we're asking you to approve the program of St. Matthew's House. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And once again, my objection is that St. Matthew's instead of choosing of their own free will to be a good neighbor to the community and involve the community in the siting of this project, you choose to jam it down the throat of the residents that were over there. And now you come back asking that same county to help you get grant funds, and I just -- I just don't think so. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, and, I mean, the form we have in front of us, regardless of how Commissioner Mac'Kie reads it, it says Collier County hereby approves the following project. And then attached to that page is the package that I've been trying to read the last 15 minutes which includes erroneous information. And so I've got to assume project means -- MR. KIRK: The project specifically that we're asking you to approve can be found on page -- I believe it's page 3 in my packet, and it's called the application narrative. That is the program. Some of the things that you've highlighted in terms of success rate and how many people are actually homeless, that's not a part of the program, but that's part of our statistical information which will be looked at at Tallahassee. But the specific program we're talking about is on the first page or the page 3 that says application narrative. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess -- MR. KIRK: And that -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not -- I'm not going to belabor this. I mean, either we've got three votes or we don't. But application narrative has section 1, 2, 3, and so on. And as you get on to several of these sections, I don't think they're factual. And so if we're being asked to approve the application narrative -- and I think that -- MR. KIRK: No, you're not. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's what you just said. MR. KIRK: No, no. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And if I don't think that's accurate '- MR. KIRK: Let me rephrase it so perhaps you could -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You don't mind if I finish my comment. If I don't think that's accurate, then I'm not gonna vote to approve that. I said we're being asked to approve a project. MR. KIRK: You're being asked -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You said that project is on page 3, the application narrative. I don't think that application narrative is factually correct, so I'm not going to vote to approve it. MR. KIRK: You're being asked to approve a project, and I said the project that you're being asked to approve is outlined on that first page. You're not being asked to approve on how many homeless people there are in Collier County on any given night. You're not being asked to approve what the success rate is of a particular shelter. You're not being asked to approve any of that. You're being asked to approve the project that's outlined in that first page which has already been approved by virtue of us being there, albeit not to your liking. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I appreciate the comments by Commissioner Matthews and Commissioner Hac'Kie. But I'm still dealing with the very basic problem of the words emergency shelter grant in the title of this. And without having the opportunity to understand the purpose and intent of the grant program, I'm not going to squander federal money when I have tremendous questions about whether or not this is a fair and accurate application of those funds. It has less to do with what I've heard from my colleagues to my left and more to do with -- with the fact that I -- I don't want to throw money away if it's not being spent as intended, and I haven't been given the opportunity to answer those questions. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. KIRK: We keep coming back to the same thing. That's not what you're being asked to do. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm -- MR. KIRK: You're not being asked to approve anything. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't care -- MR. KIRK: You're not being asked to approve -- you're not being asked to approve the spending of one dime. That's not your money. You're not being asked to do it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Then go get it approved -- MR. KIRK: That's going to be done in Tallahassee. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Then go get it approved without my approval. MR. KIRK: We can't do it without you signing that one page. And if you choose to do that, my interpretation is that you just simply don't want to do it because you don't like it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, that's -- that's your interpretation, and you must -- MR. KIRK: Well -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- have been ignoring every single word I've said. And if you wish to do that, that's up to you. But I have stated the reason why I'm uncomfortable with this. And if you ever want to bring something back to us after the eleventh hour, I'm going to suggest to you you're going to experience some of the same difficulties. I have not been given ample time to review something in detail, to get questions answered. And what I hear is trust me. I'm telling you what's really happening here. Just sign the paper. I'm not going to step in that direction. I have questions that are not being answered sufficiently. If you want to answer them in the next year and apply for this next year, then we'll deal with it then. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Aye. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That motion is not successful. We are PUBLIC COHMENT - AL PERKINS REGARDING A COUNTY CABLE TELEVISION STATION AND GIL ERLICHHAN REGARDING REFERENDUM ISSUES AND VETERAN'S FESTIVITIES -- we don't have any public comment today. HR. DORRILL: I'm afraid we have two. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have two? Mr. Perkins. Mr. Perkins, with all due respect, you need a new hobby. You really do. MR. PERKINS: Say again. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You need a new hobby. MR. PERKINS: I won't say to answer to the audience. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Clock's running, sir. MR. PERKINS: Okay. Let me take and cut to the chase on this real quick. First of all, A1 Perkins, Belle Heade Groups, Citizens for Constitutional Property Rights. The one real quick thing that I forgot to mention at -- Janes Scenic Drive is in very good shape according to your transportation director, George Archibald, meaning that they're minding the store out there. The subject that I want to address is your TV system that you have in place here now and getting the information out there which is -- which is very important to all the people at home. Now, your display of what you've taken and done here this morning has shown that this commission has gone out of its way to take and play fair, be honest and to look into all of the discrepancies that's being put in front of you. You move in a good direction. I highly commend you for this, all of you. You've done a good job here today. And I hope the people at home are paying attention to channel 54, channel 54, gang, which is -- happens to be the educational channel. It's controlled by the school board. I would like to see this board move to establish our own three channels to provide information and to get the message out and to provide a way so that we can see the displays that are normally put on the board through monitor system and get the message out to all of the county. At the present time anybody in the county who does not have cable television do not receive the signal, nor does Everglades City. We're making the money on the franchise. I understand this. And we have it coming up in front of us so the point being let's see if we can't take and fix this problem to inform the people who are paying the bills around here. You did a good job here today, very good. But the people at home need to know. The people at home, this will be broadcast, this program, this in its entirety, Thursday night starting at five o'clock on channel 54. You need to get the message out to all the people. Find out who's work -- voting for you, who's working for you, and who's spending your money. These are your employees, and they want your input from it. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Erlichman. MR. ERLICHMAN: Good morning, commissioners. I know you're hungry. I know you want to break for lunch, so I'm gonna be very short and sweet, and I have a few subjects. I have to take this opportunity to congratulate myself -- first of all, I'm speaking for myself today. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Everybody join in congratulating Gil. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just for being Gil. MR. ERLICHMAN: -- on the defeat -- on the defeat of the green space referenda and the jail work release center referenda. And I'd also like to thank Mr. Constantine for his great help in defeating the green space referendum. And I'm -- we want to -- I'm one of the 45,000 naysayers, as we are called, who vote two to one -- voted two to one against those two referenda, saved the taxpayers money. Okay. The services at Cambier Park yesterday, I would like to thank the sitting commissioners for all being there. With their presence you lent a high honor to the veterans that were there, and this is the first time in the eight years that I've attended these services that I've seen all the commissioners present, all the sitting commissioners. I want to thank you very much. It was a beautiful service. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: They're letting us run the county now, Gil. MR. ERLICHMAN: And the attendance was noted only by adults. There were only adults there. Now, what's the reason for that? Senior citizens, veterans, and the younger adults -- there were no children. There were no school children outside of Barton Collier High School band which did a notable job. They were excellent. But why weren't the children there? The schools were open. Why do we have schools open on Veterans Day or Armistice Day when all the federal buildings are closed, the county buildings were closed? A lot of people had the day off, but yet the schools were open. This is a big fault that I have to find with our educational system in Collier County. In fact, I don't think that we even teach enough American history in the schools. So I would like to start -- try to start a movement. To me it's useless to talk to the board of education, so I'm talking to you commissioners. Maybe you can start a movement to have the schools closed on Veterans Day or Armistice Day and let's have some more American history taught in our schools. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. In keeping with the Board of County Commissioners' longstanding tradition of any commissioner who happens to have a birthday that falls on a county commission meeting buying lunch, we are -- we are going to adjourn at this point for lunch and let Commissioner Constantine buy us lunch. (A lunch break was held.) Item #12A1 ORDINANCE 96-68 RE THE MARCO ISLAND MASTER PLAN - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll reconvene the county commission meeting, and our first item of business this afternoon is the Marco Island Master Plan. MS. CACCHIONE: For the record my name is Barbara Cacchione with your comprehensive planning section. The Board of County Commissioners directed the preparation of the Marco Island Master Plan at the beginning of the fiscal year in October 1994. The Vision Planning Committee was formed and appointed by the board in February of '95, and since that time we've had numerous workshops and public meetings and committee meetings to receive public input. The first public hearing on the Marco Island Master Plan was held by the board on April 23, and that plan was transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs. They reviewed the plan and had comments in regard to transportation, sanitary sewer, capital improvements, recreation and open space. Their comments are attached to your packet on pages 9 through 13. (Commissioner Hancock entered the board room.) MS. CACCHIONE: Staff recommended some policy changes to meet those objections, and also some additional data and analysis was submitted in terms of the Appendices A through which is also attached to your packet. The recommended policy language change is on pages 14 and 15. This was reviewed by the committee -- the Vision Planning Committee on September 18. At that meeting a resident and property owner suggested that a future land use map change also be considered by the board, and that was to change three lots on San Marco from residential to community commercial which is adjacent to the medical center on San Marco Drive. The Vision Planning Committee agreed to forward that request to the Board of County Commissioners. One of the issues under discussion at the transmittal hearing was the funding of the different policies in the plan. Attachment E which is a revised Table 29, which is on pages 31, 32, and 33 of your agenda packet, outline the cost estimates for all of the policies in the plan. The first page identifies that most of the policies in the plan can be done with existing staff resources. In some cases we've had to extend time-lines in order to meet those obligations. The second page identifies a conceptual master plan for the roads -- the 24 miles of collector roadways on Marco Island. That conceptual master plan is intended to look at drainage improvements, intersection improvements, landscaping, and lighting for that major collector system, and it will also be used to provide cost estimates that would then be taken to referendum in terms of the future funding of the installation of those projects. There are also three other studies on the last page, page 33, which are not funded, and that is a cost-benefit study of the county taking over the Jolley Bridge, a second study in regard to connecting the northwest and southeast waterways, and a third study looking at alternative technologies for wastewater treatment. These policies can be modified by the board and can be deleted from the plan or modified to state that they will be conducted when funding is available. Finally, the planning commission held their public hearing on October 2 -- 17 and recommended 5-0 to the Board of County Commissioners for approval of the master plan. The Vision Planning Committee did meet again on November 7, and the handout that I gave you at the beginning of the meeting identifies some changes that were received by members of the public and were incorporated into the master plan. The board today has the option of adopting the master plan as it is, adopting with changes, or not adopting the master plan. I can go through each of the policy changes if you wish or answer questions, whatever the board prefers. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Miss Cacchione, the handout that you gave us has -- Objective 4.1 says, "The county will assure that wastewater treatment, collection, treatment and disposal facilities are made available to correct any possible deficiencies." That seems to have strayed a long way from the original intent of the -- of the entire policies and objectives in the master plan in that this -- what -- unless I'm reading this wrong, it says that the county has assumed responsibility unilaterally to make available any possible deficiency on Marco Island, and that's -- really wasn't the intent when we started here. Am I reading it incorrectly? MS. CACCHIONE: I think you're reading it correctly, and I would suggest that we change that language, and basically we could change it to, "The county will encourage that the wastewater," because it is true that the county does not have control over the whole system there, and we can only encourage SSU to meet their part of -- of that. The "any possible" changes, there are no existing deficiencies, and it was changed to any possible deficiencies that may occur in the future, and that's why the word "existing" was deleted from this policy. But I would agree with you that we -- we should change the word "assure" and change it to, "The county will encourage that .... CHAIRMAN NORRIS: From -- from assure to encourage? MS. CACCHIONE: Yes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That would -- That would address my concerns. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I was going to -- I was going to say, what are we going to do? Underwrite the activities of SSU? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, that was -- Yeah, that was my -- my concern. Exactly. And the -- what -- What is the reason on that same page, Objective 7.2, for the addition of the word "detailed"? What -- Why are we making that little modification? MS. CACCHIONE: Basically the -- the detailed construction drawings which would be part of any improvements that would occur after the conceptual plan is completed, there would be detailed plans needed which are very -- much more expensive than the conceptual plan would be, and it was felt that those should come under the referendum. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Well, we're not talking about the conceptual plan today or funding the conceptual plan today. MS. CACCHIONE: The conceptual plan -- we did provide some -- We did identify some possible funding sources for the conceptual plan, and basically the cost that we've determined that that probably would be would be about 150,000. That's probably a little bit on the high side, and that would be conducted by capital projects. The funding options that we provided are, of course, the District 1 road impact fee district, which Marco is part of; a loan from 111, 301, or 341; or a grant from one of those sources. The option could be that it could be paid back later by the road impact fee fund. At some later time, it might involve shifting some priorities with paving, either the paving going first and the conceptual plan coming later or vice-versa. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Three -- Fund 341 is -- what geographical boundary does that cover? MS. CACCHIONE: I'm going to have to defer to, I think, George Archibald on that. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Isn't that the Marco Island road district fund? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: He wants to know the graphical boundaries. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah. MR. HULHERE: Yeah. It goes up into east Naples, I believe. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah. Most of it's in east Naples, I believe. MR. ARCHIBALD: That's confined to the island itself. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me? MR. ARCHIBALD: That boundary is confined to the island itself. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. All right. MR. ARCHIBALD: Just for the record, George Archibald. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I do have a question, if I may, on that same objective, 7.2. I -- I get two things from that. One is that detailed design construction and maintenance for -- for all the projects listed in the plan will be selected by referendum and that it has to occur by 1997. Two things concern me. One is that the voters on Marco may not want to do all of it at one time. They may want to phase it, and it seems like this language may preclude that. I don't know. I'm sure we'll hear that when the speakers come up. The second thing is, by 1997 I'm not sure -- does that mean by December 31 of this year? That's how I read it because 1997 begins on January 1. So those two things I'm a little unclear on. MS. CACCHIONE: Okay. And, of course, we can make modifications to those. I think we can plan the referendum either way. We can separate projects out so that there is some flexibility on it. If they want to vote for perhaps bicycle paths but not drainage improvements or something along that line, we can modify that language to make sure it reflects that, and we can change the date so that it would occur on the next regularly scheduled referendum following the -- the completion of the conceptual plan. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My -- You know, we have always had a -- if you will, a manner in which you can get petitions signed to get a referendum put out there, and by putting a date in here, do we circumvent that? Are we saying that this is more important than that process? Are they going to have to go through that process or not? A lot of kind of unanswered questions about that referendum date in there, so I think we'll want to resolve that today before we -- we either approve or -- approve modifications or whatever we do with this today. MS. CACCHIONE: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you direct me to the portion in here -- You mentioned the Jolley Bridge and discussion regarding taking responsibility for that. MS. CACCHIONE: That would be Attachment E, the -- pages 31, 32, and 33. On page 33 you'll find that the Jolley Bridge is -- there's a study in there to see about the county taking over the Jolley Bridge in terms of a cost-benefit study as to whether it would make any sense for that to occur or not and, if so, at what time frame, and there are also several policies in the plan. Basically Policy 5.5.1 -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just before you go too far, I -- I don't know where you are, and I'm sorry. I just want to have it in front of me while you're talking. Is it in this book? Is it in a handout? I -- I seem to be lost. MS. CACCHIONE: (Tendering document) COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MS. CACCHIONE: That -- Those are the policies related to the Jolley Bridge, and what it is is Policy 5.5.1, which is, within one year of the plan's effective date, the county will conduct a cost-benefit study regarding the county taking over ownership of the Judge S.S. Jolley Bridge. The study should include projected revenue earnings from a toll based on different fee structures, projected maintenance cost, including replacement and expansion costs, uses of funds, and the timing of the transfer. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's being deleted? MS. CACCHIONE: Basically that is a study that is unfunded in the plan. The board could -- could -- There are two options. One is to delete that policy. A second option would be, until funding is available to conduct that study, it will not be completed until funding is available. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to delete it for two reasons. One, I -- I think it doesn't make much -- Yeah, it's -- it's absurd. Commissioner Mac'Kie, I agree. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's absurd. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The sole purpose for collecting revenue should be to pay -- well, we have a gas tax to pay for roads and so on, and -- and to try to put in a new fee -- Even the idea of studying this is -- is beyond me. Why we would create something new to -- just to try to generate revenue that might then be spent elsewhere, you're penalized for using a public road. It doesn't make any sense. It appears to me to be a thinly veiled attempt to try to put tolls in and discourage people from coming onto the island. I don't have any interest in pursuing that particular one. I'd like to see it deleted. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Obviously the -- my little "absurd" side comment there -- I agree with that. I can't imagine why we would -- I -- I don't even think it's thinly veiled, frankly. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I also happen to know a lot of people who work on Marco but don't live there, and that -- that, again, becomes a concern that the improvements would be solely on Marco and the people who may work there but don't live there -- you know, not all of them make great salaries. So there -- there is another side to that that concerns me. MS. CACCHIONE: Basically what was handed out to you just now were those policies related to the Jolley Bridge, and there are four of them and an objective -- if that is a motion, all of those policies would be deleted if -- if that is the wish of the board. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That would be my preference. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And mine. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to -- I'm going to -- Again, I'm going to wait for public comment before making any final statement, but I -- I'm leaning that way myself. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Do you have more, Miss Cacchione? MS. CACCHIONE: Just to answer questions. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: If there's no questions, we could go to the public comment. MR. DORRILL: And I believe we have just one, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Coriaci. MR. CORIACI: My name is Joe Coriaci. I'm acting chairperson for the Marco Island Planning Advisory Committee. Commissioners, thank you for allowing me to be here today, and Commissioner Norris, thank you. Dr. Fay Biles who's also on our committee is -- is here today and -- and if -- if I need support, I'm sure she's more than capable of giving me that support. I'm not going to go into a -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: She's taunting us with a slip right now. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: She's got it in her hand. MR. CORIACI: I'm not going to go into a lot of detail. I think the staff has done a tremendous job, and what I wanted to do, particularly for the record, since this has been a two-year project, is to get a couple of thank yous into the record because I know we always hear the -- the other side of the fence, and we rarely hear the positive side. My first thank you is to -- to you, the board, for allowing this project to go forward and having the foresight and the vision two years ago to recognize that 25 and 30 years of infrastructure that hasn't really been dealt with, something needs to be done, and that was the whole purpose in putting the group together. A lot of work has been done, and thanks to county staff, and this goes throughout the county, not just the planning staff, but we've had a great deal of input from a lot of different people, and -- and that has all been very, very helpful to us. Your comments in April were very -- were very, very helpful to us, and I think Barbara has just covered the fact that you were insistent that Marco Island pay for those things that are above and beyond the normal service levels offered and provided by the county, and the referendum that she talks about appears throughout the report now, and that was in there when it went up to the DCA for their review and approval. Any project that we have that goes beyond the county's normal service levels would have to go to referendum, and those referenda are tied to regular election periods. So we're not looking for extra money to go. And -- And one of the things that I heard a little while ago and I'm a little bit confused, but we're not trying to link all projects into one. That is not the intent, and we talked about that at our very last board meeting or committee meeting. The concern we have is, if we go forward with -- let's say we need to do something at a particular intersection and we need to go get a vote to get that funded and all the things that go along with it. Mr. Archibald and his staff may say, well, you know, you might be better off if you also dealt with some lighting at this time, and -- and you need to do some drainage at this time, and maybe we need to expand some things. So what is one single project may turn out to be three, four, five pieces of a project. So we didn't want to limit it to just one project and have to wait two years every time to get one thing done because even as young as our new birthday commissioner today, a lot of these things wouldn't get done in your lifetime, and -- and my concern is that we look at prudence and determine what things need to be brought together and those things that make sense to do at one time we would do at one time. Really what wewre asking for today is for the commission to adopt the master plan with the proposed changes, and we did incorporate all the changes you recommended back in April and that this plan be incorporated as a separate element of the countyws Growth Management Plan. Thatws our primary focus. Thatws our primary goal. Certainly we would like to see some up-front funding to get the plan started, get her off the ground and get some of the things started. But the way the ordinance was passed in February of 1994 -- no, w95, Iwm sorry, when -- when this project first started, our committee goes out of being if you folks approve the plan today, and staff and county will determine the time table, will determine the priorities, and will determine the funding mechanisms as we go forward. So I would like to represent our committee and the residents of Marco Island in the sense that we need the plan approved for the improvement of Marco Island to deal with the infrastructure problems that we have on Marco Island. Insofar as the funding of studies that are needed, wewve identified a couple of studies that would get this off the ground and get this started. I would like not to muddy the water of the plan with that. Certainly I would like to see both of them approved by this -- this board today. Let me just very quickly again for the record review island participation, and then Iwll answer any questions you might have. Wewve -- We believe wewve had close to 4,000 residents of Marco Island participate in one form of meeting or another, and thatls without the double counting. As you know, we have people show up at multiple meetings, and itls kind of hard to weed out how many have been there, but we think welve -- welve come pretty close to 4,000. Certainly county staff involvement, guidance, leadership; certainly Commissioner Norris being our representative has given us a great deal of counsel and advice as welve gone forward. We sponsored a three-day design charrette where we had over 1,000 people participate over the course of those three days. We held 32 open committee meetings. Some meetings we had one or two people -- Iim almost done. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. CORIACI: We had one or two people. Other meetings we had as many as 25 and 30. Newspaper updates, press releases almost every single week; two extensive detailed phone surveys were conducted; and 13 community workshops. So I think welve -- welve given it a real good community effort. Not everybody agrees to everything, but certainly I -- I think the whole island is in agreement that we need to do something to update our infrastructure. Iill be happy to answer any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. Questions? COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: I have one. Just on the -- I certainly donlt have any questions about the plan itself and whether or not it ought to be adopted. I think the only issue is the funding. And I just wonder if youlre familiar with -- In the City of Naples they have the forty-one ten redevelopment program, and they had the Fifth Avenue South where they did something similar and at forty-one -- in the forty-one ten program they need about $100,000 for studies to get the -- the design and get the program off the ground, and the City of Naples has told those property owners to raise half the money, and then they might match half the money, and I just wonder if there's been any discussion of something like that with the -- with the Marco group. MR. CORIACI: We've talked about various forms of funding, but we were primarily focusing on the plan itself since our timetable was starting to run a little bit short, and with the holidays coming into play, we obviously have to deal with the issue of -- of these studies up front, and -- and that's where we've been looking to staff for their assistance and guidance. I was not aware of the forty-one ten program, by the way. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have a question. Mr. -- Mr. Coriaci, you -- you had mentioned that tied to the general elections there will be ballot -- ballot questions regarding various projects. Is it your concept that the electorate will have the option to say yes or no on individual projects or even subcomponents of those projects? How -- How far down the ladder are you going to take this? MR. CORIACI: We had some considerable debate at our last committee meeting as to the definition of a project because, again, if we're looking at one particular element as I used the example before of a road renovation, it might be prudent to include other pieces. So do you now call the drainage, the lighting, the signage, the road, the bicycle paths, the crosswalks all part and call it one project, or is that five or six separate projects? So we -- we were getting into a matter of semantics as to what you call it. It may start out with a need for a particular intersection to be renovated as we are going to have to have done very shortly because of the Winn-Dixie coming in on a -- on a very busy street already. And -- so -- so we got into a give-and-take as to what is defined as a project, and we felt that we would like to be able to include the drainage and the signage and those things if it's all part and parcel of one, if it makes sense financially to do it, economically to do it, and not have to tear the road up two, three, four times to get a job done. So I'm not really giving you an answer, but I'm trying to answer your question. It's a very hard one to answer. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think what you said is that in your -- in your concept and the committee's concept of what people will be able to vote on, if you want to renovate an intersection, they're not going to have the choice of saying, yes, we want a traffic light but, no, we don't want the drainage improved. You're either going to renovate the intersection or you're not. And that's what I think I just heard you say. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, I -- Mr. Coriaci, let me maybe give you a little help. I don't think we -- MR. CORIACI: Help me -- Help me out. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- know that until we come up with our comprehensive transportation plan. I don't think we know the answer to that question. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. That -- That was just an example of a type of project. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah. MR. CORIACI: Yeah. That was -- That's why we're having difficulty in defining projects. We had a resident at our last meeting who was trying to get that word changed around, and we were really having a very difficult time in determining what constitutes a project, and we just felt it's going to have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I'm in a position to start crafting a motion for approval, but do we have any more public speakers on this item? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: What I'd like to do -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: If -- if we're going to -- MR. CORIACI: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll close -- Thank you, Mr. Coriaci. MR. CORIACI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll close the public hearing then. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like to move approval of the Marco Island Master Plan with the following changes: Objective 4.1, the underlined phrase, "any possible," to be deleted. Is that the direction? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah, yeah. Will encourage. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I thought we wanted to change the word "assure" to "encourage." COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I apologize. Okay. "Assure" in the first sentence will be changed to "encourage." COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The rest remains the same. Was that the gist of the discussion earlier? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mmm-hmm. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That's the first element. The second element of the motion is Objective 7.2 is to -- instead of at the end where it says "by 1997," it shall read that .... The plan will be selected by referendum by the residents of Marco Island," period. "All referendums will be scheduled consistent with countywide election cycles." CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any objection to that? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. That sounds fine. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That will be part of the motion. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The third part of the motion is to eliminate -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Objective 5 -- 5.5. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- Policy V.5.1, 5.2 -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Just take out the objective -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. The third element is to eliminate Objective V.5 regarding the toll situation for the Jolley Bridge. I'd like to see Policy V -- I'm sorry -- 6.2.4 and 4.1.5 moved into the same category as those projects identified and dedicated but funding sources have not been identified that are directly above it on page 33 of your packet and to be identified that they are to be determined by referendum. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Which policies? I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Stop on that one. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah. I'm not sure I understood what you said on that -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- on Policy 6.2.4 and 4.1.5. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Under -- on -- And let me make a reference to page 33 in our packet that shows that there are three projects where funding has not been identified, and I believe these are two of those three. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: One of them would go away because it has to do with the Jolley Bridge. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. It -- No. It -- One of those three; you're absolutely correct. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's the other two, investigation to connect -- connection of northwest and southeast waterways and reporting on technologies for wastewater treatment and collection. I think those need to remain as options to the citizens of Marco but to be determined by referendum rather than being deleted by us here today. That's at first blush my response on those two and a part of my motion. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Let me ask Miss Cacchione a question. On our comprehensive transportation plan, do we know what that's going to cost? MS. CACCHIONE: The conceptual plan we know approximately it would cost between a hundred and $150,000. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. But we don't -- we haven't natrowed it down anymore. Let me make a suggestion. Why don't we leave that issue for another time when we can get a little more detailed analysis of what we're going to do there rather than try to -- to pass that today. There's no time -- real time constraint that we need to decide that issue today, is there? MS. CACCHIONE: No. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That we could hold that separately and, say, in a couple of weeks come back and talk about it again? MS. CACCHIONE: Basically you would include that policy to do the conceptual plan in the master plan, but we would decide funding at a later point in time. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Yeah. Well, that's the same thing really. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I -- I will include that change in the motion with the understanding that we will address funding and not leave it solely as a referendum issue. We have utilized staff time on other master plans throughout the county to achieve some type of design scenario, and I would like to see us use staff resources to some extent on this plan also. I believe that's the intent of your statement also. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, I -- It is. I -- I want to make sure that Marco's master plan is treated the same as -- as the other communities who -- in the county who -- who had their own master plan developed, and we want to make sure everybody gets treated equally so -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So my motion will -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- but I'd like to have a little -- I don't think we have the detailed information to start to decide that one today. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My motion will include leaving it in the plan but not specifying the nonbudgeted resource amount. That amount will be determined at a later date. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's a second. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That was the completion of my motion. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That was a second? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: (Nodding head) COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that -- Is that misplaced, Miss Cacchione, as I stated it? MS. CACCHIONE: No, but there is one policy, 8.1.2, that we may want to change the date or -- or take -- It says it's to be completed in 1997. I think we might want to remove that date from that policy just to give us more flexibility in terms of time frames. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it's safe to say we can get that plan -- I -- I don't want to leave it so subjective that it may not get done, but I think "initiated in 1997" would be a -- would at least put it on a time-line that it will be initiated next year. MS. CACCHIONE: Basically it says "completed by '97." I will change that to "initiated by '97." COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll revise my motion to include that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second amends. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Second amends? Okay. If there's no further discussion, I'm ready to call the question, but I'd like to just take a second and -- and to acknowledge and to thank all the people on the committee who worked so hard, and our staff as well, over the last couple of years. I know there's been a lot of discussion on this plan, but it's finally here to the point today that we're getting ready to adopt it. I know it had a great deal of citizen support, and I hope we can find our way to implement the plan in the future and do some good things for Marco Island. I appreciate all the -- the work of the citizens. I know that -- that the community will appreciate those as well so -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I want to echo that, just -- I know a couple of them are here, but there's a huge participation level, just a very impressive process but also an impressive document we came up with at the end. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Hmm-hmm. With that I'll call the question. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you very much. That passes. MR. CORIACI: Thank you, Commissioners. Thank you. Item #12B1 ORDINANCE 96-69 RE PETITION PUD-82-11(4), C. DEAN SMITH OF Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, P.A., REPRESENTING AUDUBON JOINT VENTURE REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE AUDUBON COUNTRY CLUB PUD FOR THE PURPOSES OF ESTABLISHING THE DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDING REGULATION AS IT APPLIES TO TRACTS "B" AND "E", LOTS 1 THROUGH 22 OF THE AUDUBON COUNTRY CLUB SUBDIVISION PLATS - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Take over for the next issue. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. (Commissioner Norris exited the board room.) COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Next on our agenda is Item 12(B), Petition PUD-82-11(4), C. Dean Smith of Q. Grady Minor, regarding an amendment to the Audubon Country Club PUD. Do we have the applicant or agent for the applicant here today? MR. NINO: For the record -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Nine, if you would proceed. MR. NINO: -- my name is Ran Nine. The petition that is before you asks you to amend the Audubon PUD document to provide -- to change the spacing between buildings on two specific tracts within the Audubon PUD that are now largely developed. The PUD provided administrative discretion to allow spacing less than 10 feet, and through that process two areas of Audubon were appreved for development of single-family houses with spacing of 8 feet between the residences. As a consequence of surveying those properties in connection with potential resales, it was found that certain of those buildings were even closer than 8 feet. (Commissioner Norris entered the board room.) MR. NINO: Lending institutions have advised some parties who have -- were attempting to sell their residences that they're not prepared to be comfortable with a PUD document that administratively sets the standards and prefer a definitive standard in the ordinance that addresses the situation that has developed; namely, the buildings that are now less than, in fact, 8 feet, in some cases 7 1/2 feet. The planning commission in reviewing this petition unanimously agreed that the PUD ought to be amended because, in fact, the residences are constructed. We mailed notices to everyone within the PUD. No one objected to establishing a spacing requirement of 7 feet between the residences. As a matter of fact, I guess one -- one of the residents who are attempting to sell their house spoke to the commission and prayed to the commission that indeed this amendment would take place so that they could sell their house. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Nine, why isn't this an after-the-fact variance? Why aren't these a series of after-the-fact variances? MR. NINO: The -- The administrative discretion was utilized to establish a spacing of less than 10 feet. It was established at 8 feet. In fact, some houses were constructed then closer to that. And you're correct that one way of handling this would be to pursue variances from the definitive requirements from the administrative application; however, lending institutions have indicated that their preferred mode of dealing with resales is that the PUD document be amended, and that's what has precipitated this application on the part of the entity that has controlling interest in Audubon. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This -- It appears the problem here is we have been giving administrative approval on something that would prohibit future issuance of title insurance in all likelihood because the condition hasn't existed -- I think it's for seven years in the State of Florida. The companies will not issue title insurance or issue it at a much higher rate. So we need to make a decis -- two decisions here today. One is, do we approve this. And the second is, should we continue to allow administrative decision on setback issues that vary from the minimum in the PUD. It's written in the PUD. It's not -- You know, it's not like anyone did anything wrong, but obviously we're creating difficulties that we have to come back and fix down the road. I would assume from this point forward we would much rather have them amend their PUD than put ourselves in the position of -- of the administrative approval of these types of setback reductions. It's more of an editorial comment. If this case should arise again, we may want to make that recommendation to -- to the applicant. I don't think we have a lot of choice here except that -- You said we did not receive any letters of opposition? MR. NINO: Did not receive any letters of opposition. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And what's the total acreage of the two areas we're affecting? How big are these areas, and how many homes are we affecting? MR. NINO: There are two platted areas each of which contain 1 to 22 lots, so that's 44 lots and 2 -- 2 separate tracts. Two lots are vacant in one tract, and five lots are vacant in a -- in the second tract. I might add that the -- the res -- the amending ordinance is structured to require 4-foot side yards on all of the vac -- on the vacant lots, so that on the vacant lots there would be a minimum spacing of 8 feet which would be consistent with most of the buildings. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What about exterior side yard? In other words, if you were on a corner lot -- Well, that's a front yard, isn't it, if you're on a corner lot? MR. NINO: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're not -- We're not impacting adjacent -- MR. NINO: No. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- development with this decision at all, are we? MR. NINO: No, we're not. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This just -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- applies to the gaps. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Unless the -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've got one question before you make a motion. Mr. Nino, are any of these constructed homes -- I mean, if we're talking about 7 feet, are any of them closer than 3 1/2 feet to the property line? MR. NINO: I don't believe so, but Mr. Dean Smith can -- MR. SMITH: For the record -- MR. NINO: -- discuss that situation. MR. SMITH: -- C. Dean Smith from Grady Minor & Associates representing the applicant. There are only a few cases where it's less than 4 feet at all. The -- The reason that the -- the deviation from 4 feet came into play is that some of the buildings have surface treatments that added some depth to the surface, a banding on the building or stucco treatments. It's -- It's generally a few inches where it's less than 4 feet. So there would not be any that would be less than 3 1/2. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. I -- I just wanted to make sure that somebody wasn't 5 feet from their property line and their neighbor 2 feet and by way of doing that we're allowed to build a much larger square-foot house. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have public speakers on this item? MR. WEIGEL: There are none. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: If there's no questions for petitioner, I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion we approve Petition PUD 82-11(4). COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) (Commissioner Mac'Kie was not present on the dais and did not participate in the above vote.) Item #12C1 RESOLUTION 96-507 RE PETITION SNR-96-9, COLIER ENTERPRISES REQUESTING A STREET NAME FOR AN UNNAMED INGRESS AND EGRESS EASEMENT TO BE NAME COLLIER WAY WEST LOCATED BETWEEN NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE AND SOUTH HORESHOE DRIVE AS PART OF LOTS 7 AND 21, EAST NAPLES INDUSTRIAL PARK - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item is 12(C)(1), Petition SNR-96-9. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'm just curious if there are objections or public speakers and, if not, wondered if you might close the public hearing. MR. WEIGEL: There are no public speakers. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to make a motion we approve Petition SNR-96-9. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) (Commissioners Hac'Kie and Hancock were not present on the dais and did not participate in the above vote, although Commissioner Hancock was in the board room talking with someone.) Item #12C2 RESOLUTION 96-508 RE PETITION SNR-96-8, COLIER ENTERPRISES REQUESTING A STREET N~ME FOR ~N UNNAMED INGRESS ~ND EGRESS EASEMENT TO BE N~ME COLLIER WAY EAST LOCATED BETWEEN NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE ~ND SOUTH HORESHOE DRIVE AS PART OF LOTS 5 ~ND 23, EAST NAPLES INDUSTRIAL PARK - ADOPTED CHAIRM_~N NORRIS: Petition SNR-96-8, similar circumstance. No public speakers? MR. WEIGEL: There are none. COMMISSIONER M_~TTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion we approve Petition SNR-96-8. CHAIRM_~N NORRIS: Okay. I will close the public hearing so that you can do so. COMMISSIONER M_~TTHEWS: I'm sorry. I thought you already had. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we approve Petition SNR-96-8. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) (Commissioner Mac'Kie was not present on the dais and did not participate in the above vote.) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next, 12(C)(3), is a scrivener's error. MR. WEIGEL: Excuse me. Mr. Chairman, for the record could you go back and can we confirm the vote on 12(C)(1), the first of the street name changes? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 12(C)(1) was -- did you -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 4-0. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Did you vote in the affirmative? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: He was in the room. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was off the dais so -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You were in the room though. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You were in the room. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was in the room. My vote was affirmative. Yes. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It was a for vote. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We had an affirmative vote there. Item #12C3 ORDINANCE 96-70 AMENDING ORDINANCE 95-15 CORRECTING A SCRIVERENR'S ERROR IN THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF LAND AREAS BEING REZONED FROM C-1/T AND RSF-3 TO C-3 BY SAID ORDINANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 12, T50S, R25E - ADOPTED 12(C)(3) is an ordinance concerning a scrivener's error. (Commissioner Hac'Kie entered the board room.) COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, if you would like to check if there are speakers and close the public hearing, I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No speakers? MR. WEIGEL: There are none. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I guess not, if we closed it. I'd like to make a motion to approve Ordinance 95-15 to correct a sorivener's error. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Item #12C4 ORDINANCE 96-71 CONSENTING TO THE EXERCISE OF SPECIAL POWERS RELATING TO PARKS AND RECREATION AND SECURITY FOR THE NAPLES HERITAGE COHMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 12(C)(4), a recommendation that the board consider an ordinance consenting to the exercise of special powers relating to Heritage Community Development District. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Help me out with this one because are -- don't we keep getting little piecemeal amendments on this one? I'm -- I'm just -- Are we building something -- building to something here that we can't see if it all comes at once? MR. CONRECODE: Commissioner -- For the record, Tom Conrecode, public works, and the Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, which governs the application for community development districts allows the establishment of the CDD with certain basic powers. And then section 190.012(2) allows you to come back and request special powers for security, recreation, mosquito control, and I think there's one or two others. And so what you're seeing is, subsequent to the establishment of a district, you come back and request those additional powers. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. CONRECODE: And it's consistent with half a dozen other applications you've seen. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If there aren't any public comments on this one, I'm ready to make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we approve the item. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then I'll second it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There is one speaker. HR. WEIGEL: You have one speaker for 12(C)(5), and that's a Mr. Fred Rotman, Riman. (phonetic) MR. RAIHANN: That's Rayman. (phonetic) That's for the next one though. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're on 12(C)(5)? Well, he would be -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We're on 12(C)(4). We're on 12(C)(4). MR. WEIGEL: Excuse me. I got ahead a number. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. He's on the next one. Then we have a motion -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And a second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Item #12C5 RESOLUTION 96-509 RE PETITION AV-96-027, FRED AND JOANNE RAIHANN, OWNERS, REQUESTING VACATION OF A PORTION OF A 10 FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT AND A PORTION OF A 12 FOOT MAINTENANCE EASEMENT LOCATED ON A PORTION OF LOT 8, BLOCK A, OF THE PALT OF HIDDEN HARBOUR AT VICTORIA PARK - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next one is Petition AV-96-027. MR. HULLER: Good afternoon. For the record my name is Russ Mullet with transportation. Item 12(C)(5) is Petition AV-96-027 for the vacation of portions of a 10-foot drainage easement and a 12-foot maintenance easement on Lot 8, Block A of the plat of Hidden Hatbout at Victoria Park, Plat Book 19, pages 52 and 53. We've received letters of no objection from all pertinent users. The petitioner, I believe, is here. They're requesting to build a pool. A resolution was prepared and approved by the county attorney's office in accordance with Florida Statute 177.101, and staff based on the recommendations is recommending approval based on letters of no objection. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. This doesn't get us into setback concerns? MR. HULLER: No. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Two questions. The item says, "Portion of a 12-foot maintenance easement," but the actual maintenance easement is 20 feet; isn't that correct? Shouldn't it read, "Portion of a 20-foot maintenance easement"? Because the remaining setback from edge of pool to edge is 12 feet. MR. HULLER: That's right. You're correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So we need to make sure that correction is done. And was one of those letters of no objection from the association responsible for maintenance of the lake? MR. HULLER: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. If we can make that change, that will answer my question. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We'll give Mr. Raimann a chance to come up here and talk us out of it if he likes. MR. RAIHANN: Well, I just -- For the record my name is Fred Raimann. It's R-a-i-m-a-n-n. And that's what I wanted to just point out, was that it was incorrectly stated as 12 feet instead of 20 feet. We just wanted to get the -- you know, for the record straight on that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you for that. If that's all, then I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to move approval with the correction; that is, the -- a portion of a 20-foot maintenance easement. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Item #12C6 RESOLUTION 96-510 RE PETITION AV-96-026, EDWARD R. GRIFFITH, P.E., AS AGENT FOR OWNER, WCI COHMUNITIES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, REQUESTING VACATION OF PORTIONS OF TWO SEVEN AND ONE-HALF FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENTS LOCATED ON A PORTION OF THE PLAT OF PELICAN HARSH UNIT 12 - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item, Petition AV-96-026. MR. HULLER: Item 12(C)(6) is a public hearing for Petition 96-026 for vacation of two 7 1/2 drainage easements in Pelican Marsh, Unit 12, Lots 35 and 36. A person has bought both lots, and they want to move the drainage easement from the center of the lot to one side of the lot. They've repiped the lot. Staff recommends approval. One thing -- I've got drainage easement -- the replacement drainage easement that needs to be replaced in the -- the original drainage easement. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Mr. Mullet, let me ask you, are they making one parcel of property out of this, or could at some point in the future these two properties be sold separately? MR. HULLER: One parcel. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: One -- They're making one parcel. Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And -- I'm sorry. You said that the replacement easement, the -- the relocation and dedication of that as a drainage easement is going to occur when? MR. HULLER: Today with this item. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. It's inclusive? MR. HULLER: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Both are included. Okay. I understand. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve AV-96-026. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Item #12C7 RESOLUTION 96-511/CWS-96-13 CONFIRMING THE PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL AS THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR THE ROYAL COVE SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 12(C)(7), recommendation to adopt a resolution confirming that the preliminary assessment roll is the final assessment roll for the Royal Cove sanitary sewer improvements. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We might be able to save Mr. Clemons some time here. Any surprises, Mr. Clemons? MR. CLEMONS: None, Commissioner, other than I was asked -- asked to point out that the funding that's identified in here would -- would begin immediately and that any interest on that would be returned back to Fund 341. Other than that, you've been going through this one for quite a while now. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes, we have. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've got one -- I've got one question, please. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a speaker as well. Go ahead, Ms. -- Ms. Matthews, with your -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The -- the -- it -- It says here the assessment on a 60-foot lot will be approximately $37. I'm -- I'm presuming that's per month. MR. CLEMONS: Yes, ma'am. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: And for how long a period of time? MR. CLEMONS: This is set up for a 20-year period. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Twenty years? MR. CLEMONS: Yes, ma'am. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. I -- I just wanted to clarify that because it's not in the executive summary. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's have our public spea -- speaker. MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Boyce. MR. BOYCE: My name is Tim Boyce, B-o-y-c-e. We've been on this issue for quite a while now. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We sure have. MR. BOYCE: I don't know what I'm doing anymore, to be honest with you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, that puts you right at home here with this group. MR. BOYCE: Yeah, it does. My wife and I, we moved to Naples about four years ago after Hurricane Andrew. We bought a business, went into business for ourselves. One of the preclusions that we made was the investment in our business as opposed to the cost of our housing. The property assessment to this property is approximately $42,000. The current assessment on our lot, which happens to be a 90-foot frontage, is $8,035. That puts about -- the ratio of about 20 percent on that -- on that property. Obviously where we've chosen to live is less than a desirable neighborhood but yet neverthe -- nevertheless still a quality neighborhood, especially from areas that we came from in Dade County. Where do you go from here? About -- Basically it boils down to a cost factor versus a service which I feel that -- prudently that you all took very objectively and cleared these things up. My tax roll assessment has gone up $8,000. My neighbor directly next to me is on septic. As a consequence, resale value of my home is such that it makes it a hardship. In order to establish a resale, I'd have to ask for a higher price for the same equivalent parcel of land and home quality. All the rest of the homes on the street are assessed at fifty-three, fifty-seven at this point in time. That's a total of -- it's questionable at the moment -- 28 lots, including mine, which would make it 29. I realize that the county has made every effort here to rectify this. We're very happy to be on line. I don't think there's a problem there. Being a Florida native, I understand quite in depth a lot more than maybe a lot of people who've come to Florida in recent years about the quality of the water, the shallowness of our aquifer, and the importance of this. At the same time, we still have the greater portion of Royal Cove subdivision or Unit 1 which is still on septic. A lot of people are skeptic in Unit 1 that the sewers will not come down their way some day in the future. I think this was handled as appropriately as possible by the county, but it's awful hard for me to swallow it at a 20 percent cost ratio. Ideally there is no perfect solution. I don't know how I proceed in getting that number down, but investing everything I've got into a business that is thriving at this point that is still a long way from highly successful is digging into my pocket even further. It's raised my property taxes. Now I'm on a monthly sewage fee. After financing for 20 years, that raw number comes up to $12,000. All these things considered, it kind of puts me in a position where -- what do you do and where do you turn. It's difficult at best. I happen to like Collier County very much, have been coming here for many years, wishing to leave Dade County behind, which I so did. In a nutshell it's a -- it's a strong impact. We want to stay in Collier County, and I think if you check out our business and our backgrounds, that you will realize that we're very committed to the area, and we're very upstanding in the community as well as to the business community. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That -- That was your time, sir. MR. BOYCE: Yes. I realize that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Boyce is -- MR. BOYCE: I've been here since 9 a.m. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So have we. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Boyce is very -- done a very good job of framing the decision we were put in. When Mr. Vetter abandoned his situation and abandoned your neighborhood, our list of options went from one to none in a heartbeat. What we tried to do in this, knowing that the dollar figure is going to be fairly high, is looked at what you would have paid if you'd continued on Mr. Vetter's system in a monthly bill versus what you would pay if we went in and did the repairs that had to be necessary to ensure you the service that -- that you deserve. I believe those numbers are fairly similar as they're presented here today. You've hit the issue that we can't solve, and that is, how do we -- how do we eliminate that $8,000 nut if you would go to sell your house, and there just isn't any way for us to solve that. Mr. Clemons racked his brain on that, as did I with the county attorney at times when we were going through this initially and just couldn't come up with a better answer for you. So as much as your situation is -- is appreciated and understood, our options are -- are extremely limited. What we did try to do is keep that monthly bill down about where you would have paid had Mr. Vetter not abandoned his plant and abandoned you as a community, and that was really the only goal we could latch onto to try and make sure we didn't price you out of your house but we would -- MR. BOYCE: Well, that effectively has already taken place per se. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, we weren't given a choice just like you weren't. MR. BOYCE: Right. Obviously I'm here to labor this point as far as I can. Obviously the only thing it's doing is coming directly out of my pocket. As a result, I don't know what to say either. I mean, as -- as one -- as one citizen it's a position where I guess I'm the odd man out. I just -- By the grace of God or a thunderbolt -- I don't know which is stronger at this point -- this is where I stand. As a result -- I mean, I don't -- I don't know how unique my circumstance is as a whole. It's -- It's definitely not washing well with me or my wife. It's a conversation that we don't even like to engage in. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Understood, Mr. Boyce. I'm just trying to convey to you that we have the same options you do: None. MR. BOYCE: Well, I'm just trying to realize that if we're in this as a whole and this is a special consideration, this whole package, then why am I being subjugated to being put out as one individual on that whole 29 of paying $3,000 more than anybody else? Why shouldn't we go ahead and wash this in a percentile basis or -- whatever the total number is? MR. CLEHONS: Tim Clemons, wastewater director. Mr. Boyce, I believe, is -- is one of two 90-foot lots in that whole assessment. The rest are smaller. Therefore, his assessment per front footage is higher which was the method the board chose to go with. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That -- That's true. I mean, we -- we chose to go with the front-foot benefit program, and that's what we went with, and you and a neighbor have 90 feet. My question is this -- this 20-year debt and pay-back on this, is that on the property owner, or is that running with the property? MR. CLEHONS: It runs with the property. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So if -- if he were to decide two or three years from now to sell his property, he's not required to pay the debt off with the sale of the property? His new owner will merely pick up the remaining life of this assessment? MR. CLEHONS: What we have generally seen on assessment projects is that it becomes a negotiating point between the buyer and the seller as to who pays what. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. But, I mean, it -- MR. CLEHONS: It runs with the property. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It runs with the property -- MR. CLEHONS: Yes, ma'am. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- and not with the owner? MR. CLEMONS: With the property. MR. BOYCE: Thus lies the problem in the fact that part of the street has been singled out now. There's higher property values for something that can't be sold for anything less on the rest of the street. It creates a unique circumstance. This is supposed -- This is a single-access street that only has one access. The last 29 homes, particularly mine, have been hit with a financial burden that makes it virtually unsellable. I'm going to take a loss. If I was to sell today, I'd take -- I'd brunt the -- the loss of it. It's not the fact that this note carries on. The burden is with the property, and as a result I have to sell the property, and they realize that that property is -- is escalated in whatever -- whether it's a realistic value or not. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, thank you, Mr. Boyce. I think you -- you've stated your case very well. MR. BOYCE: And what is the result of that? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, the result is you need to sit down, and we'll take a vote on this. MR. BOYCE: Okay. Appreciate it. MR. DORRILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's all the public speakers? I'll close the public hearing. MR. CLEHONS: Commissioners, one other thing I'm reminded to advise you of is that there will be some additional administrative paperwork as a part of this item reimbursing one fund from another as just part of the overall financing, and as that financing is put into place, you may see some budget amendments associated with this. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Clemons, at such time that Royal Cove 1 -- if they should get a 50-percent-plus-1 signature campaign to go onto sewer, would there be any reimbursement to the folks in Royal Cove 2 for those costs that -- that are -- that they bore by themselves that may have been shared? MR. CLEHONS: The way it's set up today, Commissioner, no. It was -- It's something we could look at at that time. Remember that if we serve Royal Cove 1 in the future, they're going to pay an assessment cost for all of the improvements that go on in front of their homes at that time. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, seeing as how we weren't really given a choice by Mr. Vetter -- and I appreciate Mr. Boyce's situation but can do absolutely nothing about it here today. I cannot ask the taxpayer to pay his bill for him. So with that I'm going to move adoption of resolution confirming the preliminary assessment roll. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Chairman, was that a unanimous vote? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes, it was. MR. CLEHONS: Thank you. Item #13A1 RESOLUTION 96-512 RE PETITION SV-96-4, HR. GENE VACCARO REPRESENTING SWAMP BUGGY, INC., REQUESTING A 90 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 150 FEET OF ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIRED FOR DIRECTORY SIGNS TO 60 FEET - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item is 13(A)(1), Petition SV-96-4. Hr. Vaccaro. MR. HULHERE: Good afternoon. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Hulhere, before you get started -- MR. HULHERE: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- I just -- I highlighted one line in the executive summary, and that is, the applicant is requesting to replace the existing sign within this easement with a similar sign. Is that -- MR. HULHERE: That's -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- accurate? MR. HULHERE: That's correct. And your staff supports this request based on the fact that there's high volumes of traffic. A lot of people are unfamiliar with the location of the Sports Park, and they just have the long 60-foot easement. MR. DORRILL: No speakers, Mr. Chairman. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is anything -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No speakers? MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is anything being done to improve the sign in some way? MR. HULHERE: There's a -- it's not a color representation, but there is a representation. It would be a directory sign. If it was a pole sign, we'd be asking for a pole cover, but as a directory sign, no. Mr. Vaccaro may want to speak to the issue of what they're going to do to -- to actually improve it, but by virtue of the fact that it will at least be a new sign and -- and -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The drawing is better than what's there so if it's the board's -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If the chairman would close -- care to close the public hearing -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to make a motion to approve Petition No. SV-96-4. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Vaccaro, for your enlightened presentation today. MR. VACCARO: Thank you. Item #13A2 PETITION A-96-5, APPEAL OF STAFF'S INTERPRETATION OF THE PARKWAY CENTER PUD DOCUMENT (PUD-94-3-1) WITH REGARD TO SPECIFIC USES AND WHETHER OR NOT THOSE USES HAY BE DEEMED PERMITTED USES WITHIN THE PUD UNDER THE LANGUAGE CONTAINED IN SECTION 3.3, PERMITTED USES, NUMBER 21, WHICH READS: "ANY OTHER COHMERCIAL USES OR PROFESSIONAL USE WHICH IS COMPARABLE WITH THE FOREGOING USES" - APPEAL GRAiNTED WITH CHANGE CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item, 13(A)(2), Petition A-96-5, an appeal of staff's interpretation on the Parkway Center PUD. MR. HULHERE: Thank you. For the record again, Bob Hulhere, current planning section manager. This is an appeal of staff's interpretation relative to the Parkway Center PUD which is located within the Golden Gate professional -- Golden Gate Parkway professional office commercial overlay district, and the restrictions on -- on uses that are placed in that district are -- are found within the Comprehensive Growth Management Plan, and they are mirrored in the Land Development Code, and then again when the PUD was adopted, those same restrictions are found within the PUD. Basically the restrictions limit the uses to professional office-type uses. There is, however, a standard phrase that says "any other use which is comparable with the foregoing," and I believe in June we received the request to take a look at that, and staff did look at it. Most of the uses that were requested were of a retail nature. On -- In your agenda package, page 3 is a list of those uses in a table that talks about -- that -- that relays the staff's position on those. We did find that a few of those uses would be permissible as sort of accessory to office; however, the majority we did not feel could be considered comparable to the -- to the permitted uses, the professional office-type uses. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask you a couple of questions, Mr. Hulhere. Some of these clearly don't fit in with the office -- professional office-type you're talking about; however, some of them -- and I'm thinking like the hearing aid center -- the very first one says would be permitted but only in conjunction with physician's office, and I'm wondering, would a hearing aid center actually generate more traffic than a physician's office? MR. HULHERE: No. I don't -- I don't think it would. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And as I worked down the line, some of these I agree shouldn't be permitted, but medical supplies again permitted in conjunction with the physician's office. I don't know. Eyeglass shop -- I don't know that's going to generate any more traffic than a physician's office. So I -- Those, I guess, I'm looking for some rationale. Let me tell you about two others too, but those three all seem like -- At my glance anyway, they kind of fit in with what was intended here. The other two, TV office and radio office/studio -- MR. HULHERE: Right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- if there's no tower frankly -- and I don't know. Maybe a studio for some people is considered an office but -- you know, if -- if someone is going in and cutting commercials or doing things, as long as there's not a large antenna there, I don't know -- That's certainly not going to generate a lot of traffic and -- and -- so I -- I don't really have -- even if you had -- You don't necessarily have to have your tower immediately connected to your broadcast studio, and -- and I don't really have any objection -- I'm not sure I see that as anything other than professional use if you have someone in a studio recording a broadcasting as long as there's not a big tower out on Golden Gate Parkway. MR. HULHERE: I think that we agree with that and -- and -- and that was our finding, that we said permitted as office only, studio as well. Just so long as the tower and those types of activities weren't going to be on the site, we would permit those. With regard to some of the other ones that you'd mentioned, the hearing aid center and the medical supplies sales, part of what -- we really looked at less the traffic generation, although I would agree with you. Those would not necessarily generate any more -- Some doctors' offices generate a lot of traffic. What we looked at more was the -- the language that created the overlay district that -- that called for professional office-type uses, and I think some of these could be interpreted certainly by the board to be more accessory to a professional office district and others not. Others are purely retail. So that was our rationale more so than looking at the office -- the traffic generation. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In an attempt to get specific, I went down, and my -- my criteria was turnover; you know, which of these do you pull up, go in, get what you want and leave. That's obviously retail, and that wasn't the intent of the district. Which of these offer services that are similar in nature and time commitment to what a professional office may be, and what I came up with is hearing aid center, massage therapy. Those are things that have similar time frames, and the optical have similar time frames. Many times a doctor is involved in the -- in an optical shop where they give exams on site and so forth. I don't have a problem with those. Travel agency, medical supplies, TV office and radio office studios with no towers, those are the ones I came up with that all seemed, you know, similar in nature that didn't have a much different approach to them. The rest I can see where they're, you know, kind of in-and-out, pure retail-type situations, and those I'm less comfortable with. You were -- Commissioner Constantine, were more involved in the formulation of this district, and I'll rely on your -- your history of that, but that would be my -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Why -- Why don't we do this. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- first comment. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Why don't we hear from the public speakers, and then we can amend these suggestions if necessary. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. We have one. Thomas Grant. MR. GRANT: Good afternoon. My name for the record is Tom Grant. The reason that we've come back to ask you to expand our usages there is because over there -- actually, the 13, 14 years we've been at this, originally when it was adopted there was a whole different theme and criteria we were working with whereas now we've dealt with -- We've got a couple of shopping centers out there where they have taken the professionals from us that we probably would have had in our district that are now located in the shopping center because I've been personally contacting them over the last two years, and the whole market condition has changed out there drastically. We're not trying to ask for, you know, a really high turnover thing or a high turnover retail business out there. We're just looking for something that would be a compatible mix with what is across the street from us and basically down the street and we -- or personally I've talked with staff, and -- and throughout the years, you know, what we've tried to do out there is do exactly what -- what we felt we've done. Number one, we've stopped everybody having a driveway. We've combined that. So I'm one lot owner out of six, but I share one driveway. That was a very big stipulation back when this all originally started. Number two, the architectural theme, we've already had that in place. We've already gone over that with tile roofs, color themes. The third thing that basically we're all concerned about out there was the mix of the use so that it didn't become -- What everybody was scared about was 40th Terrace. When that went, it just went like wildfire, and all of a sudden you had ten buildings just stacked up right next to each other. We have never from the intent of this ever tried to do that. All we're trying to do is we want to blend which we feel is the main street of Golden Gate, and we are at the beginning of it, and we're not trying to do anything. All we're trying to do is get a mix in there and get something developed and started in there and get those duplexes out of there and basically that's -- All this criteria we've met with the county, and we've done. It's just that some of the businesses we're asking for -- some of the other business mix we're looking for is just to help the projects because I can't put, let's say, an eyeglass center in unless there's a doctor in that PUD the way, I think, I understand it. And I'm only one lot. I'm only one building. I'm less than 4,000 square feet, but that doesn't necessarily mean I can't conform with the other five lots and make a beautiful complex there. We've got the pedestrian pockets. We've got little satee areas for the people to sit and eat and all that. You know, we're trying to do what's right there, but then yet we're all trying to do it all together, and that's the only thing I've asked, is appeal to open it up maybe a little bit so that again we can accommodate some of the businesses that would probably come to the area whereas -- Like I say, I mean, I've tried doctors, dentists. Now the medical, that's a -- that's, as you all know, in a big turmoil, so how many medical things are we going to get out there? I've already contacted a lot of them. So, again, that's kind of our situation. And, again, I'm just asking if there's a possibility to be with staff and try to open it up a little bit. We're not looking for the 7-11, and we don't want that theme because it can't be there anyways. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Some of the board knows the history, and some may not, but the parkway was originally zoned way back when for multi-family, and the Golden Gate community in the late '80s, as we saw what happened to Sunshine and some of the others, made it very clear that's not how we wanted the gateway to the community to develop, and with the Golden Gate Master Plan, we've put in zoning for professional and office-type things. I -- I disagree with Tom only on one thing, and that is, when he says we want to have the same uses that perhaps the neighbors across the street have and -- MR. GRANT: Well -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and -- I don't agree with the tavern or some of the other -- MR. GRANT: Right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- things that are across the way, but I think we can stay within the intent of the Golden Gate Master Plan, and that being professional off -- an office space and include a number of these, and -- and some we've mentioned. And some I'm going to go ahead and mention the ones I've -- I think and see if there's any objection. The hearing aid center, the massage therapy, TV office/studio -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Massage therapy? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I would like to see that to be only physical therapy offices. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, that's fine, and I think in terms of that -- MR. GRANT: That's -- That's what it's intended as part of the chiropractors and some of the doctors now have -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't know what you guys are picturing but -- MR. GRANT: I don't know, but that's the way it's -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: New Orleans. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's illegal no matter what. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: There's a lot of neighborhoods that have camcorders going on outside of some of these establishments and just as soon keep that from happening. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think -- I think we can probably include that -- include it -- if we include massage therapy, we can make that very clear that it's a licensed massage. And what I think of is with acupuncture and massage and chiropractic and so on. MR. GRANT: Right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Certainly not a massage parlor. MR. GRANT: No. Excuse me. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: TV office/radio, radio office/studio, travel agency, medical supplies, and eyeglass shop. I think with anything -- any -- any of these others on here we do cross the line into the retail, but I think all those I mentioned can easily be categorized as office professional. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And another reason for not crossing that line is the parking requirement. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If we start getting retail establishments in there, it changes the parking requirement for the structure. So we -- we want to be very, very careful -- MR. GRANT: Well -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that what we're proposing generations are similar, and I think they are. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So you named six items? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Seven? What was the seventh? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did you get eyeglass shop? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Medical supplies? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hearing aid center, massage therapy -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't get eyeglass shop. Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- TV office, radio office -- Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I've got it. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Are you specifically eliminating beauty and barber salons? Since they're on the same line, I just want to clarify that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes, I am. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. GRANT: How about the photography and that type? Again, I think that if -- if -- if any type of a retail that would be allowed in there, if -- if there's expanded parking, that makes a building smaller, so it wouldn't actually I don't think hurt the lots if there was -- again, because again they're low density, some of the things we're trying to ask for. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: How -- how is -- Under art and frame studio, how do we come up with tax return preparation services? I know it's an art form to some, but they usually wind up in jail. MR. HULHERE: No, no, no, no. I'll explain that. I'll explain that. Where you see in the "similar uses permitted in the PUD," under that SIC code -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I see. Okay. MR. HULHERE: -- those uses also fall in and we -- and obviously those are permitted within the PUD. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was going to say along that same line, maybe Commissioner Matthews wasn't so far off because the photographic studio is on the same line as massage therapy. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- massage therapy. MR. HULHERE: And -- And that is a permitted use -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. MR. HULHERE: -- right now -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So -- MR. HULHERE: -- in the opinion of staff. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So you understand, photography studios are a permitted use, Tom. So that's -- that's already in there. I -- I'm -- I'm comfortable with -- with that list, and the rest I'm -- I'm not as comfortable with because, again, I think we cross the retail line which is what we don't want to create as a retail center there, as I understand the history. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have any further questions from the board? MR. DORRILL: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion we grant the appeal in the parts of hearing aid center, massage therapy, TV office/studio, radio office/studio, travel agency, medical supplies, and eyeglass shop. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll -- Will you clarify no tower with TV office/studio and radio office? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll be happy to stipulate to that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Item #13A3 RESOLUTION 96-513 RE PETITION CUP-96-16, DR. NENO SPAGNA OF THE FLORIDA URBAN INSTITUTE, INC., REPRESENTING THE APOSTOLIC ASSEMBLY OF THE FAITH IN CHRIST JESUS REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE "1" OF THE "E" ESTATES ZONING DISTRICT FOR A CHURCH AND CHURCH RELATED FACILITIES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF SAN MARCOS BOULEVARD - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item, Petition -- MR. GRANT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- CU-96-16. MR. NINO: My name is Ron Nino, your current planning section. The petition that's before you requests your approval of a Conditional -- Conditional Use 1 of the E estates zoning district. Conditional use 1 is a conditional use for a church and church-related facilities. The property is located on the east side of San Marcos Boulevard. Here's Radio Road. We're about midway between Santa Barbara and Airport. The property is zoned E estates. Property to the north, east, south, and west are zoned E estates, and for that matter, this entire piece of geography in here is all zoned E estates, with one exception. This property was platted and rezoned a couple of years ago to an RSF-2 district. (indicating) All of the land in this area is within the urban-residential designated area, and that presumes that the land will be rezoned to some urban-residential classification. So it's not unreasonable to expect that eventually all of the land in this area may indeed take the form of that RSF-2 zoning district. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Unless, of course, we alter the future land use element as requested by this board -- MR. NINO: I stand -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- during some public hearings. MR. NINO: I stand corrected. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Nino, there doesn't seem to be on the map -- there doesn't seem to be a road to this property. MR. NINO: San Marcos Boulevard. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Where does it go? MR. NINO: This is San Marcos Boulevard. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Oh, okay. MR. NINO: This is St. Clair Shores. Yes, there is a roadway system -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. NINO: -- public roadway system. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That goes down to Radio Road only about -- what? -- a mile or so? Just plus or minus. I'm just -- MR. NINO: It's -- It's about 3/4 of a mile from Radio Road. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. NINO: Churches -- As you know, churches are allowed uses in the urban residential -- residentially designated area; therefore, when we talk about consistency with the future land use element should you approve this type of conditional use, that that action would be consistent with the future land use element of the Growth Management Plan. Specifically when we deal with conditional uses, there is a finding of fact that is precedent to any recommendation to support or -- support the granting of the conditional use. That criteria is the direction of the staff report under the same criteria that the planning commission must address in making a recommendation to you. Basically we find -- the planning commission -- and the planning commission agrees -- that while the church is a relatively passive use of land, nevertheless it has peaks -- peak-usage periods within it that do present incompatible relationships with adjoining property, particularly as that adjoining property or neighborhood begins to fill in as a more standard residential development as most would suspect would be the condition on San Marcos Boulevard and St. Clair Shores Drive. The planning commission feels that -- that churches ought to be within close prox -- ought to go on arterial roads or collector roads or at least very close to the intersection of an arterial road and a collector road so that that traffic can be diffused very quickly and -- and have minimal impact on -- on nearby residential areas. That was basically the findings of the planning commission, that the weight of the findings of fact bore more heavily on a recommendation to suggest that this property ought not to be approved for a conditional use due to incompatibility. There were a number of persons present at the planning commission meeting who expressed opposition to this petition. Your executive summary package contains all of the letters and -- and -- and the -- and petitions in objection to this -- this petition. The planning commission at their public hearing unanimously recommended against approving the conditional use. I would be happy to attempt to answer any questions you may have. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, now might be an appropriate time to point out that I have had communication on this item; however, as required by Florida State Statute, I'll base my decision solely on the information provided during this public hearing. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And I will do the same. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As part of that, I also want to introduce these two letters into the public record. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Other than receiving letters, that's the only -- I'll base my decision on information presented today. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Exactly. Ditto for me. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Nine -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's all I've received also, is -- is some letters. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have nine public speakers on this item. Our court reporter needs a short break. So we'll let her have a five-minute break, and then we'll come back and hear these public speakers. (A short break was held.) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll reconvene our county commission meeting. Are we ready for the public speakers? MR. WEIGEL: Okay. First speaker, Mr. Neno Spagna. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: While Mr. Spagna is coming up, I'd like to remind the public speakers that we allow five minutes each, and if you're going to be repetitious, if you could hold it shorter please, we'd get the message a little quicker than you might think, so we'd appreciate it. Go ahead, Mr. Spagna DR. SPAGNA: Okay. My name is Neno Spagna, and I'm here in behalf of the petitioner, and with the permission of the board, I'd like to withhold my comments until after everyone else has spoken so I will be in a position to answer some of their questions. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, Mr. Spagna, you know, if we have some questions, we could call you back up and ask you, but we'd prefer for you -- We've given you your five, if you -- if you'd go ahead, please. DR. SPAGNA: Okay. Well, I'll be happy to if that's what you'd prefer. I have some drawings here that I'd like to use. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have one question. What's the street? St. Clair Shores Road, where is it in relationship to San Marcos? UNKNOWN VOICE: The next street parallel, right parallel with the next street over. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm sorry. That's got to be on the record. Mr. Nino, where -- where is -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Next street over, parallel. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- St. -- St. Clair? It's behind the church? MR. NINO: St. Clair Shores Road? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. St. Clair Shores. Okay. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The next street. MR. NINO: Directly east of San Marcos -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We need you on the record, Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Sorry. Directly east of San Marcos. These are original 5-acre tracts. It's 660 and 660, so 1,320 feet directly east of San Marcos Boulevard. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. I -- I just wanted the record to show that the petition we have in the packet here, that there -- these people are relatively close. DR. SPAGNA: First of all, I would like to just say a few words about the setting that this church is proposed for. You probably can't -- probably can't tell too well from the drawing, but this isn't a very rural type of a setting. Host of the lots in there are 5-acre lots. As Mr. Nino had mentioned earlier, there is a small subdivision to the northwest of the subject property which was rezoned to single-family homes, and I believe there are four homes on the original property. The closest house -- This property is completely surrounded with the trees, mostly pine trees. There are a few other trees in there. The closest house is approximately 800 feet from the center of the subject property. The area -- All of the vegetation will be left in place as a buffer against any of the surrounding areas. The total coverage of the property will be less than 50 percent of the amount of area in the entire parcel of land. The -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry to interrupt, Neno. Will you just say that last sentence again? I didn't hear you. DR. SPAGNA: I think the -- there's -- about 50 percent of the property will be cleared for parking for the buildings, etc., and the rest will be left in its natural state -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. DR. SPAGNA: -- to afford separation and privacy. If I might just recap a little bit some of the things that happened at the planning commission because to just say that they turned it down, I think, gives the wrong picture. I think they were very hesitant to turn it down, simply because churches do belong in a residential area, number one. Number two, this is an area that is sparsely populated. The church will begin with approximately 30 parishioners. Eventually we had to show the complete buildout which will probably occur within the next five to ten years, and I think this concerned many of the surrounding neighbors as much as anything else because they thought we were going to go in there initially with a church with a capacity of 400 seats, which we will not. It will start out as a very small building, as you can see on the plan, and eventually they will have a facility there that at buildout will accommodate hopefully 400 people. Some of the things that were -- that were brought up by the people who spoke against it was that this -- the people who will be using this facility do not live in the neighborhood, and I wish that it could be that we could build a church for every neighborhood just for the people that live within that service area but we can't. I don't think I've ever -- Is my five minutes up already? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, we asked some questions during your five minutes, so we'll -- DR. SPAGNA: Oh. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- let you go on for another minute or so. DR. SPAGNA: And what I wanted to say was, I've never belonged to a congregation where everybody that went to it lived within that neighborhood, and I still don't today. And on Sundays right now I have to stand up in the aisle instead of being able to sit in my pews and kneel as I usually do because we have a large influx of people. Host of them don't even live in Collier County, but I'm glad that they're there, and I'm very happy to be able to make accommodations for them. The point I'm making is that I doubt that we will ever see a church built that will be used exclusively for the people that live in that immediate area. Traffic was raised. I just don't -- In my mind, I'm not able to see this as being any kind of a detrimental traffic impact since it's such a small congregation and since Radio Road has built -- four-laned, and I just don't see once a Sunday having services having an impact on this intersection. As a matter of fact, there will be more people living in this area in single-family homes that will have a greater impact than what this church ever will have. I did talk with Mr. Archibald prior to the meeting, and -- and they had mentioned that normally they require participation in signalization if it's ever needed at Radio Road, and we certainly have no objection to that. If the day comes when it will require signalization, well, then we will be able -- we will be willing to pay our fair share of the amount. I guess the last thing I want to say since my time is almost over since you've been generous enough to give me extra time is that I don't want to minimize the feelings of the views of the people that live in that area. Certainly they have every right to be up here to express their views, and we have every right to try to contribute or try to minimize whatever impact we might have on them. We have done this. The second thing though -- and I don't want to minimize their right to be here, but I don't at the same time want to lose the right that -- or lose the fact that we have a right to be here too. The comprehensive plan says we have a right to be here. We have met all the requirements. Nowhere in the report is there any -- any statement in which it says that we're not compatible with the neighborhood, that we have not done everything that we possibly can to fit in harmoniously and be an asset to the neighborhood. So with that in mind, I still feel very strongly that this church will fit into this neighborhood. We're willing to meet whatever requirements are necessary to do that, and I certainly do want to thank the board for their consideration of our petition, and I will be back if you have any questions. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Spagna, I do have a question. You said that ultimately at buildout you would anticipate a sanctuary that would hold 400 people. The drawing before us, how many seats would that sanctuary hold? DR. SPAGNA: I would say probably -- You mean the one we're currently contemplating? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The one that's a part of our package that we're looking at that has a 50 percent site coverage, how many seats does that sanctuary -- is that sanctuary anticipated to hold? It's the exact same drawing you have right up there. DR. SPAGNA: I would say probably in the neighborhood of 100. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So what -- And here's the problem we have in some of these, that if -- if what we are talking about are neighborhood churches that have 100 seats and they stay that size, I have a real difficult time with -- with a lot of people saying this doesn't fit in because they really are in -- in scale and character fairly non-intensive. The concern I think that's valid is we're talking about a quadrupling of what the initial sanctuary size and impacts are, and that's -- that's what we have to, I think, consider here, is the ultimate buildout of this -- this facility. We understand you will have to come before us for that to happen because an expansion of any conditional use has to be readvertised, but by the same token, if that is a goal, I think we need to consider that in the initial adoption of any conditional use. DR. SPAGNA: Mr. Hancock, it is considered. Everything that is in the report applies to the final development. It does not apply to the initial development. We have to do the traffic impact statement. We have to do the layout, the parking. Everything -- the water and sewer -- is based on the final buildout. So, yes, you're correct. It should be considered since it will not be coming back again before the board if it's approved, and we have done that, and it has been reviewed in that manner and approved in that sense by everyone that's looked at it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You said something important to me. If we approve this today, it will be approved for a 400-seat sanctuary? DR. SPAGNA: That is correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Where -- What are the boundaries of that sanctuary? Because what I have in front me shows two buildings. One is a church, and one is a multi-purpose meeting room with offices. DR. SPAGNA: The -- it will be -- The multi-use facility will be used as part of -- to accommodate the 400 seats. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: So this is the physical limitation of the building footprint? DR. SPAGNA: That is correct, unless we come back in and you all approve something differently. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next, please. MR. DORRILL: Reverend Aldana. And then Ms. Mata, Elizabeth Mata, you'll follow this gentleman. REVEREND ALDANA: Good afternoon. My name is Reverend A1 Aldana, A-l-d-a-n-a. I represent the church as the pastor. I came here from Miami about five years ago, and one of the reason that I had is to buy a piece of land to build a church in the meantime, and I still have my vision. This is my third time that I find a piece of property, and it's been pretty tough. I tried Golden Gate Estates, and I couldn't do it there because there were no more churches allowed there. We tried Sabal Palm Road, and it was wetland. So we could do nothing about either. And this is another piece that I find, and we submit the petition according -- with the stuff. This property met all the requirement of the county. It's on a paved road. It's on an estates zoning. That means the church can be built there. And it's a 5-acres parcel and also the price because of our budget. So those are the concerns that I had to submit the petition. Last time -- Last month we were here in a meeting, and I took notes of the concern of some of the people that are here, and I would like to mention some of them. First of all, they mentioned about the children. Children is one thing that I love. I brought some of the children today, even my own child, because we love children. So this church will be to serve the -- the community and to serve the neighbors, and we're going to take care of our children, also the children of the neighborhood. So that concern, it concern me also. Also, the property value. The building we're planning to build is going to cost about $250,000. So this is not going to be a shelter. That means whoever is adjacent to this property is not going to lose any value of the property. It's going to increase the value, to my knowledge. The noise. Somebody was concerned about the noise. Well, we planning to put the building about 150 foot from the -- San Marcos Boulevard, but if we have to put it farther away, we -- we will do that. We will do that. And adjacent to the -- to the neighbors, the building is going to be about 300 feet to the neighbor. So the noise is -- is another thing. The traffic. We're going to use the building, let's say, twice a week; Wednesday, 7:30 p.m., which most of the people here are going to be home resting, and then Sunday from 1:00 p.m., which most of the people at that time are -- are resting. But the traffic, as I mentioned, I don't think it's going to have a big impact because we might have about 15 cars right now. Also, when we're going to build. It depends. It depends on the decision today, and it depends how many more members we're going to get, let's say, in another year because I cannot build with only 25 people. I need more money than that. So it might take us a year or two years. I don't know. We're just going to buy a piece of land so we can have it there. We're going to pay for it with our money, so in the meantime when we're ready we'll have something because everything is coming so expensive, as you know, here. So that's -- that's our goal. How we're going to build. The first phase is going to be 50 foot by 100, and that's going to be used as a Sunday school, teaching office, and a small sanctuary, and then it might take us eight years -- I don't know -- to reach more people. And then we're going to be in a position to build the main sanctuary which is going to hold about 400 people. It might take ten years. By that time Naples is going to be so different. Airport Road is going to have six lanes. I don't know. And hopefully San Marcos Boulevard is going to have a bridge so it will -- it will connect to Golden Gate Parkway. It can happen. It can happen. So this decision is very important to us. All I ask for the board is to consider this petition. Whatever decision you make, I'll take it as a sign from God. If it's the will of God, we're going to build this church here or someplace else. I don't know. I know I'm going to build it so -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me ask you a question. REVEREND ALDANA: Sure. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You mentioned that you're going to take care of your children and the children of the neighborhood as well. Now, does that mean that you're contemplating a day-care center? REVEREND ALDANA: Not exactly, but we're planning to put, like, a playground so the children can use it too. They want to have the children come into Sunday school, we're going to teach them values. We're going to give them love. So basically this building and us moving into this area is a service to the community. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Thank you. REVEREND ALDANA: Sure. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Mata. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Your -- Your time has expired, sir. REVEREND ALDANA: Okay. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: And Mr. Sanchez, if I could have you come up here and stand by also if you're still here. MS. MATA: Good afternoon. I'm Elizabeth Mata and I'm just here -- I'm a member of Apostolic Church. I'm a little nervous. I've never been in front of all these important people -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's okay. MS. MATA: -- but we're asking for this petition, our property. We -- Like our pastor was saying, we've been turned down a few times, and we're thinking of our members, our children. You know, that's the most important thing. You know -- You know, a while ago, like they say, the children are noisy. I wonder, all these people that have been going to fireworks hearing all that noise, they love it. You know, I think they can stand at least once a week if they hear a little child crying. But we're asking -- We really need that property in the future to build our church. We're not asking, like, a whole $100,000 or grants or nothing, just your permission to have the property to build our church. You know, that's the few words that I have. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Sanchez -- (Applause) MR. DORRILL: -- and then Samuel -- I believe it's Espino. MR. SANCHEZ: Good afternoon, Board of Commissioners, Pastor Aldana, brothers and sisters, neighbors and friends. My name is Cesar Sanchez. I'm -- I'm the youth minister of the Naples -- Naples Apostolic Church, and we're here today looking to our application to be accepted by the board and answer some concerns from the commissioners, neighbors, and friends. Basically I want to say that we want to build a place of worship, and we believe that it not only going to be a blessing for the membership of the church but also for our neighbors. Our intention is not to disturb the tranquility, peace, and the living standard of the neighborhood because the fact is that we're only about a 25-member church, and -- and we want to build a facility of no more than 400 people in 10, 15 years down the road. Obviously it will take years for that to take place. Ladies and gentlemen, this afternoon we -- we want to give you a peace of mind. A place of worship is better than -- than a shopping center or any other type of commercial facility in that neighborhood. Obviously on Radio Road we have plenty of commercial facilities, and we have a huge industrial place on -- on the following street, I think. I don't know exactly the name of it. A -- To the best of my knowledge, there's not even one place of worship on Radio Road. A place of worship not only is less noisy, but it will bring less traffic to -- to the area. The church only holds about two meetings a -- in a week. We want -- We will and we want to be good neighbors. We want to be a helping hand, a good Samaritan to our community. We want the neighbors to feel good about us and count on -- on our church in a type -- in a time of need. We are -- We are hard-working people. We're good people. Today we're asking for -- for your support to build a place in which we, our families and our children and the neighbors, may feel free to worship our Lord, Jesus Christ. Thank you for coming, and may the Lord bless you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Espino. Samuel E-s-p-i-n-o, I believe it is. REVEREND ALDANA: He stepped out. MR. DORRILL: Okay. Mr. Morris. MR. MORRIS: I have a little thing I'd like to stick up on the board here too. I think you can tell more on the neighborhood. This is a sanctuary -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Identify yourself for the record, please. MR. MORRIS: I'm sorry? MR. DORRILL: Need your name. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Identify yourself for the record. MR. MORRIS: Oh. My name is Earnest Morris. I own my home at 1011 St. Clair Shores Road. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. MORRIS: Off Radio Road -- Now, North is actually down this way but Radio Road here shows -- These are trailer mobile home parks all across here, and to get down St. Clair Shores Road, you've got to drive down between the two -- between two trailer parks which are fenced off and make a turn to the right and then another turn, and this is St. Clair Shores Road. This is the main Golden Gate canal down here. So these roads are dead-end roads. (indicating) Now, San Marcos Boulevard actually goes straight to Radio Road, but going through those trailers, this one mobile home park, there's 13 streets that come into -- from the trailer mobile home park into San Marcos to go to Radio Road. These are driveways of existing homes. (indicating) The neighborhood is an off-the-beaten-path, country-type residential neighborhood. The -- the -- The 5 acres that was rezoned is all within one family, the Collins family. There isn't -- There wasn't any idea of selling any property or -- or rentals or anything else on that rezoning. It was strictly for that family that wanted to live together, and I think there's three houses there. The -- The owner of the property now which there's -- there's a -- there's a sale contingent on this petition, and the owner of that property is an out-of-county owner, and they don't have a lot of interest in the neighborhood other than to sell the property. Of course, Dr. Spagna's interest -- he gets a fee for representing the -- the church folks. And, again, the people that are going to use that church will be coming in from other neighborhoods in the county. It has nothing to do with our neighborhood. We -- We just don't feel that it's in harmony at all with the neighborhood. The vegetation that Dr. Spagna mentioned he was going to leave there happens to be melaleucas trees, and I think the county requires that they be removed when they develop that property. The -- I believe that the staff and the planning commission did an excellent job researching this situation. They -- I can assure you that the planning commission had absolutely no hesitation in their unanimous vote to deny the petition or to recommend that you deny the petition. There were a couple of things in the staff's report that I -- that I don't think are accurate. They mention sparsely developed. As a matter of fact, there's three pieces of property on St. Clair Shores Road that doesn't have a home on it, and I believe there's four on San Marcos, and these are fairly long streets. They go from Radio Road all the way to the canal. There were -- again, you -- you -- you know, you -- we're really in question about the 400 seats on a 5-acre piece of land. Also the petition doesn't just say a church. It says related facilities. That's pretty vague too but -- and -- and I don't think, you know, with 400 seats and -- and it's got to be at least a couple hundred cars on a 5-acre -- With the building taking half of it, I don't know where they're going to park them. The -- And, of course, as they've already mentioned vaguely, that the activities won't just be on Sunday. They'll be other times. The -- The planning commission brought out that there has been two of these petitions granted. One of them was on a main artery road, and the other one was to the second block -- the second lot off the artery, and the first lot was -- was zoned commercial. As you can see, that this -- their proposed site is -- well, it's over a half of a mile into the neighborhood off the artery. We're not -- You know, we don't care what kind of facility it is or anything else. We're not interested in that. We just -- We just feel that a church would be appropriate [sic] For that neighborhood. And I will finish up. I understand you have a packet. We have another objection to this description of being sparsely developed, as we have petitions. I have the latest one just in case you didn't have the ones we gave the planning commission, and there's 75 signatures on it. So for that little two-street neighborhood, that -- I -- I don't think that would be considered sparsely. And I also have some pictures if you like -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Morris, we're going to need you to wrap it up. MR. MORRIS: Yes, sir. We have other people here that -- I hope that -- that don't -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes. Yes, we do and -- MR. MORRIS: -- go over the same thing. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- so far everyone but -- but the young lady in -- in the back has gone over their time, and I'd like to ask, once again, that we stay within our five-minute time period, please. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Layton. I believe it's Joseph Layton. I believe the name after that is Ms. Nua -- Nuiez, N-u-i-e-z. MR. LAYTON: Joseph Layton, L-a-y-t-o-n. I live on St. Clair Shores Road. The property he's talking about that the house right next to the property is mine. It's 20 foot off of the property line. When the house was built before I bought it, that's how it was built there. The county -- I don't know how they let it be so close. When I was trying to buy a house out there, that's the only place that came up, one reason buying it so close to it, but it's going to be right next to the -- to the facilities. I'd just like to make it clear that -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Was your lot flagged? In other words, was there two homes on what would be a 5-acre piece? You have a driveway back to your lot in the back? Is that the way it's set up? MR. LAYTON: Yes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Use that -- use that -- Use that microphone, Mr. Layton, right behind you there. MR. DORRILL: Use the microphone right there. MR. LAYTON: The house that sets right here -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. MR. LAYTON: -- this is mine. (indicating) COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You have 2 or -- 2 acres on the back of that piece, and then you have a little skinny line that's your driveway? Is that about -- Oh, it was split down the middle. Okay. MR. LAYTON: The house here was -- was half of this 5 acres behind it coming through here and another house sits -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. LAYTON: When it was built, it was built right back at the rear. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You've seen that drawing that you're pointing at before, or is this the first time you've seen that drawing? MR. LAYTON: First time I've seen it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you realize as it's drawn -- and I realize that nothing's been confirmed or etched in stone at this point, but as that's drawn it looks like you're still about 800 feet from the middle of their property but maybe -- MR. LAYTON: It's going to be hard -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- 1,000 -- maybe 1,000 feet from the facility itself. MR. LAYTON: The lots are only 630 foot deep. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I'm reading his house is 450 feet from the center of their property as I count the rings outward -- MR. LAYTON: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- which would make it about -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I'm sorry. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- 500 feet from the actual sanctuary but -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Still, it's not exactly on top of it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, but he's going to have -- MR. LAYTON: Well -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- a caretaker's house within a hundred and change. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which you would have anyway -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Which is a house. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In other words, I'm just trying to clear that up. MR. LAYTON: Okay. The trees itself there at the back of it, is this something they're going to plant or -- because what's there is melaleucas. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Probably be a question we can ask Mr. Spagna after all the speakers have -- MR. LAYTON: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's a good question. MR. LAYTON: Because everything that's there is -- is melaleucas. It's going to have to be taken out per county, I believe. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. There's no -- no pi -- not a lot of pines back there? MR. LAYTON: Not right in there. Host all of it is melaleuca. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. LAYTON: Everything that it shows there. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, sir. MR. LAYTON: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Nuiez. And then, Mr. Barbuto, if I could have you stand by, please. MS. NUIEZ: Good af -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Ms. Nuiez, could you pull that-- yeah. MS. NUIEZ: Good afternoon. As I -- I want to thank you first, you know, for letting me -- giving me the opportunity to be here this afternoon and I'm here -- one of the members from our pastor and our Apostolic Church, and I have this very deep feeling, you know, about -- that we have been trying to get our land, you know, for our church in the future. Our church is, you know, very -- you know, small people, and we haven't been any trouble to any other -- the places where we have been because we've been renting, you know, and we want to get ourself start with our own church, and I don't think there's any, you know, bad reason or why we can't because there has been other churches that we -- I've seen that has been built, you know, and we're a small church. So we're asking for your help because we need our land for the future of our children, and we all stuck to each other together, you know, for our church, and we there, like, twice a week only, and I'm here just to, you know, ask you for -- to help us because we really need it. Okay. And that's all my words for today. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MS. NUIEZ: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Barbuto. And then, Ms. Ogden, if I could have you stand up here, please, ma'am. MR. BARBUTO: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Robert Barbuto. I live at 4141 Family Circle Court, and we took 5 acres and subdivided it into one single-family community, and we're not really against the church or -- We're against any kind of -- anything that's going to bring an influx of traffic to that area. Up in the trailer park there is a lot of children that play on the road itself. There's no sidewalks. There's no big road there. So we're concerned about the children being, you know, exposed to a lot of -- a lot of traffic per se. And besides, you know, our house -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Use that microphone there, please. MR. BARBUTO: Our house sits -- Our house sits right here in this corner. So our front door would be facing this proposed church and we're concerned with -- they want 400 seating. I mean, that's a -- that's a lot of people and a lot of vehicles for that kind of road, considering it has to go through all this to get here. I mean, it's over a half a mile down -- down the road. So we just would hope that you'd feel and go with the zoning commission and deny it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Ogden and then Ms. Guess. MS. OGDEN: Good afternoon. My name is Joyce H. Ogden. I live at 1483 San Marcos Boulevard and have since 1969, so I feel that I have a vested interest and certainly grave concerns for my neighborhood. I have submitted in writing a letter with an attached statement that I had titled "Reasonable Objections and Real Concerns Relevant to the Conditional Use 1 of the Estates Zoning in our Area," and I'll just briefly go through it. I feel it's inappropriate land use for our neighborhood. We are a single-family residential, working-class neighborhood. It's my understanding that a church is basically a business, and related facilities would not be a single-family dwelling. Mr. Spagna referenced to no more than 50 percent -- In other words, 50 percent would be left in its natural state. I personally don't understand how that would be possible on approximately 4.86 acres when you have support documentation stating that there would be an ll,000-square-foot church building, a residence, and a multi-purpose building in addition to that which would require, if my computation is correct, parking spaces of 171.42. Yes, churches start out relatively small. My church sits right next to this building, and I'm sure you have seen East Naples United Church grow. That is what churches do, and their activities do increase thereby increasing traffic, noise, congestion, threat to safety, and it would require somewhere down the line in all likelihood improvements to be made by way of utilities and what have you. I face Radio Road every morning going to work to Golden Gate Middle School. I make a left. And I do not feel that our neighborhood, and especially that intersection, not to count all the intersecting roads from the mobile home park, could stand the additional traffic. I also feel that it would impose a financial hardship on we, the property owners, in that we would probably bear the cost of the needed improvements down the line, and many of us cannot nor do we desire to have or have a need for such improvements. I also feel, despite what was stated here today, that it would lower the current and future property values in the entire area, and many of us that reside there and have for a considerable length of time, this is all we have, and we could not bear to lose not only the value of our property but in all likelihood, as I stated, bear the cost of improvements that would be needed in the future for this particular facility. We, the residents, ask that you would consider the property owners and our families, the peace, the tranquility, the time, the money thatws been invested in our area. We have a neighborhood watch. We do not want to see a huge increase of people and/or vehicular activity that would pose a possible criminal threat. Any time -- COMMISSIONER MACwKIE: Excuse me. The church might pose a criminal threat? MS. OGDEN: What Iwm saying is -- COMMISSIONER MACwKIE: Iwm having a little trouble with that. MS. OGDEN: Not the church itself. Iwm saying any time that you have large numbers of people gathering and when this happens to be in the middle of a neighborhood, it poses the threat of increased crime. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Guess. And this lady was your last registered speaker. MS. GUESS: Thank you for hearing me, Commission, and my name is Alise Guess for the record, and I live at 1479 San Marcos Boulevard, and I brought letters in for you guys this morning. I apologize for the lateness, forgetting yesterday was a holiday. First of all, Iid like to say to the church and to the pastor, I am an Evangelical Christian also, and I would pray that your church would grow but not in our neighborhood. I wouldnlt want my church to build a mission in our neighborhood. Iim very active in our church, and I know for a fact that as you grow therels more and more activity. And, Commission, I am a member of the church and -- where there are dinners Monday evenings and Wednesday evenings. There are meetings. There are staff meetings. There are council meetings. There are numerous activities. Itls almost every day. So itls not just -- It might be for the time for this church thatls proposed. And I hope that they can find some land, but I donlt think our neighborhood under the conditions -- This is a small road. It doesnlt even have a center line. I mean, you know, it -- it -- itls just -- It has no lines on the outside of the road. People use it to walk for exercise. They ride bikes for exercise. Iive seen handicap people riding bicycles down our road because itls so untravelled, especially after you get back from the -- past the mobile home park. There is -- The first part after you pass the mobile home park, there are nine streets before you get to the -- I mean, nine sidewalks, excu -- I -- driveways after you pass the mobile home park. That makes a total of 23 from the proposed site to Radio Road which creates a lot of people going in and out to work and -- and it just -- Really I donlt think that the neighborhood can stand that much of an increase in traffic and that would -- I would see down the road and just -- I would plead with the commission to please deny this proposal and encourage this church to look for land elsewhere so that it would be more compatible. This is a long way off the beaten path, so to speak. And -- And, like I said, I pray that your church will grow and that you will have more members and that you will see your -- your vision come true. Thank you for hearing me. MR. DORRILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a number of questions for Mr. Spagna. Mr. Spagna, the question about the type of vegetation on the property was raised and suggested that a great deal of that is melaleuca. You would have some responsibility to clear the melaleuca. I just want to hear what you have to say about that. DR. SPAGNA: Well, it is true. There are melaleucas on the property, but it is also true that there are a lot of pine trees. I believe -- I'm trying to recall. There may have been one or two Florida hollies, not the Brazilian pepper but the red-berried hollies. There are other trees in there as well, and I stand pat we will leave as much of the vegetation there as possible to act as a buffer. The melaleuca trees will have to be taken out, I'm sure. If the county allows us to leave them in there, we'll leave them in there where they are. So I don't want to -- What these people have said is true, but also what I have said is true. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A great deal of concern has been raised about, quote, "related facilities." Do you intend to have any type of homeless shelter or a soup kitchen that is an accessory use to the church? DR. SPAGNA: No, sir. The only thing -- The related uses would be things like perhaps the pastor's office where people could come to him and get advice and where they could teach their children Sunday school, but there will be no soup kitchens or anything else like that. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You'd be willing to stipulate that as part of the record? DR. SPAGNA: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Earlier Commissioner Norris inquired about plans for a day-care center, and the pastor indicated there were no plans for that. DR. SPAGNA: No, there are not. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You'd be willing to stipulate on the record -- DR. SPAGNA: No. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- there's no plan for a day-care center -- DR. SPAGNA: No. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- nor will there be one? DR. SPAGNA: There are not. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One of the questions I heard raised -- and it appears from your drawing that it would be addressed, but I'd like to make sure, and that is parking and -- and whether or not there would be adequate parking. Obviously the county strives as part of our Land Development Code to assure there's adequate parking as part of any plan. You'd stipulate on the record that your parking will take place only on your own property, not on the public right-of-way? DR. SPAGNA: That's correct. And also we will leave the parking grass, if -- if that's the desire of the county, in order to allow the water to percolate through. This is a normal custom, and we will follow that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One of the final speakers talked about future expenses and figured that the neighborhood might end up paying for those. I thought I heard you say in your initial presentation that if there was an impact down the road that required traffic signalization or other expenses, that the church would pick up the tab for that. DR. SPAGNA: That's correct. We will pay our fair share, and also I'd like to say as far as the -- as far as this lowering the values of the surrounding properties, I think this is about, like, the thirtieth-plus church. I don't know of a single one where it's lowered the values of the properties. I don't know of a single one that have come back later and complained about having a church as their neighbor. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's -- If you ever want to use my house as an example, I live in -- in Park Shore. I have Seagate Elementary School and Seagate Park in my back yard and two churches in my back yard, and I assure you it's the most -- it's the nicest thing about my house, that I have that -- I have that for neighbors. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Interesting comment you just made because I was thinking almost exactly what you just said. We deal with church requests fairly frequently. I live in the Golden Gate community, and we have a number of churches within those neighborhoods. I can't think of a single church in Collier County that has lowered the property values surrounding it. Traffic impacts -- and I -- Thank you, Mr. Spagna I think that concludes my questions for you. But just some comments, and that is, traffic impacts, the final woman said -- talked about the nine driveways and the other streets and the traffic going in and out of work every morning, and I thought I heard the church say its primary activity was Sunday obviously and -- and Wednesday night, and those aren't going to conflict with the traffic going to work -- to and from work every day. It's directly opposite of when the traffic would be. And the -- I was glad Commissioner Mac'Kie spoke up on the other one. Really a stretch -- I understand there's some objections, but it's really a stretch to suggest that a new community church is going to increase the criminal threat in -- in a community, and there may be objections, and we may disagree on them, but I think that's really a stretch. I'm going -- just going to dismiss that one out of hand. Other than that, I don't know if there's other questions from the board. I -- I have a -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes, there are. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- comfort level with Mr. Spagna's -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- comments. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Many times -- and we've dealt with several church applications recently in which the neighbors living around it were very upset with it, and a lot of them are red-herring issues, and I think the crime issue is exactly one of those; it's a red herring. However, the difference I draw -- and I guess I'm going to ask my colleagues to consider this -- I don't recall any of those applications where the church location was very far removed or removed at all from a roadway with a higher volume and capacity to handle traffic. I don't recall one at least in the last two years where it was on this type of a local road. I looked at the -- the lots that are remaining, and I think 76 homes could be produced on them. Mr. Spagna said they would pay their fair share of improvements, but when you look at 76 homes versus what is eventually 170 or 180 cars in a parking lot, I think the burden falls on the church. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: May I ask -- May I ask the question of where you came up with the 76? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is it on both streets or -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. It's just on San Marcos. I wasn't combining the two. Just looking at San Marcos, the people that really have to use this street in and out, I took the 5-acre lots, counted them up, figured, you know, what is -- what is going on out there right now you can get four units an acre, as one gentleman did, but the likelihood of that happening on every 5-acre piece out there is pretty rare. So it's just a round number, and if it's -- if it's 120, it's 120. But I'm not sure that -- that the amount of traffic that the church will actually generate -- I have confidence in this man's vision. He's going to build a church, and he's going to have 400 people fill it some day. There's no doubt that's going to happen. He's asking if we should approve it in this location, and my only concern is the distance from this church to Radio Road. Do we have -- You know, I -- I was sitting here trying to think of a similar situation somewhere in the county where a church of a 400-seat sanctuary is -- is that far off the main road. I -- I know you go to St. Elizabeth Seton. I was having a tough time coming up with a similar situation because I always try and picture the impacts, and I'm having a difficult time with this because I'm not aware of any. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We've got at least four in the four square miles of Golden Gate. We approved one down on Bayshore Extension, whatever that little road is down there. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Exactly. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's only a block off the -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's only a block off anyway. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But -- I mean, this is -- I don't know how far a block is, but this is 1/2 mile -- 6/10 of a mile I'm going to guess. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And what about that Baptist church over behind the -- the proposed Site gas station location? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are you talking about First Baptist? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, no. This is a little bitty -- I think it's a Baptist church, a little Baptist church, you know, where the -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Off of Whippoorwill where the Hospice is? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, where Hospice is. I mean, that's back in on a tiny little road that, frankly, needs a lot of work but -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that approved for 400 seats or '- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't know. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, I'm just trying -- I'm trying to picture the impacts and am having a tough time with it. I'll -- I'll let you continue. I just -- that -- That's my only concern. Churches do not provide -- we haven't found provide negative impacts to neighborhoods. I grew up next to one and loved it because in my -- you know, when you wanted to fly a kite or whatever, there was always an empty space next door to do it. But I am -- I am a little concerned about the distance between Radio Road and this site, and we just haven't developed significant criteria for this yet, and I think we need to because we're going to get these questions. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask a couple of questions. One, did the county get them ahead -- there are four -- and maybe I've missed one, but there are at least four in the Golden Gate -- 4-square-mile area in the Golden Gate City area that are set off, set in neighborhoods and off, and -- and I would say perhaps it's a little more of a complex situation because you don't have a straight shot -- With the exception of one of those, you don't have a straight shot to a main -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Main road. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- road. I guess the question is, if it were scheduled to be a smaller facility, if buildout was not going to be as large, would that give you a better -- better comfort level? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It -- It would easily. As I mentioned when Dr. Spagna first stood up, if we're talking about 100-seat sanctuaries where you're dealing with at most 50 or 60 cars at the busiest peak time, on a local road that's an acceptable impact, but when you start looking at 170 or 180 cars within -- and understand, when church lets out, all 170 are on the road at the same time impacting the same time. That's where I'm finding my -- my lack of comfort. It's not the church. It's not the existence of a church. It's the magnitude at buildout and the impact it's going to have between there and the street and -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask a question because -- DR. SPAGNA: Could I -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask a question, Mr. Spagna. DR. SPAGNA: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just picking this number, but at a sanctuary of 250, you end up with maybe 90 or 100 vehicles at maximum if you build out to that, you know, realistically when you get families and whomever going to -- to it. I don't know. Maybe that's more of a workable number than 400. DR. SPAGNA: Can I comment on that, please? As you probably know from past churches, most of them are 300- or 400-seat capacity, and the reason why I've sort of gradually worked up to 400 is because if this is approved, that will be it, and I'm just trying to avoid them having to come back in at some future date and amend the approval to go from 300 to 400. But this does seem to be a problem, and it does seem to be something that the neighborhood is very interested in, and -- and we would be very happy to reduce the capacity to 300 seats if that would give them as well as you a greater comfort level. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That would allow, I suppose, a chance to -- if you got to a point where you had to grow beyond that, they'd have to come back to the board and they see what the impacts were at that time. DR. SPAGNA: They'd have to come back to the board. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And we're back up to 150 parking spaces or 130 parking spaces. Again, I don't want to belabor it. I may be the only one that is having a tough time visualizing this. Commissioner Hac'Kie, you live next to a church with probably more parking spaces than that. So I -- I'm wrestling with it myself. I don't want to sway anyone else off of what is otherwise a sound position. I just -- I, for one, am having difficulty, and maybe I need to find solace in developing specific siting criteria in the future. That's where I think I'm wrestling with it the most right now. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I -- I -- But with all respect, does this, Mr. Weigel, require three or four votes? MR. WEIGEL: It requires four. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You know, one -- one comment that we may want to consider -- because this is a residential area, it is a residential local street, and so forth. I -- I could be well persuaded to approve a smaller sanctuary which would give this church and its congregation time to work with the neighbors. And if they -- if they did grow that -- that much larger, obviously a 25-member church today is going to take them any number of years to grow to -- to a 400-member church where they're going to need 400 seats, and I -- I would like to give the church and the neighborhood time to work together and see that it really can work out with -- with the smaller sanctuary permitted at this time, even knowing that at this time they're only going to -- DR. SPAGNA: Yes. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- build about 100 -- a 100-seat church right now and -- and to accept the fact that it -- that it would be -- would be a smaller church now. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any more questions from the board? We'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to -- MR. MORRIS: Mr. Chairman, you had him -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The public hearing is closed. MR. MORRIS: -- come up here twice. I would like to say something, make one more quick comment. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, you -- you've used up your time, and no one asked you a question. There was a question asked to Dr. Spagna. That's the difference. MR. MORRIS: Well -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman -- MR. LAYTON: There's one street coming in and out of our place. All -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, sir, you're out of order. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, taking into consideration both Commissioner Matthews' and Commissioner Hancock's concerns, I'm going to make a motion we approve Conditional Use 96-18 but with a 25 percent reduction in the approved sanctuary size of what was initially requested. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. I -- I read the wrong number there. That would be nine -- CU-96-16, not 18. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that will bring it down to 300. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There were other stipulations that Mr. Spagna -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And -- And with all the stipulations -- DR. SPAGNA: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- that have been agreed to on the record by Mr. Spagna DR. SPAGNA: That's right. Including the participation and the signalization? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All -- all of them. Yes. All. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any further comments? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Aye. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That motion passes 4 to 1. DR. SPAGNA: Thank you very much. (Applause) MR. MORRIS: Commissioners, why do you have a staff, and what do you have a planning commission for? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: To give us -- MR. MORRIS: They looked into this thing thoroughly. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Sir, would you like the deputy to take you out of here? MR. MORRIS: I don't need anybody to take me out. I'm happy. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll take you out of here myself if you keep it up. UNKNOWN VOICE: What'd he say? He'd take us out himself? I think they're all paid off. (Laughter) UNKNOWN VOICE: I'd like to see somebody take me out that damn door; I'll tell you that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The church has so much -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yep. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- money to offer, I'm sure. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That big church paid us off. That's it. That's it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, all except you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was -- well, I'm not -- Can I change my vote after that -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- display? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Really. I can't say as I blame you. Item #13A4 RESOLUTION 96-514 RE PETITION CU-96-18, F. ALAN MICHAEL REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE "1" OF THE RSF-3 ZONING DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE OUSTH SIDE OF TRADE WINDS AVENUE - ADOTPED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Our next item is Petition CU-96-18. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows of current planning staff presenting Petition CU-96-18. Petitioner is proposing Conditional Use 1 of the RSF-3 zoning district to allow for a boat house for property located at the south side of Tradewinds Avenue. The petitioner proposes to build a 20- by 43-foot-long boat dock [sic] on an existing boat dock facility. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Were there any objections to this petition? MR. BELLOWS: No objections. The planning commission approved it. No adverse use from -- impacts on adjacent properties; therefore, staff recommends approval. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Any public speakers, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, if you'll close the public hearing, I would love to make a motion. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just -- I want to make sure -- Mr. Bellows, is this consistent with what has occurred in the Vanderbilt Lagoon area already? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. There are some existing boat houses on the -- off -- off of Tradewinds and also across the canal. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Right across -- right across the canal? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. There's, I believe, one on -- I think it's Lot 20. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I want to be consistent because in Bonita Shores we had someone come in for one that would actually set the tone for a different character along the canal, and -- and we denied that and I think rightfully so. What I don't want to do is start a trend that either doesn't exist already or is adverse to the neighborhood and I -- MR. BELLOWS: No. There are existing boat dock -- houses in this area on this canal. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. This does extend out into more of the open lagoon so it's not blocking the adjacent view of the neighbor? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. He's on the end corner, as you can see, so it's kind of on the open end of the lagoon. I believe the petitioner has some photographs if you'd like to look at them. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We would. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: It would be helpful for me just to help me picture it so I -- MR. MULHERE: Mr. Chairman, while the applicant's coming up, I just wanted to mention that this was the first conditional use that we had -- By the way, for the record, Bob Mulhere, current planning section manager -- first conditional use we had come forward for a boat house, and as directed by the board, I just wanted to let you know that we are looking at the criteria specific to boat houses. Obviously the criteria for traffic impacts and the like relative to a normal or other conditional uses don't apply here, and we're looking at drafting for your consideration some specific criteria, but that probably would be in the next LDC amendment cycle. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The boat house section is to cover the lift portion only, not the balance of the dock? It's -- It's just the lift? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. Just the -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just want to have a -- a mental picture of what it was we're -- we're approving here. This is one that looks like -- right across the canal that looks exactly the same. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. UNKNOWN VOICE: There's also one right behind it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Unless you're on the microphone, we can't -- Sorry about that. Okay. I haven't received any corres -- You've received no correspondence against this? MR. BELLOWS: No correspondence. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: All right. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The adjacent property owners were notified? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. We mailed -- had our mailing, a sign posted on the site just like every other conditional use, and the notice in the newspaper. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's a very active association in that neighborhood too, so I'm sure if there were a lot of people upset about it, I would have known by now. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No public speakers? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to move approved of the item. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Item #14A TRAVEL FEE REIMBURSEMENT - COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS WAITING FOR DEFINITIVE ANSWER FROM COUNTY ATTORNEY CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That brings us down towards the end of our meeting here. Commissioner Matthews, do you have anything further? COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, I don't. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to bring up -- just ask for an unsavory topic, a report on that. We had discussed regarding travel fees, and I just wondered if there's any development on that. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: David Weigel and I met today at lunchtime, and he's got one or two more questions to get answered for me, and he will get back to me I hope within the next couple of days. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess -- What are the questions? Again, it's a matter of there's money being spent after you've left office, and should the taxpayer have that money back or not, and -- and I don't understand what legal questions we're trying to track down with that. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, there are legal questions involved since this has become a political issue, so we now need to seek a political answer, and I -- I will leave it at that. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not seeking a political answer. I'm seeking an answer. And -- And last week it was you hadn't known in time, and this week it's you met with Weigel today, and -- and it's 2,000 public taxpayer dollars that are out there. There's nothing political about that. That's factual. And -- And I think a week ago we talked about doing the right thing, and it doesn't sound to me like -- that by seeking legal answer on that -- I mean, either you're going to give it back or you're not and -- and -- Is the legal question to bolster that you don't have to give it back? Is that why the question is being asked? COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. The legal -- The legal questions being asked are to answer or an attempt to answer the political question that's been raised. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which is? COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Which is, is it -- is it legal -- is it right for a board to arbitrarily and without board action decide that a previously constituted public purpose expenditure is no longer that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was -- That was never asked. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not sure who asked that. My question was, are you giving the taxpayer back their money? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I hope to be able to answer that in the next day or two. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You don't know right now? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, I don't know. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So as of now you don't have any intention of giving back their money? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That is not what I said. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Mac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thankfully nothing. Item #14B CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS' REFUNDING FEES - DISCUSSED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One item. I just want to kind of throw the idea out there or float the -- the question. I've heard two different items since election day talking about that they could be paid for -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- with the turnback cash. One was with sheriff's turnback money, and one was with the -- Guy Carlton's turnback money, and I think all of us understand it, but I hope the public understands that that money is budgeted. We anticipate getting money back from Guy Carlton every year, and we anticipate getting money back from other constitutional officers, and we can't simply say, "Well, Guy brought us a check for $2 million. Now we can spend that on something." It's already been budgeted, and I -- I think there may be a misconception or a misperception in the public that that is suddenly money readily available, and hopefully that perception will disappear. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Was -- Was there an excess turnback above budgeted amounts in those? MR. DORRILL: In -- In a number of cases there was, and I've sent personal letters of appreciation because I had made a plea that this was going to be a difficult cash year, and so I have thanked them personally on your behalf for making an extra effort into the last month of the fiscal year. I can -- I -- I'm not able to tell you what it is today, but -- but in four cases that I'm aware of, it was higher than what we had forecast. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess considering our -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But it usually is though. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Considering our ad valorem picture this past year and what we anticipate for the upcoming year, I'd suspect most of the board's probably not ready to go on a spending spree with the extra. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: More importantly, we may want to know how much of the 972,000 intergovernment services fee deficit it -- it replaces because, you know, I'm operating every day under the assumption we have $972,000 of budgeted revenue that's not going to be realized. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I do have one question. I got a fax that was on my desk at lunchtime regarding $969,000 in returned health benefits that apparently Anthem Health has been holding for seven years. Is that budgeted this year? MR. DORRILL: That was -- was not budgeted and was something that was uncovered as a result of an audit as part of an acquisition of that former insurance company. We're trying to get some indication as to whether that money is actually there and what, if any, claims against that may have occurred in that same interim period of time. I don't even know that we -- Those, it's my understanding, were reserved for run-on claims, and we're trying to get a better handle on that. That -- That could be an unbudgeted windfall for the commission if we actually receive that money. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. This letter indicates that subsequent plans are usually only for a period of two years, and this is now seven years. MR. DORRILL: It looks good. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So I'd say it looks good. This is $970,000. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's not bad. Mr. Dorrill, anything else? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. Not at all. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, anything else? MR. WEIGEL: Yes, briefly. Naples Park drainage project, on an almost annual basis, we have amended the moratorium ordinance on culvert permitting just to keep this going further into the project, and I would ask that the board recognize the county attorney and staff to bring back an amendment to extend the moratorium until the end of June 1997 to finish out the project. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Agreed. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Miss Filson, anything else? MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. I believe you do have one other item. Item #14C PRESENTATION OF PLAQUE TO COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, today is Commissioner Matthews' last full meeting day, and we want to wish her the best. And we have a little plaque here, actually, to present to you, and good luck in the future. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, thank you. (Applause) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And with that, we are -- unless you have some long-winded speech to give -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, I don't. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We -- We are adjourned. ***** Commissioner Hancock moved, seconded by Commissioner Constantine and carried 4/0, (Commissioner Hatthews absent) that the following items under the Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted ***** Item #16A1 RESOLUTION 96-504 AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF LIBRARY SYSTEM IMPACT FEES, PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEES, ROAD IMPACT FEES, EMERGENCY HEIDCAL SERVICES SYTEH IMPACT FEES AND EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES SYSTEM IMPACT FEES FOR A HOUSE TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY JESSE BRAWLEY AT 2649 47TH TERRACE S.W., GOLDEN GATE CITY - ADOPTED Item #16A2 BID #96-2584 FOR HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION CONTRACTOR - AWARDED TO CITY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. OF FLORIDA IN THE ESTIMATED A_MOUNT OF $84,520 Item #16A3 RECORDING OF FINAL PLAT OF "BRIARWOOD, UNIT FOUR" WITH STIPULATIONS, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND LETTER OF CREDIT Item #16A4 CHAIRMAN AUTHORIZED TO SIGN SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE IN THE A_MOUNT OF $3,025 FOR PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOT 13, BLOCK 5, NAPLES MANOR LAKES, 5361 GEORGIA AVENUE - PROPERTY OWNER: JANE BLACKBURN Item #16B1 ACCEPTANCE OF VARIOUS EASEMENTS REQUIRED FOR THE NAPLES LANDFILL OFF-SITE GROUNDWATER MONITORING PROJECT Item #1682 ACCEPTANCE OF DRAINAGE EASEMENT OBTAINED FOR THE NAPLES PARK DRAINAGE PROJECT Item #1683 CREATION OF THE LANDSCAPE SERVICES OPERATIONS SECTION WITHIN THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT, ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW COST CENTERS IN FUND 101 AND HSTD FUNDS 102, 103, 104 AND 106, APPROVING BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR RE-ALLOCATION OF EXISTING FUNDING FOR PERSONNEL/MATERIAL/EQUIPMENT LINE ITEMS AND APPROVAL OF ALL NECESSARY BUDGET TRANSFERS WITHIN THOSE FUNDS Item #1684 APPROVAL OF AN EQUIPMENT PURCHASE PLAN FOR THE ROAD AND BRIDGE SECTION OF THE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996-97 Item #1685 ACCEPTANCE OF A CONSENT AND JOINDER OF EASEMENT FROM THE SCHOOL BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY AND AN EASEMENT FROM REAL ESTATE SOUTHWEST, INC. REGARDING SOUTH NAPLES COHMUNITY PARK Item #1686 RECOGNITION OF CARRY FORWARD FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY WATER TREATMENT CHLORINE ENCLOSURE PROJECT #70031 Item #1687 APPROVAL OF UTILITY RELATED CONSTRUCTION CHANGE ORDER FOR THE RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD FOUR LANING PROJECT IN AN A_MOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $100,000 Item #16C1 CONTRACT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND TECH OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC. (FORMERLY TRAINING AND EDUCATIONAL CENTER FOR THE HANDICAPPED, INC.) TO PERFORM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996/97 Item #16C2 BID #96-2504 RELATIVE TO THE OPERATION OF A HARINE FUEL CONCESSION FACILITY TO BE LOCATED AT THE BAYVIEW COUNTY PARK SITE - REJECTED Item #16D1 FORMAL BID PROCESS WAIVED; APPROVAL OF ANNUAL HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION IN THE A_MOUNT OF $57,782.00 Item #16D2 AGREEHENT PROVIDING FOR A HAXIHUH EXPENDITURE (REALLOCATION) OF $10,000 FROM THE GAC LAND TRUST FOR ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE NORTH GOLDEN GATE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES FACILITY (HEDIC 12) Item #16D3 APPROVAL AND EXECUTION OF SATISFACTION OF NOTICE FOR PROMISE TO PAY AND AGREEMENT TO EXTEND PAYMENT OF WATERAND/OR SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEES Item #16D4 APPROVAL OF HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT BETWEEN ANTHEM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY AND COLLIER COUNTY IN EXCHANGE FOR A REFUND OF PREMIUM IN THE A_MOUNT OF $969,887 PLUS ACCRUED INTEREST Item #16D5 APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT WITH FIRST HEALTH, INC. AS THE COUNTY'S GROUP HEALTH CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION COMPANY UNDER A JOINT PURCHASE PROJECT WITH THE CITY OF NAPLES AND THE COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD Item #16D6 APPROVAL OF REQUIRED ADVERTISEMENT TO SELL THE PROPERTY FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE LANDFILL EXTENSION PROPERTY Item #16D7 LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND ROGER CARVALLO FOR OFFICE SPACE AT COURT PLAZA III IN THE MONTHLY A_MOUNT OF $1,376 FOR TWO YEARS WITH ONE ADDITIONAL TWO YEAR TERM Item #16El APPROVAL OF AIRPORT AUTHORITY BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,000 Item #16E2 BUDGET AMENDMENT APPROPRIATING CARRY FORWARD AND EXPENDITURE BUDGETS FOR OPEN PURCHASE ORDERS AT THE END OF FISCAL YEAR 1996 IN FISCAL YEAR 1997 IN THE AMOUNT OF $34,747,293.05 Item #16E3 APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENT 97-029 Item #16G1 CERTIFICATES FOR CORRECTION AS PRESENTED BY THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE 1993 Real Property No. Dated 248 and 250 1/29/96 & 9/30/96 1994 Real Property 209/210 10/29/96 1994 Tangible Personal Property 142 10/14/96 1995 Real Property 257 and 260 10/29/96 1996 Real Property 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 1017, 1018 10/29 & 11/01/96 1996 Tangible Personal Property 1, 2, & 16 10/14 - 10/28/96 Item #1662 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented to the Board of County Commissioners was filed and/or referred to the various departments as indicated below: Item #16H1 ACCEPTANCE OF LOCAL LAW ENFORCEHENT BLOCK GRANTS PROGRAM AWARD FROH THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, APPROVAL OF THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE PROGRAM TO PROCURE EQUIPMENT TO REDUCE CRIME AND IMPROVE SAFETY IN COLLIER COUNTY AND APPROVAL OF THE RELATED BUDGET AMENDMENT There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:51 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: Shelly Semmler and Christine E. Whitfield